Watch America’s Money Evaporate

As the U.S. careens toward possible default, a TIME interactive shows its available funds nearly in real time

  • Share
  • Read Later

Update, Oct. 16, 2013, 4:45 p.m.: As of Tuesday evening, the government had $39.0 billion in cash. The text and interactive have been updated.


The federal government tracks its finances just like everyone else: with a bank account that records its assets, expenditures and (substantial) debts.

As the U.S. careens toward defaulting on its debt payments, one can watch the nation’s available funds evaporate nearly in real time. Every weekday afternoon, the Treasury Department issues a statement on how much cash the nation had in its account at the end of the previous business day. These statements include which bills the government paid that day and how much money came in — through taxes, federal programs that generate revenue and massive amounts of new borrowing (most of which goes directly toward paying down old borrowing).

Here, that information is arranged like a generic e-banking site. Click the day to view the balance and expenditures for any day back to the beginning of 2012.

As one can see, there is only $25 million left on the federal government’s credit card before it hits its current borrowing limit of $16,699,421,000,000 — a drop in the bucket. The U.S. had $39.0 billion in its account as of Tuesday evening, up about $4 billion from the Friday before thanks to a large deposit of federal taxes.

It is difficult to say exactly when this reserve will run out since new cash flows in every day. That amount may last a few days beyond the widely cited Oct. 17 deadline for a deal to raise the borrowing limit. But it won’t last long. America’s creditors never stop knocking.

Source: Treasury data via Treasury.io.

MORE: Rana Foroohar: Congress Is Bad for the Economy

97 comments
ThomasHall
ThomasHall

The GOP not the Democrats are responsible for the bulk of our National Debt which was less than $800 billion through Carter. Reagan tripled it with massive military/government spending and tax cuts. GHW Bush added to it with costly military invasions based upon lies and GW Bush more than DOUBLED it yet again. Notice the GOP only become deficit hawks when out of the White House.

Reagan raised the debt limit without fan fare 18 times, GHW Bush 9 times and GW Bush 7 times --all more than under Pres. Obama. It is the slimy GOP who use the economic health of the US as a bargaining chip in their political extortion. The GOP represent the worst in America and will drag down their selfish, greedy, dull, bigoted GOPeon supporters with them.

ThomasHall
ThomasHall

The GOP have deliberately sabotaged job growth and the economic health of America since Pres. Obama came into office facing a GOP financial fiasco from the deregulated banks and the GOP-Phil Gramm legislation that enabled the subprime mortgage bankster fraud that took down Wall and our economy. They formed a cabal from day one to block everything that teh President and Democrats proposed. The big turnout came despite GOP opposition--the successful TARP, the auto bailout, the ARRA that revived the economy despite the wrecked housing industry and created 7.5+ jobs. In comparison the Bush Great Recession took 9 million jobs on top of the five million jobs shipped overseas under Bush-Cheney along with hundreds of billions of lost tax revenues from GOP-enabled thousands of corporations with their offshore tax dodges. 

Nearly a million jobs have been lost because of the GOP obstructionism and crisis-to-crisis tactics, reduced economic growth and the manufactured GOP debt ceiling crisis of 2011 cost Americans trillions as frightened investors dropped the DOW 2,500 points and increased the debt interest by $18 billion. The current GOP shutdown has cost $22 billion+ and the GOP's sequester cuts have also cost 600,000+ jobs. In brief, the GOP are the job killers not creators, who hurt not help the country for their own narrow-minded, partisan political gains which have been insignificant to the havoc they have caused. The GOP have historically NEVER represented the working class whom they have exploited and abused.

drudown
drudown

Gee, this is just like watching the "paid-for-Media" 'cover' the United States housing market "decline" by conditioning the People to believe in fiction of a self-fulfilling prophecy when, in reality, the State could just raise taxes and function properly.

Pity the Tea Party's mandate is dictated by the will of Foreign Money.

I would be disgusted if I was still a republican. Honestly. The harm, the scare tactics, the self-inflicted wounds: what is it if not Foreign Money corruption?

"To know [Grover has] a secret is to know half the secret itself." - Harriet Beecher Stowe

OweFaver
OweFaver

America's money is evaporating anyways. They exported a large chunk of our manufacturing base (our wealth) to Asia and started printing fiat money to make up for it. The more they borrow and the more they print the, less the money we the people, have is worth. It may take 30 years or so but eventually it will be wroth nothing and we will be a third world country. Since it is happening slow and the American people are dumb, they can count on no uprsiing occuring as a rsult.

reallife
reallife

Pravda doing its job.  Keep it up!



reallife
reallife

OMG!  it's Armageddon!

LOL

BOBDobbs
BOBDobbs

Is everyone on here stupid????? Listen to yourselves.  How many of you can raise your credit limit on a Maxed out credit card.  Its not that anyone is wanting the Shutdown, all the attention is merely being focused on the fact that, we can't keep throwing IOU's in a mason Jar and expect the debt to be paid back when we find a Job (action is needed today)..... This garbage from the media is nauseating 

hidyboy
hidyboy

I hope my country could like this.

ThomasHall
ThomasHall

The GOP baggies, the dumbest of the GOP's "stupid party" are still trying to downplay the National Debt default possibilities and its impact. If it would not have a lasting negative impact upon the country, one might like a debt default that should put an end to the GOP and their baggies and the damage would be felt for years just as the GOP's deregulated Wall St. bankster fraud took down Wall St and our economy.

eqxander
eqxander

The title of this article is outrageously misleading.


America's money is not "evaporating" -- no one is sitting in a furnace shoveling it in. The money is going SOMEWHERE, mostly to other Americans.


That is a GOOD thing. What I'd like to see is how much of America's money goes to Americans, and how much of it goes overseas.


That a government spends money is what governments are designed to DO. They take care of what we as individuals can not. 


That cover an ENORMOUS territory. Just because we don't personally get a check in the mail doesn't mean there isn't some of that going to us or our loved ones. A lot of it is spent so we can run our humdrum daily lives in peace and security.

demockracy
demockracy

@ThomasHall

Even worse: http://rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/federal-budget-not-household-budget-here-s-why

So multi-trillion-dollar wars and financial bailouts (net $13 trillion says the Dallas Fed) don't invoke the "Heavens to Betsy! We're Fresh Out of Dollars!" lobby, but strangely enough social safety nets and revenue sharing for the states do.

This is part of the Republicans' explicitly stated "Two Santa Clauses" strategy to run up as much government "debt" as possible when in power, then to complain as bitterly as possible about it when out. They're nothing if not faithful to their playbook. See https://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0 or Jude Wanniski's Wikipedia entry.

Pretty heartless stuff, if you ask me.

humtake
humtake

@drudown Better to be a politician who makes some bad decisions than someone who blames all problems on the other side.

drudown
drudown

@OweFaver 

So what's your point with regards to the willful failure of the GOP Congress to raise revenue? 

demockracy
demockracy

@OweFaver There's just one problem with your inflation opining... It doesn't resemble anything here on planet earth. No indicator, not government's CPI, MIT's Billion-Price Index or even Shadowstats inflation index shows a surge of inflation. Yes, I know you may have paid more for a gallon of gas last week, but bond interest remains at record lows, real estate prices have barely crept back to parity, etc.

You also don't make any cost/benefit analysis. Does it cost more to keep inflation low, or make deflation? I know it favors the creditors, transferring wealth from debtors to them. But is it worth it? I'd say the Great Recession demonstrates it's not.

The export of labor / manufacturing to Asia (and elsewhere) was strictly labor and pollution arbitrage. The Germans have shown us it was not necessary...but then they don't have the CEO-level inequality we do. In fact the social democracies of Western Europe have higher median incomes, less income inequality and higher social mobility. Google "The Spirit Level" for more of the costs of inequality... We've got 'em in spades.


BOBDobbs
BOBDobbs

@OweFaver  Not many people on this site will agree with your statements, but I do.  The scary thing is that the government/regulators/people are chasing the tenants out of our society and gutting the foundations because they hate big business.  Its funny that success is despised but the 300,000 plus jobs it creates is overlooked.  No one ever forced you to buy an Ipad, Tennis shoe or computer.  Yet, people don't feel they deserve any compensation or money for their efforts

BobFromDistrict9
BobFromDistrict9

@BOBDobbs  

Action is needed today to feed hungry children, provide medical care to the sick. etc. 

This country has not had one year since it began when it was debt free, yet we managed to survive. The debt has not gone down since 1930, yet we managed to survive. The debt ceiling has been raised repeatedly with no actual problem except when the right wing saw a democrat in congress. 

Our credit card is not maxed out. The debt limit is not put there by our creditors, but by the very politicians who write the laws that spend the money. If you want to bring down the debt there is one thing that is absolutely necessary, and any attempt to do it without that one thing is doomed. It will do great harm.

That one thing is to bring unemployment back down under 5%. Real 5%, not the fake numbers they use now. 

drudown
drudown

@BOBDobbs 

Then why not RAISE revenue like the express language of Article I, Section 8 legally requires?

demockracy
demockracy

@BOBDobbs I don't know about everybody, but I can think of one commenter who qualifies.

See http://rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/federal-budget-not-household-budget-here-s-why

I'll believe government "debt" is like household debt when you can introduce me to a household that can (legally) literally create money out of thin air, or mint a few trillion-dollar coins and pay the entire "debt" tomorrow.

Government is not funded by taxes or borrowing. It MAKES the money. Besides, where would tax payers or lenders-to-government get the dollars to do those things if government didn't spend the dollars into the economy first?!

Government "debt" is FUNDAMENTALLY different from household debt, and all the cute, familiar analogies that would make it so are either lies or stupidity in action.


jmac
jmac

@BOBDobbs It takes money to pay the bills.   Duh.   Republicans believe in no taxes and incentives only to the 1%.    If we're so stupid, why don't you come up with a new way to pay the bills?  Do away completely with government?  Then move to a country that has no government.  

demockracy
demockracy

@ThomasHall Let's give the GOP its due. It lost all the elections, losing the presidency, and the Senate and losing the House by 1.5 million votes. Gerrymandering is the only reason they control the House.

But they have so cleverly framed the political discourse that a president whose signature legislative achievement is "Romneycare," a right-wing health care plan authored by the Heritage Foundation, is called a "Kenyan Socialist."

Obama has really provided us with the reign of Bush again, and in many ways worse. Heck, it was the White House who killed the "public option"!

So they may be stupid looking, but they're running the country, even after they lost the elections. Like I say, give them their due.

MaryAnnThayer
MaryAnnThayer

@ThomasHall actuallyl lthere is a law that will stop us from defaulting.  What a refusal to raise the debt limit actually does is force our leaders to learn to live within their budget.  That means you can'[t give what you don't have.  Printing money definitely degrades the worth of monley earned.  You don't need more of a lesson on that than that you could live on 2.25 an hour in the 1960's and pay your bills and now you can barely live on 12.00 an hour.


PatPerleberg
PatPerleberg

@eqxander  and they waste most of it...... print more money and eventually its worhlesss but i think this may be too complicated for most people to figure out...

DaleRuff
DaleRuff

@BOBDobbs @OweFaver , I think you are ignoring a fundamental reality of politics:   many industries have captured the govt agencies which regulate them through gifts, corruption, and lucrative future employment opportunities for govt officials who serve their interests.


It is hardly the case that this revolving door involves govt officials who "hate big business."


"The Center for Responsive Politics has created a database of the persons who work for the Congress or the Executive Branch, and then become lobbyists. http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/index.php, which is available from their excellent web page, OpenSecrets.org.


 What the CRP revolving door database shows is how extensive is the role of former government employees in running the lobbying operations for businesses. For example, 51 percent of the US Chamber, 65 perecent of PhRMA, 79 percent of Merck and Microsoft, 90 percent of Goldman Sachs and 94 percent of Vivendi lobbyists are former government employees."


When corporations use their power and wealth to capture government, we have the American version of fascism (which Mussolini defined as "the merging of the interests of the state and the corporations.").


To blame government, which has been seized by the corporatocracy, is to accuse the hijacked victim.  What we need is democratic government, without corporate fascism as the guiding priniciple.


Not only have corporations corrupted government with the revolving door, but in fact, the actual corporate leaders have become the actual political leaders.


Think of any regime, but the Bush administration illustrates best:  Bush and Rice were Big Oil, Cheney was Haliburton, Rumsfeld was Big Pharma, and Paulson was Goldman-Sachs.  There was more than a fascist merging.....there was a coup of the corporate elites to take over government.


Sadly, Obama has done little to change this de facto corporatist fascism.


Only when all corporate money (from campaign finance to the revolving door) is eliminated (as it once was, when it was a crime to give money or favors to a politician) will we leave corporate fascism behind and achieve a democratic government, which serves not the corporations but the people.  

BobFromDistrict9
BobFromDistrict9

@BOBDobbs @OweFaver  

Big business creates 300,000plus jobs? There are about 140,000,000 jobs in this country, and only 300,000+ are provided by big business? 

Uh, how many of those IPads, Tennis Shoes or computers were built in this country? 

demockracy
demockracy

@BobFromDistrict9 @BOBDobbs

Actually, Andy Jackson paid off the entire "debt" in 1835, so technically the U.S. has been "debt" free at least once. He also killed the central bank, so all you "kill the Fed" people pay attention.

Here's what happened next: The panic of 1837. In fact each and every time government has significantly reduced "debt" was followed by a Great-Depression-Sized downturn. The most recent time was the Clinton surplus. The time before that...1929.

Notice a pattern...?

Seriously, folks, read http://rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/federal-budget-not-household-budget-here-s-why

shobus01
shobus01

Are you sure that the U.S. has never had one debt free year?  How about a year where our assets were higher than our debts?

Reagent
Reagent

@demockracy @BOBDobbs  Governments can't make money, they can only take it or fake it. Money doesn't require any government to exist at all. In operation, money is simply a way to exchange (trade or barter) goods and services at a mutually agreed upon value. Money lets multi-level trades in a complex economy, where it's hard to find anyone who needs what you directly can offer, take place. 

I can't think of any government in the world that actually uses "money." By economic definition, money has value in and of itself. What the world runs on today is currency and a fiat currency at that ... paper bills that have no inherent value and are not backed by anything of value. Governments hate real money because they can't control its value. 

When the government increases the amount of currency in circulation at a rate more than productivity increases that invariably causes inflation, but it doesn't always show up right away. In reality it's just another tax because government gets to spend those uninflated dollars first. The next beneficiaries are the government contractors. By the time it gets around to the rest of us it just doesn't buy what it used to. The value has been stolen from us.

How it's all related to the government debt? If you double the dollar supply (which the Fed has been busily working on) then, in real value, your debt is magically cut in half. So in that sense you are correct. on the difference between household and government debt. But either way you want to look at it, the payments on the debt still come out of our pocketbooks. 

Raising the debt ceiling let's them "officially" borrow more money and they always do, every penny of it they can get. After all, spending "money" buys votes and he who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count upon Paul's support at the polls.

PatPerleberg
PatPerleberg

@jmac @BOBDobbs  subcontract out congress and the press its cheaper and we can fire them anytime so they will do a better job because teir job is on the line everyday...


BOBDobbs
BOBDobbs

@jmac @BOBDobbs  Wow... your argument is laughable.  So raising the debt limit is equivalent to paying bills with what exactly "IMAGINARY MONEY" (this is the whole argument).  I'm sure your getting your news from headlines on ABC.  The government can afford to pay the interest on its debts and remain open without increasing the ceiling.  It also would stand to do a better job  by structuring an actual budget, that they will adhere to, rather then just one that gets the votes.

I'm sure you think Obamacare will be a good thing for everyone despite the actual cost.  Just remember it was passed on the idea of 960 billion in costs where its current cost is 2.8 trillion plus.  Do the math or did they not teach addition at your college.  Are you happy with just taxing 45% of the country or do you feel everyone should pay a fair share.


I guess the real question is how do you spend your tax rebates?

drudown
drudown

@demockracy @ThomasHall

What you call "clever" the law deems Unconstitutional.

I. The Speaker, Senate and Individual Members of Congress Cannot Willfully Disregard The Law of Judicial Estoppel By Refusing To Honor Congress’ Plenary Power To Raise Revenue Pursuant to Article I, Section 8

The doctrine of judicial estoppel is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of preclusion of inconsistent positions as applied to any official proceedings [Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 181]; in order to maintain the integrity of the government, judicial estoppel precludes a party from gaining an advantage by taking one position, and then seeking a second advantage by taking an incompatible position in disputes involving the same set of operative facts. Id.; Scripps Clinic v. Superior Court (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 917, 943. Here, the Speaker (and GOP Congress) expressly asserts that Article I, Section 8's express language mandating Congress raise revenue for the People's "general WELFARE" is somehow "discretionary", despite the fact that the evidentiary record proves the same Speaker, Senate and Congress (or collectively: “Speaker”) have all repeatedly admitted, acknowledged and, indeed, required that the Congress pause and take formal notice of the absolute importance of a “strict construction” of the Social Contract in dispassionately discharging a wide range of government duties under the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, e.g., Judicial Confirmation hearings, et al. Nor can the Speaker cite to any “Rational Basis” that furthers a Legitimate State Interest in failing to perform the aforementioned requirements of his office, or the Congress doing theirs- not just the legal obligation to promulgate a Budget on an annual basis, but also the affirmative duty to engage in a robust debate over the cost/benefit of the State Action. To be sure, the undisputed fact that the Speaker and his brethren see the Filibuster device and other procedural rules as a means to affirmatively thwart the function of government is likewise probative evidence of Foreign Money corrupting the integrity of the political process and this “fast and loose” official conduct likewise implicates Judicial Estoppel. See, Id. (“judicial estoppel prevents agents or elected officials from obtaining an unfair advantage or take incompatible positions, particularly when doing so would result in a manifest injustice”). Can the self-evident Damage of the pre-meditated “shut down”- much less “default”- be a graver set of injustices to the People, Treasury holders, small businesses and proper stream of Commerce by capriciously disregarding official duties? This is nothing short of unlawful State Action on its face and the fact any “default” is void ab initio does not, by any means, “undo” or “ameliorate” the Speaker and Congress’ malfeasance described herein and elsewhere in greater detail.

Accordingly, the Speaker and Senate are estopped as a matter of law from refusing to immediately discharge (i.e., no later than October 15, 2013) their EXPRESS duty to meet the obligations required to maintain the Defense and GENERAL WELFARE by the express mandate of the Supreme Law of the Land: Article I, Section 8. However, the law Judicial Estoppel is hardly the only cause of action justifying remedial measures by the Executive branch. Here, the Speaker’s purposeful omission to perform his legal function operates to frustrate the very performance of the State under the Social Contract’s Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing- to say nothing of the Congressional rules of Ethical conduct, law of Fiduciary Duty and Duty of Loyalty to the People. What, this brief summary of applicable law is not “really” the rule of law if Foreign Money bribes the Tea Party to say so? In this regard, the fundamental precepts of Natural Law contained in the 10th Amendment and Due Process protections selectively incorporated into the 14th Amendment likewise require remedial action by the Executive branch. Tell me, how is the Speaker’s tortious and unprecedently disobedient omission to honor Article I, Section 8 not likewise actionable under civil law? Any cursory review of civil liability tends to show it is predicated on two “smoking guns” laying at the feet of the Speaker and his Lobbyist regime: in every instance of official malfeasance by a fiduciary, it can be predicated on a single act or conspiracy to act, if there is a duty to the individual, class or organization complaining, the observance of which would have averted or avoided the injury. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad (1928) 248 N.Y. 339, citing West Virginia Central & P.R. Co. v. State 96 Md. 652. It is no coincidence that the Treason complained of springs from the inextricable correlation of duty and foreseeability of harm. Id. The illimitable extent to which the “shut down” has harmed the State is dispositive on the issue of liability of the Speaker and, indeed, Congress itself. Pity the “paid-for” Media seems to believe the “poll numbers” or “market reaction today” are somehow probative to whether laws have been violated by the pre-meditated conspiracy to “shut down” the government by the Speaker, Grover Norquist and Foreign Money donors.

Res ipsa loquitur.

BobFromDistrict9
BobFromDistrict9

@MaryAnnThayer @ThomasHall  

Look at the inflation adjusted numbers. It's not just inflation, but suppression of wage increases. US average hourly wages peaked in the mid '70s, and have never been that high again. 

drudown
drudown

@MaryAnnThayer @ThomasHall 

More lies. You imply there is some "law" passed by Congress that supersedes the express language in Article I, Section 8.

HectorGH
HectorGH

@BobFromDistrict9 @BOBDobbs @OweFaver IPads, Tennis shoes and computers aren't built in the USA. but in China. Also, have you hever heard about robost being included in the manufacturing processes?

demockracy
demockracy

@Reagent

The trade / barter argument about money ignores a little thing we like to call "reality." None of the archaeology or sociology shows money originated enabling barter. On the contrary, it supplies the "scorekeeping" for IOUs, repayment for debt to the Gods, recompense for injured tribe members. Read David Graeber's Debt: The First 5,000 Years for the complete story here. 

The barter substitute / enabler stuff is strictly fairy tale, invented in the Renaissance, just FYI, not out of any examination of what actually happened, but just as, well...fairy tale.

And where are you getting your "economic definition" of money that has "value in and of itself"? Again, back on planet earth, Tom Hanks' character in Cast Away would find value neither in paper or gold money. Money only has value in the context of society. Period.

"When the government increases...currency...invariably causes inflation" ...again, except on planet earth. According to its audit, the Fed issued $16 - $29 trillion to cure the Ponzi capitalism of the financial sector (net $13 trillion, says the Dallas Fed) back in 2007-8. That's six years ago. Where's the inflation? (Yeah, I know it's inevitable...because shoes!)

Incidentally, the "debt" panic didn't occur when the financial sector needed bailouts, or when we were embarking on multi-trillion-dollar Middle East wars, but all of a sudden when social safety nets or revenue sharing is discussed... Whoops! We're out of dollars! (Sorry granny!)

But why no inflation from the multi-trillions spent on bailouts? Hint: paying off debts and bets doesn't demand goods and services, bidding up prices. So no inflation.

Question: Would that mean minting some trillion-dollar coins to extinguish government "debt" would not cause inflation?

Answer: Obviously not.

Theoretically, government spending could compete with the private sector, bidding up prices for goods and/or services, but who would government be competing against if it employed the unemployed workers and factories? Hint: No one. No inflation.

You apparently didn't read the link, or if you did, you didn't understand it. Government is the only fiscally unconstrained player in the economy. As a legacy of commodity-backed currency, when the Fed issues a dollar for Treasury to spend it simultaneously creates a dollar of "debt." That means the dollar financial assets out in the economy exactly equal the "debt." Reducing the "debt" means reducing people's dollar savings. That's not exotic economics, it's double-entry bookkeeping. See particularly the graph on this page: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/02/the-spinning-top-economy.html

I've got to admit, this dog's breakfast of right-wing talking points  which has grabbed your allegiance sounds awfully convincing, but it remains "other worldly" in the sense that it is strictly fairy tale. I know a lot of people are still waiting for prince / princess charming to make their sad and sorry lives better, but living in a fairy tale is, after all is said and done, not very satisfying.

I urge you to discard this load of ignorance and demonstrate you are not an automaton. Please change your mind. It'll help all of us, yourself included. You get no prize for being right, just misery.


BobFromDistrict9
BobFromDistrict9

@PatPerleberg @jmac @BOBDobbs  

They subcontracted out the security for the Benghazi legation to a private company, how well did that work. 

Under the rules of the WTO, we would have to let foreign companies bid for the subcontract deal. Just like the security in Benghazi. 

DaleRuff
DaleRuff

@Reagent @BobFromDistrict9 @BOBDobbs @jmac , th Heritage Foundation designed a plan (the alternative to th Clinton plan) based on a mandate and private insurance markets, which is the fundamental structure of the ACA.


The model for the ACA is Romneycare, which Romney said was "a model for the nation."   


The Republicans (and the Koch funded Heritage Foundation) only renounced their "alternative market based plan" after the Democrats adopted it.


Romney may be a RINO but so is every other former Republican President and candidate, based on the hijacking of the once progressive Republican Party by the big money of the far right (Adleson, Koch bros, etc).


Eisnhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and II all are RINOs.


That leaves................Joe McCarthy, Ted Cruz, Rand (I was against drones before I was for them) Paul???


Paul is anti-war; Cruz is pro war.  Will the REAL Republicans please stand up?  

DaleRuff
DaleRuff

@BOBDobbs @jmac , everyone pays taxes.  The richest 400 Americans pay at a lower rate (17 paid no taxes) than teachers and cops.  Romney paid 13%; I paid 25% plus payroll, plus property, plus sales, plus gas, plus, etc.


The rise in healthcare costs today is at the lowest point in many decades.  If we transform the ACA, state by state, to single payer, we will save over 500 billion a year in wasted private overhead, enough to fund subsidies so that all Americans can have healthcare coverage.


When Congress authorizes funds for a program (like the 220 billion in subsidies to mostly rich industries), it is obligated to pay it...and that means the debt ceiling should automatically be increased. When Congress uses the credit card, it is not only idiotic but actually unconstitutional to question whether the bill should be paid.


If you do not want to raise the debt ceiling,don't authorize the spending.

Note: spending originates in the House, which is currently controlled by the Republicans.  


Questioning the public debt (ie whether to pay it) violates the Constitution.  Are you suggesting we pay China and Japan but not the money owed to Social Security and Medicare (which have borrowed surpluses)?  Are you suggesting we pay our debts but cut funding to the poor, seniors who have paid in all their lives, the disabled, and the victims of offshoring of American jobs?


Are you suggesting that we destroy the world's faith in the US willingness to pay its bills?  I would suggest it would be better to 

end corporate subsidies than cut foodstamps from th needy,most of whom are children, poor seniors and the disabled, and the working poor and the unemployed?   The trouble with trickle down economics is the money doesn't trickle down, it trickles out of the country.  


Since Reaganomics, the rich have increased both income and wealth by nearly 300% while the median wage has declined over 33%.   The wealth created by labor just trickled up...and out, to the Cayman Islands, to investments in China, India, and other fast growing economies.


The real question is:  how extreme can inequality become before the economy collapses?.  We have answers:  1929 and 2007.

Today, as inequality continues to increase, we are preparing for another collapse, already begun in nations like Spain and Greece, where failed austerity has produced economic collapse and social conflict.  





Reagent
Reagent

@BobFromDistrict9 @BOBDobbs @jmac The difference between what the Heritage Foundation created and Obamacare are about as similar as spilling the oil pan from your car and the Exxon Valdiz spill. As to Romney, he's a RINO.

BobFromDistrict9
BobFromDistrict9

@BOBDobbs @jmac  

If Obamacare is so bad, why did the Heritage Foundation create the idea, the Republicans originally promote it, and Mitt Romney get it enacted in Massachusetts? 

drudown
drudown

@Reagent @drudown @demockracy @ThomasHall 

Ps. as for the absurd notion that the Executive branch is somehow "liable" in any way for the Legislative branch's willful refusal to perform express Constitutional duties? Again, I would respectfully submit that you review the binding law of the Several States before proffering more "subjective" interpretations with no nexus to reality. 

By way of pertinent analogy, the Legislative branch's position in this ongoing "debt ceiling" or threat to "shut down" the State is not unlike a Seller of a residential home deliberately thwarting the ability of the Purchaser to consummate the transaction despite the fact that, as here with the President, the Purchaser is ready, willing and able to perform by signing the Budget into law. When concurrent obligations must be performed in a timely manner, and one party's performance (Purchaser/President) is dependent upon the performance of the other (Seller/Congress), a Purchaser's failure to tender payment within the specified time frame does NOT give the Seller some self-perceived right to terminate the contract because of the attendant circumstances, i.e., the Seller's actions (or, as here, Congressional inaction) frustrated the Purchaser's ability to acquire financing and therefore consummate the deal as the contract requires. Ninety-Nive Investments, Ltd. v. Overseas Courier Service (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1118. ("Overseas")

As in the Overseas case, here Congress' conduct was the sole cause for the "shut down"- and there is no recognized "partisan privilege" under applicable law that somehow "entitles" the GOP leaders in Congress from unilaterally refusing to raise revenue per the express language of Article I, Section 8. There is nearly three months to do so and it simply a misstatement of every known Contract precept for you- much less those serving their constituents in Public office- to even imply that "the will of money donors" or Grover Norquist somehow supersedes the rule of law. 

It doesn't. That is why Contracts MUST be interpreted according to their plain meaning and express terms. Otherwise parties would simply refuse to perform or "change the terms" to their advantage when the Contractual risks were distributed much differently when the agreement was entered into. 

So, you are wrong, missy. Try again. 


drudown
drudown

@Reagent @drudown @demockracy @ThomasHall

So wrong? How my assertion that the express language requiring the Congress to RAISE REVENUE should be interpreted according to its plain meaning somehow legally "wrong"?

The law in the Several States clearly states that contractual terms will be enforced per their usual and ordinary meaning. [see, e.g., Lehman v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 109, 115 ("under plain meaning rule, courts give the words of the contract their usual and ordinary meaning")]. In other words, both California land the Several States’ aw clearly holds that any GOP official’s “subjective understanding” on the contractual language n Article I, Section 8 to the contrary is immaterial to proper construction of agreed-upon terms by our Founding Fathers, i.e., the exclusionary effect of the 'plain meaning rule' holds that parties' subjective intent and/or parol evidence may not be considered when acting in an Official capacity on behalf of the People. [see, Id. at 115-116; see also 3 A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts, Sections 535, 542 (rev. ed. 1960 & Supp. 1984)("plain meaning rule requires that the meaning of contractual language be determined solely by attaching the plain or usual meaning to words that appear clear and unambiguous on the face of an agreement"). Accordingly, despite the clear language to the contrary, the fact either you or the entire GOP Congress purportedly "understand" the express language requiring Congress to RAISE REVENUE for the People’s GENERAL WELFARE” to mean that (1) the Speaker can “exact concessions to the ACA” or (2) the Speaker can “exact concessions for Grover Norquist” does not, under applicable law, ameliorate the affirmative duty to perform the Social Contract the People actually entered into. 

Tell me, under what possible Contract Law precept would the Speaker purport to use Legislative Veto power to “defund” the ACA or, worse still, force the State to “shut down” – when the express language of Article I, Section 8’s plain meaning governs any subsequent interpretation? [see, TRB Investments, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (2006) 40 Cal.4th 19, 27; see also Cal. Civ. Code Section 1636; "A contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting"]. You simply want pay lip service to a “strict construction” on the Constitution as your Tea Party’s Admissions and unlawful conspiracies to “defund” the State clearly show actual malice towards the rule of law.

Prove me wrong. Enlist whatever proxy you like.

“Nimble thought can jump both land and sea.” – Shakespeare 



demockracy
demockracy

@drudown 

You make a compelling case, counselor, but mere constitutionality hasn't stopped us from killing people in the Middle East. Now it won't stop us from letting people die domestically.

"You can fool all of the people some of the time. Those are the ones to concentrate on." George W. Bush

Reagent
Reagent

@drudown @demockracy @ThomasHall Your conclusion is so wrong. 

By that legal reasoning it's the Senate that has refused to do its "duty." The House has passed many appropriation bills. It has done it's "duty." It's the Senate that has not been willing to work out a mutually acceptable compromise. Whether the president would also be liable is a finer point, since he has only said that he would veto any of those bills but has not actually done so since none have been sent to him.

You can't have it both ways.

drudown
drudown

@Reagent @drudown @MaryAnnThayer @ThomasHall

That is simply an unfounded, "subjective" observation that has no relevance to (1) my assertion that no law [e.g., the Debt Ceiling Act] passed by Congress supersedes or can purport to limit or obstruct the express language in Article I, Section 8 and/or (2) the binding, mandatory Contract law of the Several States.


Applicable law in the Several States clearly holds that contractual terms will be enforced per their usual and ordinary meaning. [see, e.g., Lehman v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 109, 115 ("under plain meaning rule, courts give the words of the contract their usual and ordinary meaning")]. In other words, both California and the Several States’ law clearly holds that neither your “subjective observation”, nor any GOP official’s “subjective understanding” on the contractual language n Article I, Section 8, has any relevance to proper construction of agreed-upon terms by our Founding Fathers, i.e., the exclusionary effect of the 'plain meaning rule' holds that no person’s “subjective” intent, “opinion” and/or parol evidence may be considered when acting in an Official capacity on behalf of the People if such State Action contravenes the plain meaning of Constitutional or statutory language. [see, Id. at 115-116; see also 3 A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts, Sections 535, 542 (rev. ed. 1960 & Supp. 1984)("plain meaning rule requires that the meaning of contractual language be determined solely by attaching the plain or usual meaning to words that appear clear and unambiguous on the face of an agreement"). 

Accordingly, despite the clear language to the contrary, the fact that either you- or the entire GOP Congress and/or its “conservative base”-  purportedly "understand" or “construe” the express language requiring Congress to RAISE REVENUE for the People’s GENERAL WELFARE” to mean something OTHER than what the plain meaning requires…is immaterial as a matter of law. As such, how can you credibly deny that the Several States’ Procedural Due Process laws do not, given these basic Contract law precepts, thereby preclude (1) the Speaker’s State Action attempting to “exact concessions for the ACA” and/or (2) “exact concessions for Grover Norquist or the Heritage Foundation”?

Despite the “paid for” Media’s propaganda message to the contrary, simply because Sen. Cruz purports to “represent the voters” by trying to effectuate a “default” because he “believes the government needs a lesson”, the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers works and is and does not, under applicable law, ameliorate the affirmative duty of Congress to perform the Social Contract the People actually entered into. To deny same by merely “citing the will of the base” would, of course, “sanction Jim Crow” over the 14th Amendment, as if, in the end, the real or imagined “will of the majority” or “will of the donors” somehow provides a pretext to subvert the Constitution, i.e., the Supreme Law of the Land.

Given the GOP purports to be “gearing up for round two”, under what possible Contract Law precept or statutory law would the Speaker purport to use Legislative Veto power to “defund” ANY law or, worse still, force the State to “shut down” – when the express language of Article I, Section 8’s plain meaning governs any subsequent interpretation? [see, TRB Investments, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (2006) 40 Cal.4th 19, 27; see also Cal. Civ. Code Section 1636; "A contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting"].

Listen here, voters.

The GOP simply wants pay lip service to a “strict construction” of the Constitution as its alter ego Tea Party’s Admissions and unlawful conspiracies to “defund” the State clearly show actual malice towards the rule of law.

 “Nimble thought can jump both land and sea.” – Shakespeare 

Reagent
Reagent

@drudown @MaryAnnThayer @ThomasHall Nothing in 1-8 requires how revenue and appropriations should be related. It simply lays out how bills for revenue and appropriations make their way through Congress.