Democrats To Seek Stunning $1.9 Trillion Increase In Debt Ceiling To $14.3 Trillion

Tyler Durden's picture

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Assetman's picture

That's pretty close to 100% of GDP.

I'm surprised they disclosed it, considering it's probably not an "accurate representation".

LOL.  I just had to laugh at that.

 

WaterWings's picture

It's unreal. They didn't wait for a terrorist attack - it is a terror attack!

They figured the proles were going to pick a fight months ago - so either they are trying provoke a response from the USA corpse...or are they hoping sovereign creditors don't call their bluff?

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

+11

Their Dec 25 plot failed.  What happens when you hire a dupe patsy.  They continue onward as planned.

Don Smith's picture

<foil> Who says it failed?  Seems like a great success - terror attack foiled in mid-attempt, real enough to scare people, but didn't have to kill any Americans... </foil>

I'm not a truther, nor do I think "we're" behind these attacks, but if we were, this would seem to be a great way to do it.  Gets another country in the Axis (Yemen), renews the threat, gives the TSA something else to hassle us about, allows the corporations who make body scanning equipment a shot at a juicy federal contract (did they give to Obama?), and otherwise allows the drums of war (not War, but war, since War requires a Congressional Declaration, and we can't have one of THOSE) to keep beating...

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Who says they do not like to kill Americans? 

Clinteastwood's picture

love ya Don right on keep the mind clear

Clinteastwood's picture

love ya Don right on keep the mind clear

Anonymous's picture

the recent airplane bomber attempt to me, was a staged event by this crooked administration to do exactly what Don describes. I mean, if he went into the lavatory to put the bomb together why no blow it up in the lav, instead of walking back to your seat to do it? A hole in an airplane 10000 feet up, is gonna send the plane down, no matter where you put the hole.

Second, how many terrorists do you know just spill their guts outright when they are captured? I mean within hours they claim this guy is from Yemen working for Al-Qaida blah blah blah. Yea right.

Third, keep the people in fear!! This was the Bush admin policy for years to dupe people behind their backs while they are terrified. It has to stop.

Hephasteus's picture

This reminds me of the video game Daggerfall. It has an enchanment system in it and fur thongs. So I made an enchanted thong of stinking cloud and called it Dirty Underwear.

My guess is the little insignificant people keep fucking up thier plan to create a monster unbeatable foe that requires power out the wazoo to even THINK about fighting it. When all it takes is a few ORDINARY FUCKING PEOPLE paying attention.

Be right back. Gotta go visit yahoo muslim chat and act civilly so that in case I ever get pissed off and kill people they can say I met with powerful muslim clerics all the time.

Let them all fail's picture

Laugh?  Maybe at the stupidity of our democratic representatives who I vote for (I still simply because the other options are even worse), but puking is more the reaction that I found myself contemplating as I read this post.  Is our government fucking insane?  Oh, right....nevermind.  Its like a trust fund kid with a no-limit credit card, absolutely reprehensible, it's like they are so out of touch with reality that they think they are immune to taking this country into its downfall.....sick.....

Anyone want to start a new third party with me?  Everyone hates the Dems and Republicans, now is the time!!

Anonymous's picture

There are plenty of third parties, but not enough people to back them. The only reasonable way out seems to be "an anti-corruption party to unify Americans who want a cleaner government..." http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/csarchive

I've no affiliation with the site, but he nails this one.

Master Bates's picture

I think that many third parties are too hardline for people to support them.

I love the Libertarian party, but they take the stance that the government should do pretty much nothing.  Of course, the government is necessary for some things and some regulations are necessary.  Yet, they do not compromise their positions enough to make them viable in the mainstream.

Assetman's picture

Perhaps they should.

I think it's a little silly to not compromise their "pure" positions, because doing so undermines their relevancy.  It's more than silly... it's idiotic.

Given our political system's flirtation with facism and totalitarianism over the last decade, the Libertarians could provide a very compelling alternative message if they were more moderate and pragmatic on what are essential government functions.

SWRichmond's picture

the Libertarians could provide a very compelling alternative message if they were more moderate and pragmatic on what are essential government functions.

So the libertarians could be viable if they compromised their principles?

What are the extreme (as opposed to moderate) and unworkable (as opposed to pragmatic) positions they take wrt what the government should be doing?

  1. Government should be protecting my rights, not trampling on them.
  2. Government should be protecting my property, not stealing from me.
  3. Government intervention is a last resort, not a first choice.
  4. War is a last resort, not a first choice.

Damned extremists!  If they weren't so "idiotic" they'd learn to compromise their rights, property, economic freedom, and the lives of their children much more readily.

Assetman's picture

Read my post again, SW.  Try to comprehend what I'm saying.  Where in God's Green Earth did I say ANYTHING about Libertarians compromising their core principles????

The focus here is on "essential goverment functions".  Since you are looking for an example, I'll give you one-- unemployment insurance.  An extreme position for a Libertarian to take on Unemployment Insurance is that it isn't the role of goverment to provide safety nets to those who are out of work and can't find work.  The pragmatic and more moderate response to that is, sure that may well be the case, but social stability and order is maintained when you have programs that have the ability to keep your population clothed and fed during the bad times.

I don't think any candidate-- no matter which party-- would win many votes if they had a campaign slogan of "I'm Mr. XXX and I want to take your unemployment insurance away".  A weaker case could be made for a program like Medicare, but I'm overdosed on the subject to even discuss.

Again, I'm not discussing "core principles", but Libertarians need to make clear what government is committed to do for their constituencies.  For many, especially those who are dependent on government assistance... it will never be enough.

SWRichmond's picture

Read mine again, and try to comprehend what I'm saying.  Unemployment insurance, paid by taxpayers (as is everything) is stealing from me to give money to other people.   This IS a core principle.  Unmployment insurance makes theft an essential government function.  Clearly, you know nothing of libertarians or what they really believe, so maybe you shouldn't deign to tell them what they should or shouldn't do.

The pragmatic and more moderate response to that is, sure that may well be the case, but social stability and order is maintained when you have programs that have the ability to keep your population clothed and fed during the bad times.

That statement advocates libertarians compromising their core principles.  Providing a safety net encourages the use of the safety net, and over time actually robs people of their will to be self-sufficient.  Why save money for bad times when the government will step in and provide for me if I lose my job?  No savings = no capital = borrow from those silly foreigners who actually save against bad times.  Voila!  You call it "pragmatism", but it is abandonment of a core belief.  The fact that you don't know it is a core principle is very revealing.

Assetman's picture

Read mine again, and try to comprehend what I'm saying.  Unemployment insurance, paid by taxpayers (as is everything) is stealing from me to give money to other people.   This IS a core principle.  Unmployment insurance makes theft an essential government function.  Clearly, you know nothing of libertarians or what they really believe, so maybe you shouldn't deign to tell them what they should or shouldn't do.

I know very well what extreme libertarians believe, which makes me that much more confident of their irrelevancy.  You really made my point for me.  I encourage you to run for office following such core beliefs.  That fact that you don't realize how un-electable your party really is, well... is equally revealing.

SWRichmond's picture

Once the principle is admitted that I have a legally-enforceable duty to my fellow man, not merely a moral obligation, the rest of my liberty is up for grabs, and has in fact been grabbed as is plainly evident.  All that remains is a bidding war by others and with each other for control of the things I produce.  How so many can tolerate this in America, even advocate it, is completely beyond my comprehension. 

By advocating this system you advocate dependency for all.  Either we are genuinely free, or we are not.  These ideas seem "extreme" to you because they are so different from what you've been taught to believe.  If everyone is responsible, no one is responsible.  Continue to vote R and see what you get.  Continue to vote D and see what you get.  Vote for the party of war, or the party of more war.  Vote for the party of taxes, or for the party of more taxes.  Vote for the party of bailouts, or for the party of bailouts.  Unemployment insurance is a bailout, isn't it?  I oppose bailouts, period.  I advocate personal responsibility; personal responsibility requires thinking long term.  Is the government thinking long term?  Is business thinking long term?  Are the voters?  Why or why not? 

I know very well what extreme libertarians believe,

So, do you advocate some kind of "genuine liberty-light"?  What's your plan?

Since the habit of patterned thinking has already been established in you, even if you do `revolt' it is within the pattern. It is like prisoners revolting in order to have better food, more conveniences - but always within the prison. - J. Krishnamurti

Assetman's picture

Don't get me wrong, I really do admire that you take such a strong stand on your principles.  I actually think it's refreshing to hear such thinking, despite our differences in opinion.

The reality is we are living in a system that is far from being "genuinely free".  On the other hand, name me one society on this earth that enjoys the genuine freedoms you seek.  I'm afraid you may find that search frustratingly futile.

I advocate placing people in power who believe as you do-- but who also recognize that the political structure for what it currently is.  The key for your party is getting people elected.  If that means working within the political system and making gradual changes-- so be it.  If it means getting elected under the Republican party ticket-- so be it.  If it means having to accept several years of "genuine liberty light", so be it. 

The reality is that over half of the population is dependent on government services in one form or another.  You will not win over a majority of the population overnight with an extremist agenda.

In order to break the habit of patterned thinking, sometimes you have to work within the prision while finding other means to get to your objectives.  It's like getting prisoners to revolt for better food-- while you're digging an escape route to get everyone out of the prision while the revolt takes place.  Sometimes you have to do it day by day, brick by brick.  -- The Assetman.

SWRichmond's picture

A system that is a monopoly on the use of force will always be corrupt; there is no other possibility, given imperfect humans.  The great objective, then, is simple: minimize the size of government, limit it to protecting us from force and fraud, and in so doing minimize the impact of corruption in one's life while maximizing personal liberty.

I am already working, trying to get out of the prison constructed for me by others, and in which others, using their "democratic" power, insist I remain.  I have read that some prominent libertarians believe that the system cannot be reformed, but must instead collapse of its own weight to demonstrate to all that command economies do not work, and that only then can a Constitutional society be built.  Those libertarians are probably correct.

Here in Virginia, and elsewhere, libertarian-thinking "conservatives" have been thrown out of republican gatherings.  They, like you, are happy to have us pulling in the direction of greater economic freedom, but they are (perhaps unlike you) unwilling to embrace the things that genuine liberty mean.  Genuine liberty means we don't care who marries who (as long as they're consenting adults), what substances you choose to ingest (as long as you're a consenting adult and can be held completely responsibility for your actions while under their influence, and have no legally enforceable claim on anyone else when you're lying in the gutter), etc.

The reality is that over half of the population is dependent on government services in one form or another.

As far as I know this is correct, especially when you add in bloated government bureacracies employing tens of thousands of self-important worker drones in useless make-work jobs at inflated salaries; it is the reason why I believe hyperinflation is inevitable.  There is no chance of a political majority emerging that advocates fiscal restraint.

WaterWings's picture

If one were to read The Constitution, believe it to need only gradual, reasonable tuning according to the will of the People, but within the strict limits, checks, and balances inherent to the document, then you are a Libertarian.

If you tend to like to justify warmongering and big business as reasons to overstep constitutional limits you would likely call yourself a Republican.

If you tend to like to justify socialism and big business as reasons to overstep constitutional limits you would likely call yourself a Democrat.

With the advent of O, the lines between the two parties have become so blurred that I would have voted for a Democrat if it had been Ron Paul - who cares what ticket he has to run on to get the attention of braindead Americans anyway. At what point do we "reset"?

Assetman, at what point do we realize this parasitic government is killing its host? To imagine change through the Ballot box is delusional.

Anonymous's picture

"make clear what government is committed to do for their constituencies. For many, especially those who are dependent on government assistance... it will never be enough"

Getting out of the way is what would be most helpful. Government looks for opportunities to tax and regulate everything that moves. They have no idea what they are doing and the unintended consequences.

They have trained half of the country to be "dependent" on government assistance. That is how they get votes and get voters to want more government -- which they gladly supply.

Assetman's picture

You make some good points here, and I really don't disagree with you.

But you hit upon the ultimate paradox of libertarianism in modern politics.  Because our political system over time has been trained on the dependence for goverment assistance, libertarians have to approach "getting out of the way" with care.

The simple fact of the matter is that an exteme libertarian who tries to convey a "cold turkey" message of taking out goverment's role in everything IS NOT ELECTABLE.

But again, I appreciate the thoughtful insight.

 

WaterWings's picture

Dr. Paul says to his new patient: "My God! I have never seen so much gangrene except for descriptions in ancient medical books! Which doctors have you seen before finally coming to me?"

Patient: "Well, they weren't really doctors. They were my Democrat representatives that promised me all the pain medication I needed and my family would always be fed."

Dr. Paul: "We must amputate immediately to save your life!"

Shocked relative of Patient: "Have you no compassion! How dare you tell her exactly what needs to be done to save her life!"

Dr. Paul: "Well, it won't be easy, but you just might make it."

Patient: "I want my representatives back!"

Daedal's picture

I love the Libertarian party, but they take the stance that the government should do pretty much nothing.  Of course, the government is necessary for some things and some regulations are necessary.  Yet, they do not compromise their positions enough to make them viable in the mainstream.

Say what now? Libertarian stance is that government does not interfere between market participants and their contractual obligations to each other. This doesn't mean "government does nothing".

Libertarians still maintain that government ought to exist to enforce contractual obligations and protect market participants from each other (punish/imprison you/Madoff if you steal for me, for instance).

Instead, our current government actively manipulates market forces. Arbitrarily favors some participants over others, allows and encourages violations contractual obligations, sets up 'regulations' that cause further distortions and moral hazards with risks being taken on by the general public instead of the party that ought to be the bearer of risk, etc.

Mainstream political theory is so insane (repeatedly stomping the Constitution with each action) that the sanity and adherence to the consitution that is offered by Libertarianism is treated as unrealistically fringe. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

Anonymous's picture

+1

The constant equation of Libertarianism with Anarchism has been a pervavise and deliberate misrepresentation, pushed largely by people who couldn't wipe their own ass unless the government provided them with a roll of toilet paper and an instruction manual.

Assetman's picture

Okay folks... though eloquent in your commentary, name me one Libertarian who could be elected today, based on the principles you hold so dear.

Conservative/liberal candidates that park their asses behind the DNC/RNC structure compromise their principles on a daily basis.  Why?  Because the overriding goal is to GET ELECTED.  In reality, there are very few "pure" liberals or "pure" conservatives.

I love Ann Rynd just as much as the next Libertarian, but give me a freaking break.  If you want to remain irrelevant, go right ahead.

Daedal's picture

Okay folks... though eloquent in your commentary, name me one Libertarian who could be elected today, based on the principles you hold so dear.

If you want to discuss why Libertarians can't get elected, let's do so. They can't primarily for 2 reasons, though really it's one reason. And that is, our 2 party system is set up to prevent any third party from winning. The obstacles that are levied against third parties just to get on the ballot are obsene and far more stringent than for the 2 parties that dominate.

The second reason is an extention of the first. And that is the misinformation that is perpetuated about Libertarians, lead by the mainstream media, is similar to the original comment about "libertarians being far too radical' mentioned above.

The only reason Ron Paul got as far as he did was b/c he ran under Republican banner. Third parties can't even participate in most of the debates, and when they do, their air time is zilch.

This is also a testament that voters look at labels without even diving into the content of the person's agenda. Real change will come about when a third party is elected, whether that person is elected as a third party or manages to sneak into office under one of the 2 main political jerseys.

 

Assetman's picture

Fair enough... you make some relevant points about significant advantages of the two party apparatus.  And I do agree that national scene makes it almost imposssible for 3rd parties the make much of a dent.

But back the to original question.  There are 3rd party candidates that win at the local and state levels, though they are still uphill battles.  Still, you see a Socialist now and again grab a seat in Verrmont or Wisconsin, for example.

Where are the Libertarians?  Perhaps you answered that with the Ron Paul reference.  Anymore likely to infiltrate the Republican Party?

BTW, I consider what Ron Paul has done is the definiton of pragmatic.  Other Libertarians who have political aspirations may want to pick this guy's brain for a few hours.

Daedal's picture

Where are the Libertarians?

I think you answered that question with:

 "Still, you see a Socialist now and again grab a seat in Vermont or Wisconsin, for example."

If we look at the overall picture of American politics the person the populace votes for, or against, hinges on one basic contention: "What will I get?"

Socialists simply promise more of what Democrats promise; gifts of material goods and services. The Republican Party is just known for 'tax breaks for rich' and supporting a 'christian base' while equivocating on the same issues Democrats promote; carbon taxes, social welfare programs, etc.

Don't forget, Bush, McCain, and Obama all supported the bailouts, the stimulus packages, and various interventionist policies that promised people "jobs", "health care", "preservation of house values", "economic growth", etc.

While none of that ever works out, people like the idea of someone taking care of them, so they vote on promises of "higher wages" and "better standards of living" even though Government can only achieve the exact opposite.

Libertarians represent a government that will promote an environment where people can help themselves, instead of one that favors certain groups of people over others -- which is what Democrats and Republicans inevitably do.

There are 3 primary reasons why people don't vote Libertarian:

1) Because they refuse to take responsibility for their own life. 

2) A large amount of people are guided by game theory, which dictates that since 3rd party has a minimal chance of winning, then vote for the "lesser of 2 evils."

3) They prefer to vote for someone who promises them gifts upon being elected.

Clinteastwood's picture

Take down the Democratic Party.  Or, take down the Republican Party.  It doesn't matter which one, just take down one or the other.  The ensuing power vacuum will allow power for us independents. The remaining party will implode. Then we'll live in peace minus the demagogues.

Gold...Bitches's picture

and then everyone gets a pony?

 

The names will change, but the game will still be the game

Tahoe's picture

Crank uo QE201000000000 ..... simply amazing.

Tahoe's picture

Crank up QE201000000000 ..... simply amazing.

Unscarred's picture

Well, if yesterday did not seal the Democrats' fate ahead of the mid-term election, this proposal, if passed, certainly should.

One certain can hope, but we've seen where hope gets us.

Cheeky Bastard's picture

Fucking A; another win for this administration .... Goddammit, the USA will burn through its "money" more quickly than Mike Tyson ...

Steak's picture

Its not a win until it passes.  And if the debt ceiling is not raised by the time the President releases his budget things will get pretty hairy.

ps: CB, tell the scantily clad ladies i say "wassup ladies"

DaveyJones's picture

if they were only as intelligent as Tyson

callistenes's picture

We've missed ya Cheeky.

Glad you back for the endgame.

Rainman's picture

This is like the used car selling for $ 9,999 .

They have no balls. Make it an even $ 2 trillion .

drbill's picture

Agreed, why did they pick a number like 1.9? Maybe they just wanted to keep it under 2?

Assetman's picture

Oh... it's even more clever than that, mr. bill.

When you add the almost $300 billion that was added to the celiling at the very last minute in 2009, the total actualy come out to $2.2 trillion.

Which is really not a bad number, given that its a multiple of eleven.

drbill's picture

That's Dr. Bill... ;-)

David449420's picture

Mr Hand supports you, DR Bill.  Come right this way.

 

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

+11

I wonder can they get the cieling to $3.3 trill by the next election?  haha.

Hephasteus's picture

I think they should shoot for 3.5 trillion. The loch ness monster is going to need about tree fiddy next year.