Has Obama totally fucking lost the plot?

[Coito ergo sum]

A long-running tiff between the White House press corps and the West Wing over presidential access flared anew today when press secretary Jay Carney faced off with reporters over the right to shout questions at the president during debt talks.

Obama chafes at the time-honored practice of answering questions shouted at him during pooled, non-press conference events — and his staff has often opted for “stills sprays,” excluding print reporters or TV cameras who might capture Obama in the less than flattering non-act of snubbing a query.

When asked today why TV crews and print reporters were barred from the pool covering the White House meeting with congressional leaders on the deficit, Carney responded by pointing out that the administration has held two press conferences in the past two weeks and allowed TV cameras into the spray earlier this week.

"People shouted questions at him," Carney added.

The White House Correspondents’ Association has protested exclusion of print and TV from pools — and several reporters in the briefing room took Carney’s comment as an annoyed expression of presidential displeasure with shouted questions.

“It's an absurd reason to say that because we asked questions you're not going to allow cameras in there. He's capable of ignoring our questions. He does it all the time,” said Chip Reid of CBS.

Carney, a former Time magazine White House reporter, shot back with, “I appreciate your opinion.”

It didn’t end there. “Can I ask you to clarify — there's no reporters allowed in today's meeting because reporters misbehaved?” asked another scribe. “Earlier it sounded like you were punishing us.”

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm ... 802df.html

Wheels coming off the bus...

[Warren Dew]

I agree with maiforpeace, it appears you do not, because you think somehow if military spending was cut China would take over the world.

Nah, he's saying that if U.S. government environmental spending were increased that much, China would take over the world ... something which actually seems more plausible.

[Coito ergo sum]

He's losin' it... http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... debt-talks

[Geoff]

He's losin' it... http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... debt-talks

We've been translating a lot of stuff from S. American financial sources this week, and they're all expecting the credit downgrade to happen, and basing their positions on it.

[Warren Dew]

He's losin' it... http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... debt-talks

Interesting that Obama is admitting he's bluffing. Wonder if Cantor is smart enough to notice that.

[Coito ergo sum]

They can't cave in to the tax hike gambit again. At least two major times in my lifetime Democrats have promised massive spending cuts in exchange for tax increases. Both times they have reneged.

I fucking want the spending cuts. Real cuts this time, not some nonsense about how our spending increases are less than their projected spending increases. I want the government to spend less next year than this year. At this point, I don't give a flying fuck how they do it. I just want them to fucking do it.

[Warren Dew]

No one is discussing actual real cuts. They are discussing cuts equal in size to the debt ceiling increase - but the cuts are counted over 10 years, and the debt ceiling increase lasts for less than 2 years. Even the deepest cuts suggested are less than 20% of the debt increases being approved, on a per year basis.

What they really need is structural changes, such as Rep. Ryan proposed. Unfortunately he just talked about his proposal straight up instead of giving it appropriate spin, so of course it's a dead letter now.

[devogue]

The debt is $14,300,000,000,000.

The median income for all US households is $46,326.

There are approximately 114,000,000 households in the USA, so the average household debt is $125,438 dollars.

A 20% increase in tax across the board would free up $9265 per household per year and would pay the debt off in 13.5 years.

Except that doesn't count interest.

And they want to borrow more.

I think America is in trouble.

[Coito ergo sum]

The debt is $14,300,000,000,000.

The median income for all US households is $46,326.

There are approximately 114,000,000 households in the USA, so the average household debt is $125,438 dollars.

A 20% increase in tax across the board would free up $9265 per household per year and would pay the debt off in 13.5 years.

Except that doesn't count interest.

And they want to borrow more.

I think America is in trouble.

A 20% increase in taxes across the board would bankrupt millions of families, and cause a meltdown of the United States economy. To make up that 20%, people would start canceling retirement savings and all investments, followed by a halt in automobile and big ticket item purchases which would cause a downturn in what's left US manufacturing. Millions of people would not be able to afford to drive to work in the morning, and millions of households would cancel things they currently pay for like cable television or satellite feeds, internet access, and phone services. Home purchases would halt and reverse, as folks just couldn't afford to pay their mortgages. The tax base would decline by the 10s of millions of persons, and revenue to the government would plummet.

Raising taxes by 20% across the board cannot be taken in a vacuum. It will have tremendous global effects on the economy, and the amount of revenue raised can't be calculated by the simple math you have used. The total amount of revenue generated would be some substantial percentage less than what you've calculated due to the shrinking of the tax base.

State economies would would be shaken to the core, as sales taxes collected would take tremendous hits. People would have 20% less take home pay than they did before - will they buy as much stuff? The first things to go will be restaurants, coffee shops, toy stores, and all other non-necessities.

And, you say 20% as if it's just some piddling thing. The average taxpayer already pays out, all taxes state and federal taken together, about 60% of income in taxes and fees to the governments. 20% more to that is an easy answer in your estimation? No biggie? Just another 20%?

[devogue]

The debt is $14,300,000,000,000.

The median income for all US households is $46,326.

There are approximately 114,000,000 households in the USA, so the average household debt is $125,438 dollars.

A 20% increase in tax across the board would free up $9265 per household per year and would pay the debt off in 13.5 years.

Except that doesn't count interest.

And they want to borrow more.

I think America is in trouble.

A 20% increase in taxes across the board would bankrupt millions of families, and cause a meltdown of the United States economy. To make up that 20%, people would start canceling retirement savings and all investments, followed by a halt in automobile and big ticket item purchases which would cause a downturn in what's left US manufacturing. Millions of people would not be able to afford to drive to work in the morning, and millions of households would cancel things they currently pay for like cable television or satellite feeds, internet access, and phone services. Home purchases would halt and reverse, as folks just couldn't afford to pay their mortgages. The tax base would decline by the 10s of millions of persons, and revenue to the government would plummet.

Raising taxes by 20% across the board cannot be taken in a vacuum. It will have tremendous global effects on the economy, and the amount of revenue raised can't be calculated by the simple math you have used. The total amount of revenue generated would be some substantial percentage less than what you've calculated due to the shrinking of the tax base.

State economies would would be shaken to the core, as sales taxes collected would take tremendous hits. People would have 20% less take home pay than they did before - will they buy as much stuff? The first things to go will be restaurants, coffee shops, toy stores, and all other non-necessities.

And, you say 20% as if it's just some piddling thing. The average taxpayer already pays out, all taxes state and federal taken together, about 60% of income in taxes and fees to the governments. 20% more to that is an easy answer in your estimation? No biggie? Just another 20%?

Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound insubstantial - it is clear that a 20% increase in taxes across the country would have disastrous consequences, but I was using such an extreme situation and the fact it would still take 13.5 years to pay off just the capital owed on the current debt to show how fucked America is.

The main point I am trying to make is even though such an extreme measure would be insane, it indicates the sheer scale of the debt and it just seems like sheer madness to lobby for even more debt. Unless America is trying to max the credit card before the roof falls in.

[Geoff]

Seems to me that defence spending is the best target for cuts.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seems to me that defence spending is the best target for cuts.

It's going to have to be. However, we need to cut, and we need to cut now. And, I am so sick of the nonsense about "reducing the rate of increase" being a cut.

It's euphemism central over here.

"Raising taxes" is now "Revenue Raising."

Cutting spending is now "reducing the rate of increase of spending" - I mean, we fucking live in a world where we can spend 10% more next year than this, year and increase the national debt by $200 billion a months, and that's painted by the fucking Pelosi cunts of the world as "draconian cuts."

These assholes need to fuck the fuck off!

Obama promised "Pay as you go" when he was elected - that meant in everyone's mind that we would pay for things as we go, and not on fucking credit. But, that's not what it means. It means - we'll pay for SOME things as we go, and the rest we'll pay on credit.

We don't have the fucking money. Period. Stop fucking spending it!!!!!

[Seth]

The notion that the US will default on its debts if the debt ceiling is not raised is a lie. We have a surplus of something like 34 billion PER MONTH after non-discretionary spending, including SS, Medicare, Medicaid, debt service and the military are paid for. Essential services like the FBI and suchlike are included.

But what that means is that the REST of the federal government has to run on only 34 billion per month, which means massive federal shutdowns in discretionary spending and massive layoffs of federal workers, all of which is just fine with me.

If the US defaults on a single obligation, it will be because Obama is unwilling to prioritize spending in the face of a refusal of the Congress to increase the debt ceiling. If that happens, Obama should be impeached for fiscal irresponsibility.

[Geoff]

The notion that the US will default on its debts if the debt ceiling is not raised is a lie. We have a surplus of something like 34 billion PER MONTH after non-discretionary spending, including SS, Medicare, Medicaid, debt service and the military are paid for. Essential services like the FBI and suchlike are included.

But what that means is that the REST of the federal government has to run on only 34 billion per month, which means massive federal shutdowns in discretionary spending and massive layoffs of federal workers, all of which is just fine with me.

If the US defaults on a single obligation, it will be because Obama is unwilling to prioritize spending in the face of a refusal of the Congress to increase the debt ceiling. If that happens, Obama should be impeached for fiscal irresponsibility.

Why is the military "non-discretionary"? As I posted above, that seems to me (from the outside, looking in, as it were) to be the logical choice for serious cuts, given a proposed 2012 budget somewhere between 1 and 1.4 TRILLION dollars.

[Coito ergo sum]

The notion that the US will default on its debts if the debt ceiling is not raised is a lie. We have a surplus of something like 34 billion PER MONTH after non-discretionary spending, including SS, Medicare, Medicaid, debt service and the military are paid for. Essential services like the FBI and suchlike are included.

But what that means is that the REST of the federal government has to run on only 34 billion per month, which means massive federal shutdowns in discretionary spending and massive layoffs of federal workers, all of which is just fine with me.

If the US defaults on a single obligation, it will be because Obama is unwilling to prioritize spending in the face of a refusal of the Congress to increase the debt ceiling. If that happens, Obama should be impeached for fiscal irresponsibility.

Why is the military "non-discretionary"? As I posted above, that seems to me (from the outside, looking in, as it were) to be the logical choice for serious cuts, given a proposed 2012 budget somewhere between 1 and 1.4 TRILLION dollars.

I'll support a cut on military spending in conjunction with cuts across the board that get us to a balanced budget, and actually produce spending next year that is lower (fewer dollars spent) than this year. Fuck these fucking politicians - Democrats and Republicans - and their fucking double talk. Lying sacks of shit, almost every last one of the scum.