I'm sorry. We thought you were keeping yourself company just fine. :)

thats what you get for listening to "polls". per census results and actual voter registration numbers, there have been more dems for a considerable amount of time, with close to 45 million registered dems, but only 30 millions registered repubs, and an even larger number of independents and smaller parties. but go ahead out and celebrate the death of your opposition LOL. with a considerable numbers advantage, repubs still get elected.

we simply shouldn't mint such a coin because it further devalues our money, not because of ignorant and petty partisanship. the only "win for the country" will be when the fools like you wake up and quit waving their little blue and red flags and actually start demanding real results from our elected officials, or vote them out regardless of which political gang they belong to...

The government has hit its $16.4 trillion borrowing limit, The Associated Press notes, and could begin running out of money by late February or early March

Pretty much sums everything about the last four years right there, next!

Did I ever tell you you have a wonderful singing voice?

Oh, just saw your response in #1.5. Clever. Made me laugh.

If we can't solve the nation's problems here on this thread, at least we can have fun pointing things out, right?

The fact that this idea was even considered just goes to show the absurdity of our fiat currency. When one branch of government has the ability to undermine the checks and balances power of another, the Constitution well be essentially rendered null and void and tyranny is inevitable.

“Treasury: No, we won’t mint $1trillion platinum coin to avoid debt ceiling”

That would never have happened anyway. But for once I wish the GOP would disappear for a couple of years and let the Democrats level the playing field, bury themselves in mountains of debt and failed futuristic policies so that the general public would feel how destructive their policies really are for the nation.. There would be no GOP to blame, just the Democrats.

I just can’t fathom how determined we are to self destruct and destroy everything we have achieved and worked for since the late 1940’s.

wtw,

well said. Who would have thought it would be so controversial to stop spending $1 trillion more a year than we take in. It is being painted as though one who believes in living within our means is some sort of radical.

Too many brainwashed sheep in this country. Too many uneducated people that fail to realize this simple fact. I call them Obama voters.

Has anyone got the same feeling, that we are in the middle of a piggery, or is it just me?

Give me a break. They are all responsible for this. They all share the blame for the state of this country and all who refuse to hold them accountable. Stop wasting time bickering about who is a Republican or democrat and get the job done.

Piggy

Just look what all that Gov't spending and debt has done to the other PIGS in your sty.

“By minting a $1 trillion coin, then depositing it at the Fed, the Treasury could acquire enough cash to sidestep the debt ceiling — while doing no economic harm at all,” Krugman said in a column in The New York Times.

Wow, another stupid idea brought to you by Paul Krugman! The only economic harm would be investors leaving the dollar if we tried something so dumb as to mint a 1 trillion dollar coin to pay our debts.

Pigotry

"a conservative myth is somehow a nation's finances are similar to household finances. They are not."

Yes, it is a myth simply because the government has no accountability. It can take, borrow, and spend, without the same economic and financial repercussions that any individual or business has to deal with. The government can make up the rules as it goes, the hell with the rest of us, exact reason we are in the mess we are in.

or you can continue to bury your head in your rear end while buying into all this "conservative" "liberal" "GOP" "DNC" nonsense...

Pigotry,

I find it sometimes helps when I Google an old rock band and listen to music while reading these comments. I'm thinking "Pink Floyd, Animals". I'll listen to "Pigs" ( just as a research thing). There's a political statement about fat-cat politicians: "Big man, pig man, ha-ha charade you are..." Oh, and there's also a picture of a flying pig on the album cover.

It might not be your taste in music, but this song goes out to you!

A trend in the last few years: a deal will always squeak by. It's a win for the country

I suppose that kicking the can down the road could be considered a win for the country in the short term. But in the long run it will prove disastrous.

Talk about Zimbabwesk seriously guys the moment that happened our money would become next to worthless. Basicly congress is trying to tax people through the backdoor and make the president the bad guy for not doing their job. I think it is better we defualt then go down that road. ugg how pathetic of the Republicans.

Household debt vs National debt is a metaphor- a simple way of saying you can't spend what you don't have. A very apt comparison of what the current administration has brought us to.

Spend, spend, spend- the ony answer they have to resolving our fiscal difficulties.

ProsFreedum

So how many times did they raisie the debt ceiling for Bush? Three? Four? Five? oh that's right it was Six times . You Republicans take the cake and steal the utensils

Pigotry, you crack me up with this "one tribe" mantra...might want to go back and read all your previous posts...

No default, and no coin required. The United States is solid for debt repayment, the World Reserve Currency does not default. That some Republicans have expressed a desire to use our country as some kind of hostage for political gain is not a credit to that Party in my opinion.

Where are the JOBS????

hey ... opine121

Where are the JOBS????

Yeah, I agree..where are the jobs promised by Boehner in January 2011 when he became the Speaker. Well, I guess, Boehner is just a talker (speaker?), not a doer. Well, actually he is a destroyer...having refused to work with the President....poisoning the political climate in DC, got punished by voters in November 2012. Time to learn a lesson and put the country first, Boehner and the slimmed-down GOP majority!!!!

40emptychairs-

Oh so how many times have we raised it under Obama? Better- how many more times will it need to be raised given the ideology? Also, what was the National Debt under Bush vs Obama? Here's an article from CBS from March '12 to chew on:

http:// www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

Meanwhile, the national debt clock shows our nat'l debt at $16.446 trillion with the limit set at $16.394 trillion. We're over-extended, but yes if we just raise the ceiling a little more we can look like heroes can't we?

Article. I.

Section. 8.The Congress shall have Power To........To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

is this too hard for people to understand? there is no power in the US treasury to issue nor coin a trillion dollar coin. the idea is just insane and for anyone to even give this idea any thought is a sign of a mind that is corrupted. congress can do these things but coining that coin will crash our dollar faster than you can say "what?" and it would be treasonous to do so. the president CAN NOT increase our debt limit, only congress can, executive orders are not law as that power is not in the US constitution. no citizen has to follow any law that is in violation of the US constitution as per:

Article. XIV.

Section. 1.No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

only congress can pass laws but only as per what the US constitution outlines:

Article. I.

Section. 8. .....To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

seems the ability for congress to make law is pretty limited to the scope of the power vested by the constitution. i see a lot of federal laws that are unconstitutional, these are reserved to the states as written:

Article the twelfth [Amendment X]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

just as an example; federal government cannot create a law against murder, only states can. there is no such thing as federal land as they do not and can not own anything that is already owned by the citizen or the state:

Article. I.

Section. 8.To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

what is is the US constitution is what is definable, whats not in the US constitution is not definable meaning that power does not exist for the federal government nor can they create it without an amendment or convention of the states. the federal government has far exceeded its authority and is in need of a lesson about history.

please, for the sake of everything read the document that limits the power of any government authority http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm this is not hard to understand and you do not need a judge to interpret for you, its written in plain english that we all should know by now.

The idiots (including that fool Krugman) that think the trillion dollar coin is a good idea are just simple, ignorant, mindless fools that have no idea how economics really works. They are just low IQ voters that will swalllow anything that the left wing sh*ts out their *ssholes. I do wonder though how they can stomach the taste. Hey Pigotry maybe you can enlighten us. You seem to have swallowed more than your share.

yeah.. extreme spending for unfunded wars to bankrupt the US is fine, but a tiny portion to help the poor in the bush recession is NOT good. Well, there are always pigs. This is Democracy, pigs should also be represented. Actually AIG piggish bankers contributed to the recession, got bailed out, but even thought about suing the government for bailing out AIG itself (only last week) - the new episode of Pigs Gone Wild.

A failed leader we have but not one dumb enough to try this. He knows the Republicans have had enough of his BS.

The "trillion dollar" coin was a stupid, ridiculous idea. Glad everybody in power is stepping away from it.

But the issue of ever-rising debt still remains, and nobody has the will to tackle the true cause of it: we are simply spending more then we earn, and that cannot continue indefinitely. At some point, we must either raise taxes or cut spending.

Hello folks, a one Trillion dollar coin, really? They must think we are completely stupid or have we been swept into bizarro world? I don't mean to be crass, but the only people who could think this is even a plausible economic solution are the people that took the little yellow bus to school.

If this were feasible, why would we even pay any taxes just make more bizarro coins?

The point is that our monetary system in relation to government spending is so broken that fringe ideas like the trillion dollar coin are actually being taken seriously. If people are paying attention they can clearly see that our money system is nothing more than a control mechanism to keep the people economically enslaved. Besides, this little stunt will cause inflation.

But, you may ask, the Fed has been printing incredible amounts of money including trillions in bailouts, so why haven’t we seen runaway inflation in the overall economy?

The answer is that that money never reached the real economy. It was just absorbed by toxic paper and used to bail out the banks. The taxpayer will once again pick up the tab for the banks recklessness. Sure, some of that money crept into the economy (mostly in the form of banker bonuses) and some inflation has occurred from the bailouts.

This is the concept behind why the trillion dollar coin will not cause inflation; because it will simply be absorbed by the government’s toxic debt and not enter the real economy. However, the purpose of the coin is to allow the government to increase spending by a larger margin than they previously would be permitted, thus eventually resulting in inflation when that new money is spent.

Yet the motivation is to allow even more government spending, which is in just as much need of reform as the monetary system. We can’t fix one without the other.

Most of all, the trillion dollar coin represents an opportunity for the public to learn how phony the entire system is, it’s an illusion folks the crises aren’t really crises at all, and that austerity is unnecessary enslavement.

When that sinks in people may begin to wonder why the monetary system works the way it does and what it could be replaced with.

Um it's not just the Democrats that lose, but Republicans too. As long as both of those evil parties continue to dupe people into voting for their crooked candidates, we'll continue to lose. But what is money anyways? It's not backed by gold. Not that gold has any real value. What will a bunch of pieces of paper or gold do for you in the apocalypse? It won't keep you warm. You can't eat it or drink it. So we might as well continue to spend since money is really just a figment of our imagination and nobody is even going to think about calling their debts.

Treasury: No, we won't mint $1 trillion platinum coin

the worst news ever ... for all the coin collectors...

Pig, Bush averaged about 350 billion in annual deficit spending

0bama is averaging 1.2 trillion.

0bama has spent more in less than 4 years than Bush did in 8.

Indisputable. I wish the media would hound 0bama about the debt like they did Bush.

When Congressional Republicans played politics with this issue last time, putting us at the edge of default, it was a blow to our economic recovery, causing our nation's credit rating to be downgraded.

Agreed.

How DARE anyone get in the way of UNLIMITED debt increases, or spending limits. 20 ,million illegals and dingleberries NEED the entitlements, and the democratic party NEEDS to give these entitlements to keep their voter base.

How dare ANYONE get in the way of that !

They could raise the debt ceiling without an issue and the credit rating will still go do down.

BD-540164

I hope you know that you are the silly one.......Devalue the currency....hmmmm....Has to happen because of the 08' financial crisis....So like it or not, you very unwell thought out individual, the middle class debt to income ratio must be restored in order for short term credit markets to open properly again...Suck it retard.....Sorry your sight only goes so far but doesn't address the real issue.....the loss of middle class equity....If the middle class has nothing, you ignorant fool, then no one will buy anything......It is called economics

PS. I can write it in a more simple form in crayon if it helps

I'm neither dem or repub that said the reason Odumbo has raised the debt more than Bush is in part because Bush never included two wars and a prescription program for seniors. When Odumbo came into office he put all of those cost on the books so they could blame the repubs for it all. The wall street crap started under Bush and continued with Odumbo. So they are both responsible for this mess. Vote them all out, everyone of them. And if you don't vote them out quit bitching about.

Right now, the Republicans claim the Democrats are manufacturing a crisis for political gain. While I don't personally agree with that claim, Pigotry clearly does. Read his comments. He's gloating about how it's "win-win for the Democrats" and that there is no incentive to solve anything.

To clarify for the propagandized robots that just hate reality....Freind wrote it...fact checked at the below references

1. You need to actually compare the debt outstanding when each President took office: 09/30/2001 (the nearest date available) public debt was $5,807,463,412,000 or in round numbers $5,807billion and in September 2009 (the last fiscal year of Bush) $11.910billion, net increase of $6,103billion
As of the end of December 2012, the National debt is $16.433billion, an increase of $ 4.523billion.
That is a LOT of money, but not as much as under President Bush's Eight years.

2. Employment: January 2001 135.999million
January 2009 142.099million net change over 8 years: 6.1million increase
December 2012 143.305million net change in 3yr.11mo.: 1.2million increase
You need to pull your statistics for the time frame that each President was actually in office. If you want President Obama to look bad, of course you would choose a number from some point in 2008. However, the recession did not actually hit until December 2008 and President Obama did not take office until January 2009.
Also, it helps to pull from actual data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the US Treasury.

3. GDP: January 2001: $10.065Trillion
January 2009 $14.46Trillion net change - 8 years: $ 4.395Trillion
2012 (to Sept.) $15.811Trillion net change 3 3/4 years $ 1.351Trillion Not bad, considering President Bush left office with 8% declining GDP.

The reality is, while President Bush was in office, his Treasury, Banking, Options and Securities regulators allowed the financial industry to run amok, which created the housing bubble which burst during the last 4 months he was in office. The ENTIRE WORLD fell victim the excesses of the US Financial industry.
Unfortunately, we are still cleaning up that mess, with B of A settling with Fannie Mae for 11.6 BILLION DOLLARS and other banks settling for 8.5 BILLION, UBS settling the LIBOR case for $1.5BILLION and many other cases, all going for BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
THAT IS THE REAL SITUATION, not President Obama failing to turn the Bush economy around in 4 years, it is the banks, with the approval of the Bush Administration, destroying the economy in 8 years.

But as an ignorant man once said without understanding anything

Vote them all out, everyone of them.

The jobs Boehner promised and did all he could to deliver on have been stalled at every turn by the moron Dusty Harry Reid, Bozobama's dupe.

Pvblivs

The gloating comes from years of their special interest masters guiding them..The physical cliff did not require the dems to negotiate but they did. That was a win win for the white house as well.....Pigotry is just happy because he is tired of seeing stupid and the end of the "Southern Strategy" is near...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

and this is recent history.......

kraussk

and you base this on what? Some fact please....I know how you guys just like to make general statements because you "feel" that it is the truth

A $1 trillion platinum coin will not be minted as a way of sidestepping the debt ceiling, the Treasury and the White House said Saturday.

Even libs arnt that stupid!

If Obama's policies were really so bad, the GOP would simply step back for his term and pass anything he asked. It would be in their best interests to let him and his Dems do anything they wanted. If or when those policies made things worse, they could then step in with "your way didn't work, time to try our way" and the people would actually listen. But the thing is, it's not that his policies will fail, it's the simple fact they fear he will succeed. This is something the GOP flat out cannot allow to happen. So instead they have put every possible speed bump in his path all the while claiming it's what their constituents want.

Well cons, the constituents have spoken and they've said that we're going to give Obama 4 more years because that bag of @!$%# he was handed in 2008 is not so big anymore. Little by little it's getting cleaned up and the final responsibility and the credit for that cleanup rests on the negro in the White House. Now how about you helping him out this term and maybe things will get better a little faster?

Chris from Yucaipa

Very well said.......

MARSHALL AUERBACK is a market analyst and commentator.

"...But one thing that the President (and the deficit-phobic Congress) should bear in mind is this: If you look back to 1776, the federal budget has run a continuous deficit except for 7 short periods. The first 6 of those were followed by depressions—the last time was in 1929 which was followed by the Great Depression. The one exception was the Clinton budget surplus, which was followed (so far) only by a recession..."

JANUARY 11-13, 2013

In Praise of Deficits

by MARSHALL AUERBACK

From the Guardian:

'[Senator Jeff] Sessions appeared to dash hopes of an easy nomination process. "Jack Lew must never be secretary of treasury," he said. Sessions said comments made by Lew two years ago, when he claimed that Obama's budget plans would steer the US to a position where "we're not adding to the debt anymore", were "outrageous and false".

The president claimed Lew was well qualified for the job of balancing the budget. "Under President Clinton, he presided over three budget surpluses in a row." In word aimed at Republicans in Congress, he added: "So for all the talk out there about deficit reduction, making sure our books are balanced, this is the guy who did it. Three times."'

Well, if Senator Sessions were to adopt President Obama's arguments AGAINST the nomination, we'd probably support his objections. As usual, our hopelessly out of paradigm deficit-hating President gets it wrong again in regard to fiscal policy. The roots of our current economic malaise started during the Clinton years when the federal government was running the biggest budget surpluses the government has ever run. Everyone thought this was great because it meant that the government's outstanding debt was being reduced. Clinton even went on TV and predicted that the budget surpluses would last for at least 15 years and that every dollar of government debt would be retired.

Everyone celebrated this accomplishment, and claimed the budget surplus was great for the economy.

In fact, what was actually happening was that the budget surplus meant by identity that the private sector was running a deficit. Households and firms were going ever farther into debt, and they were losing their net wealth of government bonds. This eventually caused a recession because the private sector became too indebted and thus had to cut back spending.

In fact, the economy went into recession within half a year, although the recession was short-lived due to rise of budget deficits under Bush (which began to put a floor on aggregate demand) along with the increasing resort to toxic debt instruments to help fund a housing bubble – yet more PRIVATE debt, rather than public debt – which created the seeds for the Great Recession of 2008.

Of course we still have large budget deficits. No one talks any more about achieving budget surpluses this decade; almost everyone agrees that we will not see budget surpluses again in our lifetimes—if ever. And these deficits are consistently decried by everybody, including the President (as his misguided praise of Treasury Secretary nominee Jacob Lew illustrates), despite the fact that they ensured that the Great Depression did not morph into Great Depression 2.0. What happened in the United States was that we had a very flexible and effective system of public transfer payments which rose rapidly in the crisis. Unemployment insurance, early retirement under social security, disability, lower tax collections, and then on top of that, the expansion package, the stimulus package, the Keynesian policy that came into effect very quickly. And these things broke the fall in incomes and preserved living standards to a very substantial degree.

The question is whether the US government can run deficits forever. The answer is emphatically "yes", although this is very separate from the question of whether it should do so. But one thing that the President (and the deficit-phobic Congress) should bear in mind is this: If you look back to 1776, the federal budget has run a continuous deficit except for 7 short periods. The first 6 of those were followed by depressions—the last time was in 1929 which was followed by the Great Depression. The one exception was the Clinton budget surplus, which was followed (so far) only by a recession.

Why is that? By identity, budget surpluses suck income and wealth out of the private sector. This causes private spending to fall, leading to downsizing and unemployment. The only way around that is to run a trade or current account surplus.

The problem is that it is hard to see how the US can do that—in fact, our current account deficit is now around 4% of GDP. All things equal, that means our budget deficit has to be even larger to allow our private sector to save.

Again, to reiterate: government deficits are NOT always good, or that the bigger the deficit, the better. The point I am making is that we have to recognize the macro relations among the sectors. If we say that a government deficit is burdening our future children with debt, we are ignoring the fact that this is offset by their saving and accumulation of financial wealth in the form of government debt. It is hard to see why households would be better off if they did not have that wealth.

If we say that the government can run budget surpluses for 15 years, what we are ignoring is that this means the private sector will have to run deficits for 15 years—going into debt that totals trillions of dollars in order to allow the government to retire its debt. Again it is hard to see why households would be better off if they owed more debt, just so that the government would owe them less.

That's the kind of thing that our presumptive new Treasury Secretary should be saying at his impending confirmation hearings. Given his record, and the President's misguided praise in favour of Clinton's budget surpluses, fat chance of that occurring.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/11/in-praise-of-deficits/

Pigotry. The only idiot here is you.

What?? No coin?? Damn, I wanted to buy a couple of them. It would be easy, I could just put them on a CC like obumbo does. Then I would use one of them to pay the CC bill while I got two more coins on another CC. Simple, hugh?????

Does anyone listen to or read Paul Krugman? He is good for a laugh from time to time, but he is 100% clueless about anything finanical. This article goes to prove my point.

ArchStanton :

MARSHALL AUERBACK is a market analyst and commentator.

"...But one thing that the President (and the deficit-phobic Congress) should bear in mind is this: If you look back to 1776, the federal budget has run a continuous deficit except for 7 short periods. The first 6 of those were followed by depressions—the last time was in 1929 which was followed by the Great Depression. The one exception was the Clinton budget surplus, which was followed (so far) only by a recession..."

There are a couple of errors in this statement: The USA was NOT founded in 1776, that was the year the 13 Colonies declared their independence from England and King George. W J Clinton never ever had a budget surplus when he was the USA's president. The House of Reps put forth a projected budget ten years in advance. The House was controlled by Republicans at the time.

Tomvet

I'm neither dem or repub that said the reason Odumbo has raised the debt more than Bush is in part because Bush never included two wars and a prescription program for seniors. When Odumbo came into office he put all of those cost on the books so they could blame the repubs for it all. The wall street crap started under Bush and continued with Odumbo. So they are both responsible for this mess. Vote them all out, everyone of them. And if you don't vote them out quit bitching about.

Tomvet, you are a moron. The costs of the wars were added as the money was spent. You are correct, tho cost was not revenue neutral. but that does not mean that it was not added to the national debt.

It is very pathetic that people still buy into this talking point without even knowing how sh!t works. Just look at the treasury site and see how war expenditures add to the debt every year. Which explained why Bush raised the debt ceiling about 350 billion a year (unlike 0bama raising it over a trillion a year).

Please for the love of your god, use logic, no president gets to spend money that doesn't count as debt. A balance sheet doesn't lie.

The most disturbing thing about this $1 trillion platinum coin idea is that the proponent is a Nobel laureate in economics. Not only would this devalue our currency, but this boneheaded idea coming from Paul Krugman devalues the Nobel Prize for Economics!

Why not mint 17 of these $1 trillion coins, deposit them with the US Treasury and retire our debt, and start all over with a $600 billion surplus?

Heck, why not mint another 117 of these $1 trillion dollar coins, deposit them with the US Treasury and retire the unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare?

The underlying error in this logic is that even if we had such a clean slate, the gross incompetence of the U.S. Congress would have us right back in the same sort of economic crisis within a decade or two.

A zebra can't change its stripes, ...

and members of Congress can't change their self-interested hunger for money and accumulating personal power and influence.

How DARE anyone get in the way of UNLIMITED debt increases, or spending limits. 20 ,million illegals and dingleberries NEED the entitlements, and the democratic party NEEDS to give these entitlements to keep their voter base.

Jeff, I wouldn't blame the Republicans for demanding a balanced budget. I would ask, however, where they were in 2001 and 2002, when George W. Bush first threw fiscal responsibility into the waste basket with his "temporary tax cuts", which have now become untouchable.

What I do blame the Republicans for is their intransigent demand that the fiscal crisis be solved only through spending cuts, in effect saying, it is 100% our way, or the government comes to a grinding halt. I guess more than half the voters see things in a similar fashion, as in these past, November elections, they failed to take the Presidency and lost seats in both houses of Congress.

We do need to address underfunded, spending liabilities, such as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. We also need to bring military spending back into line with what we can afford. But we also need to get rid of the Bush-era tax cuts, which were never justifiable on the basis of revenue. The pre-Bush tax rates were not so onerous; the years between 1994 and 2001 encompass the longest, post WWII period of economic expansion, and we nearly balanced the budget.

Under a Democratic President.

Imagine that!

PeterDean,

Perhaps you should read-up on the CRA of 1977 and amended several times since. This will give you an good starting point on to how the mortgage bubble got started and how it ended in 2008 during Bush's term. The best part of this is how several "community organizations" were given access to bank records to "help" them help people get loans for houses that maybe they couldn't really afford to start with. Did you know that if one of these groups objected to a bank expanding that it could be blocked by the government under the CRA? These goups (you know like ACORN) were holding a gun to the banks to continue to issue risky loans and sometimes even extorting money from the banks. I'm not giving the banks a free ride here, but you can't dismiss the blackmail tatics of these other groups either.

And guess which group our current president was an attorney for? Could it have been ACORN. So if you are going to bash Bush for being president when the mortgage bubble burst then you need to blame Obama for helping cause it to by his work at ACORN. Lets see, the governemt helps create a crisis then they try to convince us sheep that they are the only ones smart enough to fix the problem. Sounds to me that we would be much better off if they would back-up a bit and let us sheep alone.

BTW, you do know that the economy was already slowing down before Bush took office, right. And the fact that we didn't have a total colapse on Sept 12, 2001 totally amazes me. So, even though Bush wasn't the best president this country has ever had I think I'd take him back over what we have now. We don't need anymore community organization. It's caused us enough harm already.

“By minting a $1 trillion coin, then depositing it at the Fed, the Treasury could acquire enough cash to sidestep the debt ceiling — while doing no economic harm at all,” (Krugman)

The idea of a "$1 Trillion Platinum Coin' is just nonsense. If it's that simple, just mint 16 of them and pay off the entire National Debt.

But what are the consequences?

The first 'consequence' would be that nobody would EVER lend our government any money again - Does anybody think China would lend any more money if we paid off their $1 Trillion in loans with a single $1 Trillion coin, worth maybe $1,500? Krugman's an idiot.

Just 'printing money' has been tried numerous times in the past - for example;

In 1923, the German Weimar Republic tried it to pay off war debts, and the resulting inflation quickly turned the exchange rate from 4.2 Marks to the dollar to 4,200,000,000 Marks to the dollar, and the result was a devastating depression for Germany that eventually led to the rise of Adolf Hitler as a 'savior of Germany'.

More recently, in Zimbabwe in Africa, the government also turned loose the printing presses, and here's a quote: "Prof. Hanke’s HHIZ measure indicated that the inflation peaked at an annual rate of 89.7 sextillion percent (89,700,000,000,000,000,000,000%) in mid-November 2008." Their economy quickly changed to an inefficient 'barter economy' when citizens refused to accept the worthless paper money.

I doubt that those people who scrimped and saved for their entire lives would appreciate learning that their life savings are now worth the equivalent of only 2 cents.

Hey, Fre-2427257 (#1.55)

Pigotry. The only idiot here is you.

I agree, I even call myself a 'pig.' But sometimes facts are even more cruel - such as one bailout to AIG (2008) is bigger than all the gov. help to the deserving poor. So AIG even wanted to sue the US government for bailing out the AIG - also a mind-blowing fact. And the Bush recession and all the unfunded wars to kill innocent people ... have done nothing to the deficit....?? Can anyone be more idiotic than I (THE PIG)?

Dman,

You don't think that the rapid expansion in our economy thanks to the internet/technology was because of Clinton do you? Mickey Mouse could have been president during those years and the economy was going to expand rapidly, kinda like a bottlerocket into the night sky. But, with such a huge expansion of the economy during the mid-90's the economy could take the extra drag temporarily of higher taxes. But, as the later years of the Clinton WH wore on it started draging down the economy. During the last year of the Clinton WH the economy started to drop off. I know, I owned a small business then and witnessed it first hand. Then in September of 2001 we were lucky that our entire economy didn't vaporize. So if lowering taxes kept the vaporization from happening great. But, please don't try to say that higher taxes caused the huge expansion of our economy during the Clinton WH. It happened dispite the higher tax rates and Clinton was lucky.

Hey, JustaPilot upstairs

Dman,

You don't think that the rapid expansion in our economy thanks to the internet/technology was because of Clinton do you? Mickey Mouse could have been president during those years and the economy was going to expand rapidly, kinda like a bottlerocket into the night sky

Yeah, enter Bush; and see what happens?? Bush is no mickey mouse, I guess.

Robert in Oregon "Not only would this devalue our currency, but this boneheaded idea coming from Paul Krugman devalues the Nobel Prize for Economics!"

I think the Nobel Prize already became a joke when they gave the one for 'Peace' to Obama for a speech he made.

lol

I love how Liberals claim that the Bush tax cuts didn't 'stimulate' the economy under Bush, but they now claim that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for EVERYONE would result in a dramatic drop in the economy.

'Sauce for the Goose'.

Hey, ROY WILSON-336103

I love how Liberals claim that the Bush tax cuts didn't 'stimulate' the economy under Bush, but they now claim that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for EVERYONE would result in a dramatic drop in the economy.

Time has changed. Changed time calls for changed policies. I thought one defining feature of conservatism is being pragMatic, not dogMatic. And when people argue against Bush tax cut, they are really arguing against the part of cuts for the rich who don't need them and don't deserve them.

...a conservative myth is somehow a nation's finances are similar to household finances. They are not.

Of course they're not the same, but the conservatives can't see that. Well, I should say that the Tea Partiers can see it. Educated conservatives do see it. One important difference is the level of government spending actually helps to determine its own income through stimulating or deflating the economy. A single private household's income is not affected by its spending.

But, what I've always wanted to ask those who think that government and household finance is the same is this: since they apparently think that is acceptable to NOT pay bills for debts that the government incurred as the result of previously approved budgets because there's a dispute over FUTURE spending, does that mean that its OK for individual households not to pay their creditors because there is a dispute in the family over how it will spend its future earnings? I'd say that lending to Tea Partiers is a bad credit risk since they don't believe that it is important to honor one's debts.

I have to reply to yesterday ProFreedon I cannot set on my azz all day like Roy and you TP dorns.

Oh so how many times have we raised it under Obama? Better- how many more times will it need to be raised given the ideology? Also, what was the National Debt under Bush vs Obama? Here's an article from CBS from March '12 to chew on:

All I Know is this spend binge started with Ron Reagan When the debt was only 20 million and Quadrupled by the end of Reagan's term to 3 trillion dollars then end with Bush's JR double of 10 trillion 6 trillion does not seem as much as when Reagan Blewout the debt

Hi, 40 empty chairs 40 empty yrs of Rep rule (#1.71)

You got that right. The federal debt and deficit started to be a major problem with Reagan who promoted the nonsense of increasing services with less taxes. It doesn't take a genius to see the problem ..more services mean more spending, less taxes mean less revenue - this combination means more debt and deficit. More right-wing delusion. And Norquist...the person who destroyed America...started his anti-tax BS during Reagan.

I am still terrified that President Obama is going to spinelessly "give away the house" to the Party of No, American Taliban....without even being asked.

Obama, you Plutocrats need us little Middle Class, 99%ers!

Where do you think your wealth comes from (using the collective "your")?

Here are some interesting FACTS from Obama's 2013 Budget projections;

Average (actual) Interest Expense under various Presidents;

Reagan = $114 Billion per year.

Bush 1 = $187 Billion per year.

Clinton = $227 Billion per year.

Bush 2 = $199 Billion per year (Yes, it was lower than under Clinton).

The average Interest Rate under these Presidents was 4.92% per year.

Debt Projections by Obama in his 2013 Budget;

Debt in 2016 (Obama's last year) = $20.392 Trillion (Interest @ 4.92% = $1,003 Billion/Yr.) That level of Interest expense per year will devastate our economy, and increase from an average of 8.4% of all Federal spending under Bush to more than 23% of all spending in 2016 – crowding out massive amounts of money available for other needed government programs (Social Security, Health Care, Defense, etc).

One last point – Projections by Presidents are notoriously 'optimistic'. Both Clinton and Bush projected huge surpluses that never materialized. 'Forced austerity' (ala Greece, with 30% Unemployment)) is coming to a neighborhood near you very soon. Congratulations on that 'Change we can Believe in' that you voted for - Again.

RE: Post #1.74

Here's a link for you to verify - See Table S-15 for Debt projections;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/tables.pdf

Roy Wilson,

In general across the board tax cuts do not stimulate the economy for the simple reason that no where near 100% of those tax cuts are ever spent on goods and services, the primary stimulator of the economy. About the only time they do have an effect is when the government keeps spending at the pre-cut levels which creates or increases deficits. Discounting Social Security and Medicare taxes, nearly 100% of government revenues are spent on goods and services since there is no need for the government to save or invest unlike individuals and businesses. It makes no sense for the latter to spend every penny they make, quite the opposite in fact. Only at the lowest wage levels is it likely that 100% of a tax cut would be spent on goods or services.

I see a lot of nonsense about how the Debt increase under Reagan was 'horrible', but it was good under Clinton, but guess what;

The National Debt increase under Reagan was $1.692 Trillion over 8 years.

The National Debt increase under Clinton was an almost identical $1.627 Trillion over 8 years.

I love how everyone loves to bash the latest POTUS for spending more money than any other POTUS, but they fail to remember the simple fact that things cost more today than in 1982.

Guess what? No matter who the next POTUS is, he/she will have a budget that is the largest in US history. This is not a headline folks. How we spend our money is the point, not that we are spending it.

READ,READ;

Democratic leaders urge Obama,a to ignore, violate, by pass the Constitution of the United States and order the Treasury to increase the debt ceiling, WTF.

Hey Mikey-1951 "Roy Wilson, In general across the board tax cuts do not stimulate the economy"

Then perhaps you can explain how the economy (GDP) grew from $10.225 Trillion in 2001 (before the Bush tax cuts) to $14.394 Trillion in 2008 - a 40.77% increase in 7 years (an average of 5.82% per year).

Gee, I wonder if giving people more money to spend might have helped stimulate the economy? I love how Liberals explain away the obvious with 'rhetoric' - I guess that's why Obama uses it so effectively - proof positive that 'You can fool most of the people all of the time'

Addendum to Post #1.80

Liberals like to claim that the Bush tax cuts dramatically reduced Federal Revenues, leading to big increases in the Debt, but here's some interesting information;

Federal Revenues (taxes, etc) in 2002 (before the Bush tax cuts) were $1.853 Trillion

Federal Revenues in 2008 (after the Bush tax cuts) were $2.524 Trillion, an INCREASE of $671 Billion (36.2%) per year - despite the lower tax RATES.

The Debt increased under Bush because of too much SPENDING, not too little in tax revenues, but the spending has increased DRAMATICALLY under Obama.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Democratic leaders urge Obama,a to ignore, violate, by pass the Constitution of the United States and order the Treasury to increase the debt ceiling

How does minting coins of any value ignore or violate the constitution? I think you need to read the constitution again. The Treasury does not need congressional approval to mint money. Never has, as far as I know.

It sets a dangerous precedent for sure, but strictly speaking it is not illegal.

As for "Roy Wilson"... oy vey, you just implied liberals are guilty of sophistry in comparison to Repubicans... I think something in my head just exploded from the levels of hypocrisy in that statement.

Pigotry "The federal debt and deficit started to be a major problem with Reagan who promoted the nonsense of increasing services with less taxes"

Total Federal Revenues under Reagan INCREASED from $517 Billion per year in 1980 to $909 Billion per year in 1988 - an increase of 75.82% in annual revenues (almost 10% per year). Perhaps those Reagan tax cuts stimulated not only the economy, but total tax revenues as well - just like what happened under Bush. More 'Inconvenient Truth'?

Time to go - I have other things to do - Bye :)

Roy,

The economy grew after the Bush tax cuts because government spending was not cut at the same time. In fact, Bush increased deficit spending along with the tax cuts to offset the recession caused by the Clinton fiscal policies. If we were in a balanced budget scenario, government spending would have had to be cut to match the revenue with a resulting slowing or even lowering of the economy.

Did you read the Marshall Auerback article excerpts ArchStanton posted? What is your take on his reasoning that deficits are actually beneficial to the economy? The bottom line it seems is that budget surpluses are good for the economy when it is individuals and corporations who run them but bad for the economy when government runs one and the two situations seem to be mutually exclusive because of how the economy works.

Pigotry Comment collapsed by the community

The newest Gallup poll shows that 47% of Americans identify themselves Democrats, 42% as RepubliCONs. Only a year ago, the same poll showed the parties roughly even.

LOL! Didn't you mean to say bahhhhhhhh? These numbers mean nothing. People flip their political affiliation more readily than they do pancakes and the dems have always had an advantage. In fact a 5 point difference is nothing special from a historical perspective so what exactly are you crowing about?

Homer Adams

ArchStanton :

MARSHALL AUERBACK is a market analyst and commentator.

"...But one thing that the President (and the deficit-phobic Congress) should bear in mind is this: If you look back to 1776, the federal budget has run a continuous deficit except for 7 short periods. The first 6 of those were followed by depressions—the last time was in 1929 which was followed by the Great Depression. The one exception was the Clinton budget surplus, which was followed (so far) only by a recession..."

There are a couple of errors in this statement: The USA was NOT founded in 1776, that was the year the 13 Colonies declared their independence from England and King George.

Homer:

Where does the quote of Auerback's you included say that 1776 was the year the U.S. was "founded"? Having said, I think the date the colonies declared their independence (1776) is generally accepted as the date the U.S. came into being.

As for the budget surplus references in your post. I don't know what you're talking about and I'm not sure you do either. Clinton cut the budget significantly even if you don't choose to admit it.

I don't like Bill Clinton at all so I'm not trying to make him look good. The whole point of the article by Auerback is that all (or most) of the times in the past we have had a budget surplus (or just greatly reduced the deficit) it has been BAD for the economy, not wonderful as today's economic orthodoxy (free market capitalism) says.

Have a nice day and read something else from time to time besides far Right websites.

Chris... : the Treasury can not add to the money supply without Congress approval; that is why the federal reserve act was passed , to print , private bank notes in order to by pass congress; the federal reserve could issue platinum coins in any denomination they wanted, or gold coins, or silver coins; however they would not do it, since they would have to purchase the metals first, since the FED is a debt based note, they have not the ability to purchase the metals, since it would convert fed bank notes into a metal based backing, the reason the Federal Reserve act of 1913, was passed was due to the collapse of 1907 monetary market, since there was not enough gold in circulation to cover the debts(J.P. Morgan, imported 175 million ounces of gold borrowed from the Bank of England to prevent the American gold based dollar from a total collapse.

What is interesting here is not the trillion dollar coin idea, but the 'let's default on our debt' idea. If there was ever a sure way of increasing the deficit, it would be to default on our obligations, lowering our credit rating and thereby increasing the interest we pay on the existing debt.

So far, I've seen quite a number of tea party types saying we should default on our debt. If they were rational people generally, I'd say that they were just overstating their position, hoping Obama will take the bait and negotiate spending cuts to keep them from destroying our economy. But they've demonstrated several times now that they actually don't know how things work, and could care less about the people or our economy anyway, so that lends to an uncertainty about how willing they are to shoot their hostage.

But Obama has another option, as senate democrats noted in this story. He knows it, and while he's downplaying it for now, I think he's keeping it as an option. If, in the end, the house appears willing to kill the economy to get their way, Obama can and should declare a national emergency and raise the debt ceiling unilaterally. The tea party zealots will have demonstrated to the people that they are reckless and self-serving, Obama will demonstrate that he doesn't negotiate with terrorists, the economy will continue to recover, and if someone wants to raise a constitutional issue, we'll let the courts decide in the end.

So come on, tea party. Time to show the public how crazy you really are.

Hey Mikey-1951 "Roy, What is your take on his reasoning that deficits are actually beneficial to the economy?"

I do not believe that to be true for the simple reason that accumulating debt requires that an ever increasing proportion of your income has to be devoted to paying Interest. You might get a short term benefit to economic growth, but it costs you far more in the long run. Try it on a personal level, and you will see what I mean when you start borrowing even more money just to pay the Interest on old debt. It quickly spirals out of control.

ALL DEFICIT SPENDING IS BORROWING ON YOUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE.

We are now in that spiral - for example, an average of 8.4% of all Federal revenues during the Bush years was devoted to paying Interest on the Debt, but that will likely increase to over 23% in 2016 (see Post #1.74). That spiraling Debt expense will soon crowd out massive amounts of money needed to pay for essentials such as Social Security, health care, and Defense, leaving little or nothing for other government expenditures. At that time, we will have forced austerity (ala Greece with its 30% Unemployment Rate).

THIS IS A REAL SCENARIO THAT MOST PEOPLE DO NOT THINK ABOUT.

Back to the football games - Bye for now. :)

Roy,

Valid points and even Auerback was alluding to the fact that the government should probably not continually run deficits although he seemed to think that it could. I presume that is so because unlike an individual, the government can "create" money so it never truly runs out. Hence the gimmick of the coin in this article.

One of the more intriguing aspects of the essay was his observation that at each of the 6 or so periods in our history when government debt was paid down, it was followed by a depression. So perhaps it is not a continual deficit that is beneficial but the fact that some level of government debt is and deficits should only be really used to counter a depression/recession. The whole debate is getting deep into Keynesian economic theory, the details of which are outside my knowledge base.

Maybe the second game will be as exiting as the first :-)

Satanick

“By minting a $1 trillion coin, then depositing it at the Fed, the Treasury could acquire enough cash to sidestep the debt ceiling — while doing no economic harm at all,” Krugman said in a column in The New York Times.

Wow, another stupid idea brought to you by Paul Krugman! The only economic harm would be investors leaving the dollar if we tried something so dumb as to mint a 1 trillion dollar coin to pay our debts.

And only followed by the very idea that Republicans would seriously accept the idea of refusing to pay the bills already incurred as a way to achieve "fiscal responsibility." Fiscal responsibility is not cutting the size of government to make it fit into a bathtub; it's paying your damn bills, and the Republicans are actually proposing to default on the debt.

ROY WILSON-336103

“By minting a $1 trillion coin, then depositing it at the Fed, the Treasury could acquire enough cash to sidestep the debt ceiling — while doing no economic harm at all,” (Krugman)

The idea of a "$1 Trillion Platinum Coin' is just nonsense. If it's that simple, just mint 16 of them and pay off the entire National Debt.

But what are the consequences?

The first 'consequence' would be that nobody would EVER lend our government any money again - Does anybody think China would lend any more money if we paid off their $1 Trillion in loans with a single $1 Trillion coin, worth maybe $1,500? Krugman's an idiot.

Krugman isn't an idiot; he's a realist. I don't really favor the trillion dollar coin except as a last option if the GOP is really serious about default, but the platinum coin is WAY better than default. In an ideal world, the debt ceiling would be eliminated (or reformed to be associated with primary spending matters instead of being a separate matter); unfortunately, since half of Congress is dominated by a bunch of freshmen idiots who failed Econ 101 and obviously don't realize that defaulting on our debt will throw the world into another recession and undermine any and all respect remaining in our civic institutions. In an ideal world, we would have a deal in which the Bush tax cuts are gradually repealed in their entirety, where pragmatic and targeted spending cuts to social and defense spending are enacted, and realistic entitlement reform (reforming payroll taxes, adjusting CPI, increasing cost-sharing, negotiate drug prices, and co-payments) is produced, all of which enacted in a monolithic package when the economy reaches full employment. Unfortunately, we have a party that denounces any talk of compromise, any notion of revenue increases, and is totally devoted to the ridiculous idea that the only good things government can do is cut taxes and cut spending. I watched the chaos that happened during the 2011 debt-ceiling debacle and I remember how frustrated the American people became with their representatives in the following months. And do you know who caused the downgrade of 2011: Tea Party Republicans.

Just 'printing money' has been tried numerous times in the past - for example;

In 1923, the German Weimar Republic tried it to pay off war debts, and the resulting inflation quickly turned the exchange rate from 4.2 Marks to the dollar to 4,200,000,000 Marks to the dollar, and the result was a devastating depression for Germany that eventually led to the rise of Adolf Hitler as a 'savior of Germany'.

And yet you fail to realize that this was because of the overly-harsh Treaty of Versailles, which instead of ensuring long-term peace guaranteed another world war. Under more pragmatic terms, the debts it owed would be far lower.

I doubt that those people who scrimped and saved for their entire lives would appreciate learning that their life savings are now worth the equivalent of only 2 cents

Nor would they appreciate the fact that their government is unwilling to pay the bills that THEY incurred because of a right-wing ideology espousing partisanship and extremism. Or that the next time they asked for a loan or made a late credit card payment, they'd have to pay interest at exorbitant levels.

Ladies and gentlemen, once again we stand at the brink of doom, real doom (not the faux doom prescribed by fiscal-cliff hawks), because of the dysfunctional state of the Republican Party. The last time we dared to question the full faith and credit of the United States, we were downgraded by S&P and our economy suffered. If you hear anyone compare this crisis to the shutdowns of the late 90s and that the only result of this crisis will be the partial shut-down of the federal government, tell them that they are wrong. Refusing to increase the debt ceiling would result in the defaulting of the United States on its financial obligations, leading to a bond rush that will send the United States, and the world, back into the throes of depression. Millions of Americans will be sent to the unemployment office; the stock market could collapse; and the world economy would be dragged under by our incompetence. And once the recession ends, and it will, people will never again trust the full faith and credit of the United States. You may be able to point to defaults by other nations that have eventually recovered and become prosperous and argue that default isn't necessarily that bad; none of those nations were the bedrock of the world economy and possessed a currency that was the standard for all currencies.

Hey Mikey-1951 "Roy, Valid points and even Auerback was alluding to the fact that the government should probably not continually run deficits although he seemed to think that it could. I presume that is so because unlike an individual, the government can "create" money so it never truly runs out. Hence the gimmick of the coin in this article.... The whole debate is getting deep into Keynesian economic theory, the details of which are outside my knowledge base."

Yes, a government can continually run Deficits, but then what happens is that lenders will no longer lend real money to them (ala Greece), and then comes severe austerity. Minting a 'Platinum $1 Trillion coin' is no different than the government printing off $16 Trillion in $100 bills and handing them to our creditors, saying "Here, I'm paying you off". Such a huge increase in the money supply would result in immediate inflation, making the Dollar essentially worthless.

As for Keynesian economic theory, I happen to subscribe to it, when properly applied - to wit, Use Deficit spending during a severe recession, and then pay the debt back when the economy recovers. Unfortunately, the 'repayment' never happens in real life - hence the $16.4 Trillion debt we now have.

Freshieee

Minting $1 Trillion coins would be no different than merely printing $16.4 Trillion in $100 bills, handing them to our creditors, and saying "Here- I'm paying you off". There would be two immediate effects;

1 - The creditors would refuse to loan any more money to us because Dollars would no longer be accepted as a medium of exchange.

2 - Inflation would skyrocket - In Zimbabwe in Africa, the government turned loose the printing presses to repay their debts, and here's a quote: "Prof. Hanke’s HHIZ measure indicated that the inflation peaked at an annual rate of 89.7 sextillion percent (89,700,000,000,000,000,000,000%) in mid-November 2008." Their economy quickly changed to an inefficient 'barter economy' when citizens refused to accept the worthless paper money.

Either Krugman was lying about the idea 'doing no serious economic harm', or he was playing a practical joke on naive people.

PS - It's nice of you to absolve the Democrats from any responsibility for running up such huge Deficits over the last 4 years - go ahead - say it - "It's Bush's fault".

You don't think that the rapid expansion in our economy thanks to the internet/technology was because of Clinton do you? Mickey Mouse could have been president during those years and the economy was going to expand rapidly,

Well, justapilot, Clinton assumed the presidency with the economy in a recession, and with nation obsessed with what seemed then, a monstrous national debt. He left office with 8 years of economic expansion, and with a nearly balanced budget. I would say that fostering a climate of fiscal responsibility was directly responsible for the years of economic growth, and for nearly eliminating our annual budget deficit.

Mickey Mouse could not have done that.

During the last year of the Clinton WH the economy started to drop off. I know, I owned a small business then and witnessed it first hand. Then in September of 2001 we were lucky that our entire economy didn't vaporize.

Bush's first "temporary" tax cut, was through The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, which was passed in June of 2001, a full 3 months before the 9/11 attacks. It was irresponsible, as was the later "temporary" tax cuts of 2003.

I dispute the contention that rescinding the Bush-era tax cuts would send our society spiraling into a recession. Those tax rates were not so onerous, nor is our economy now so weak. The chief brake affecting our business climate is uncertainty and fear: uncertainty as to whether our government's leaders [of both parties] are going to drive into a financial ditch, and fear that nobody will deal with our ballooning deficits.

The amount of debt being racked up by Obama is unconscionable. Sure liberals are prone to blaming Bush for everything even though Obama is the one sitting in the Oval Office. Liberals like to claim Obama has made endless offers but those mean Republicans are standing in the way. Of course no one can prove any offer, as discussions have been one on one behind closed doors and in the end all anyone can hang their hat on are the talking points which prove nothing. Obama has never even been able to get so much as a vote for his budget proposals, and yet he has made grand offers to reduce spending and the debt? One fact simply does not support the other fiction. Now you can rest assure Obama will invoke the 14th amendment and raise the debt ceiling on his own. The national debt was only a problem for Obama when he wasn't president. Obama will let the courts settle the issue, and that won't happen before he has left office and run this country into the ground financially. Liberals are great at blaming Bush, but Obama has done absolutely nothing except make matters far worse. Bush is no longer president, and all we get from Obama is blame and excuses but no leadership.

Pigotry

a conservative myth is somehow a nation's finances are similar to household finances. They are not.

How can anyone compare a household to US government - the most powerful government in the world?

Where is common sense? Drinking too much conservative kool-aid ... fed to you by your moronic conservative representative in their populist...but obvious false...talking points??

OK I'm game, please explain your economics! The revenue that the feds take in is approximately $2.6 trillion a year and we owe $16.5 trillion. We spend about $3.8 trillion per year. Now explain to us how you pay off the debt. Are you saying that we don't have to pay the debt?

Here is another way to look at the numbers. We spend over $10 billion dollars a day, taxes cover $6 Billion per day and we borrow $4 Billion per day. No government in world history has every done that before.

Help me please piggy to figure out why this not a problem. Tell me why I should not convert all my US Dollars to Canadian Dollars. The minute the world loses confidence in our ability to pay the debt the dollar is finished. If the Arabs decide that they will no longer accept dollars for oil and want other payment the game ends. We are already paying a premium of 35% to the Arabs for oil. It is called deflating the dollar because the Federal Reserve is printing worthless money. From my perspective we may be delusional but the Arabs are not.

Trickle down government isn't working so well either.

Your on the clock.

I guess "winning" is one word for it. I call it burying ourselves even deeper in debt as we kick the can farther down the road. Why do we even have a debt ceiling? Might just as well call our currency the Monopoly money it is.

And the Republicans can forget trying to introduce fiscal sanity into Congress. They did that a year and a half ago, and all Congress did was decide not to allow the fiscal cliff to happen. Didn't solve any of the problems, just said, "No, we won't do it. Keep on spending."

• These are elected officials with a job to do. Parties should have nothing to do with anything now. The House should do it's job by listening to the people and communicating with them. The Senate should be doing the job they were elected to do. The President should also be doing what he is elected to do.

• Pigotry and all others doing the bashing of parties are pathetic. The elected officials should be doing their job of listening to the people and do what is best for the country. Quit wasting your time bashing parties. The elections are over. The pathetic bashing of parties by anyone is the same as racial profiling or gender discrimination. Get a life you fools. Live in reality.

The Democrats are now in for a surprise. The RepubliCons are sick and tired of this administration and the supporting Democrats. Sadly, your euphoria is in it's last throes.

kkwilson

The Democrats are now in for a surprise. The RepubliCons are sick and tired of this administration and the supporting Democrats. Sadly, your euphoria is in it's last throes.

Really? Because unless the Repubs can pull off a miracle in the next 2 years, they WILL lose the House, and have no one to blame but themselves.

Chris from Yucaipa:

kkwilson

The Democrats are now in for a surprise. The RepubliCons are sick and tired of this administration and the supporting Democrats. Sadly, your euphoria is in it's last throes.

Really? Because unless the Repubs can pull off a miracle in the next 2 years, they WILL lose the House, and have no one to blame but themselves.

Was Y2010 a "miracle"?

It just might be a good idea to pass a budget before approving further debt authorization. In fact, it might even be a law that a budget is to be passed each year.

Gnome,

No it's not a law just a constitutional requirement. To bad the senate democrates won't do what they are required to do and keep shelving budgets.

Democrats have 'won' because the media won't push obama/senate for cuts and ask why they haven't put forth a budget (aside from obama's laughable one).

The house has put forth job bills, ask reid where they are.

I'm not trying to excuse the republicans, but the democrats haven't won anything. They've done even less work than the republicans and have obstructed more than the republicans. No one will call them to task for it though, which makes it appear that the republicans are solely at fault.

The sad part is so many citizens like pigotry fall for it instead of opening their eyes.

The fault falls on both parties equally, but until both parties are held for equal responsibility, the democrats will continue to do as they please because the media and left citizens have given them a free pass.