Dean thinks Democrats will vote no on raising the debt ceiling.

[madfloridian]

On Sunday in an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Howard Dean said he thought the Democrats would vote no on the upcoming effort to raise the debt ceiling again. What do you think?

Here is the context of that statement from the CNN transcript.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/12/le.01.html

BLITZER: I've spoken to a lot of Democrats, and you speak to a lot more than I do. They are really sensing that they could win in this November, given all the problems the Republicans have had, the president, the White House, Katrina, Iraq, Scooter Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff, the vice president shooting his friend in the face in that hunting accident, the warrantless wiretaps, the Dubai ports deal.

So much negative stuff for the Republicans. If the Democrats don't take advantage of this, as one person said to me, there's going to be all hell to pay.

DEAN: Well, first of all, I'd prefer not to look at it as taking advantage of Republican weaknesses. After all, what's really at stake here is the future of the country. This country's become much weaker under President Bush, not just security and the outsourcing of our ports operations and all that, but the deficits. We're about to vote next week on a new debt ceiling. I think the Democrats are going to vote no. And thank God. Somebody has to be fiscally responsible in this country.

And the Republicans have lost the mantle of fiscal responsibility. Democrats are the only party in the last 40 years who have run a surplus under Bill Clinton. We've got to return us to the basics, return this country to the basics, where we're focused. You know, the president talks about homeland security. Well, homeland security means hometown security. And the Republicans have forgotten about ordinary people in the streets of America. "

What do you think? Will they vote no this time?

[Greeby]

1. Given the past record of taking their chairman's advice

probably not :eyes: At least not the outright DINOs anyway

Remember how he was saying before the hearings that Dems should vote against Alito, look how well that turned out

[jfkjunior2004]

6. This is a NO Brainer!!!

Any one with a clue on economic policies they know that all senators should vote NO. The real problems our country faces are at home (medicare, enviroment, and social security) the only way to fix these problems is to spend money and re-orginize Washington with common sense but that needs MONEY which our government doesnt have with a 8.2 Tr.$ deficit. Nothing good comes from deficits and we must realize that in this country and we need to elect true economic conservatives. Which our party should start grooming conservative economic policies and then we can be liberal with the surplus we have made from the partys willingness to wait for the monet to be there before we go hog wild with our budget. ALL SENATORS MUST VOTE NOOOOO!!!!!

[Bandit]

8. But according to Cheney "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"

Our National Debt is rising by over a hundred thousand dollars a second. Think what we could do if that money was being spent on the people of America....

[newyawker99]

11. Hi jfkjunior2004!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[LiberalEsto]

2. My expectations are pretty low

I'm fed up with the cowardly Dems in Congress. I'd be astonished if they worked together to vote no on the debt ceiling increase.

[corporate_mike]

20. Unfunded obligation of Social Security and Medicare is > $81 TRILLION

[demnan]

3. A Senate Democrat (besides Harken and Feingold)

standing up to the Republicans? Hell will freeze over first.

[Pirate Smile]

4. "Democrats are not going to vote to increase this debt," Reid said.

"Senate faces tough vote on raising debt limit

By Richard Cowan
Reuters
Friday, March 3, 2006; 1:01 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A nasty budget fight is brewing in Congress as Senate Democrats and some conservative Republicans said on Friday that they will not support efforts this month to increase U.S. borrowing authority, a move needed to avoid a government default.

-snip-
In a speech on the Senate floor, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid put all 55 Senate Republicans on notice that they "are going to have to belly up to the bar and vote to increase the debt," saying it was Republican budgets that have created the massive deficit spending requiring more federal borrowing.

"Democrats are not going to vote to increase this debt," Reid said.

-snip-
House Democrats also have warned that they would oppose a debt limit increase without also putting into place a plan to eventually balance a federal budget that could see a deficit of around $400 billion this year."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/03/AR2006030300952.html

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

5. Thanks Harry....I'll Believe It When I See It. nt

[madfloridian]

7. John Snow gives a warning on this.

http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-03-14T154424Z_01_N14336273_RTRIDST_0_ECONOMY-SNOW-DEBT-UPDATE-1.XML

WASHINGTON, March 14 (Reuters) - "U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow said on Tuesday Congress must act this week to raise the $8.18 trillion U.S. debt ceiling or risk losing the confidence of markets and investors.

"Timely action on the debt ceiling this week, before Congress leaves for recess, is critical to assure financial markets and investors that the integrity of the obligations of the United States will not be compromised, nor will even a risk of such compromise be countenanced," Snow said in remarks prepared for delivery to a conference organized by America's Community Bankers.

If the ceiling is not raised, Treasury would not be able to issue new debt.

The House of Representatives nearly a year ago passed a $781 billion increase in the debt ceiling. The Senate is set to weigh a similar measure."

What a nice man Snow is.
:think:

[adigal]

9. How about this?? We'll increase the debt when

Republicans agree to an investigation of Bush's wiretapping scandal??

[madfloridian]

10. That's a thought.

:hi:

[madfloridian]

12. When does the vote come up?

This week?

[magellan]

13. If Dean says he thinks they will vote no, they will vote no

I was chastised yesterday for not recognizing that Dean isn't allowed to speak for the party except on unified issues. My bad, but I understand now.

So expect a no vote from the Dems on raising the debt ceiling!

[madfloridian]

14. I was going to respond to you....

but as I said yesterday, it would do no good.

You seem not to understand what his letter about Feingold meant. You wrote a post that you were not going to support the party until Dean stood up and supported him.

He did, you are withholding money, so any words fall on deaf ears.

BTW, I am quite sure our Democrats will vote to raise the debt ceiling again.

[magellan]

15. Did you read any of my posts afterwards before writing this?

Cali told me Dean can only express the unified position of the Dems, that's why he isn't speaking about censure. I said I didn't realize that before and thanked her.

Now you're telling me the Dems are probably going to vote yes on raising the debt ceiling even though Dean has said he thinks they'll vote no -- well for crying out loud, is he only allowed to speak for the Dems when they're unified on a position or not?? Because I'm bloody tired of the inuendoes that I don't "understand" Dean's job when all I see are contradictions!

And for your information, I am actively contributing directly to Democratic candidates I like around the country. MY choice. Surely you can't be opposed to that, can you?

[madfloridian]

16. He expressed support for Feingold.

He has spoken out on the debt ceiling, just as he did on Feingold.

If you choose not to donate to the party, that is fine with me.

He can not control what the congress does at all. He is trying to be a leader on issues, sometimes speaking out about things ahead of time. But they usually pay no attention at all.

Money talks. The corporations have the money. Our Democrats are just about as beholden to them as Republicans.

Ah, there you have what Howard Dean is trying to do. He is trying to build a party of small donors using Democracy Bonds. Each person will have to decide what to do.

There are several progressive websites, and one that is NOT progressive, but right wing....working up people not to donate. Part of it is a desire for Dean to fail in his mission in building a party of smaller donors. Part of it is right wing meddling called astroturfing.

Each person needs to decide. If you don't want to support Democrats, then don't. But when post after post here advocates NOT supporting the party, a lot of people are noticing. The last two days are banner days here for that.

[magellan]

17. But he didn't express support for censure

And your posts have unintentionally confused me more than ever on Dean's job. (Please note I say 'unintentionally', I don't believe you're trying to confuse me!)

My gut is I had it right to begin with, and as you say: Dean sometimes speaks out in an effort to guide Dems in Congress, but they don't have to listen. Which is why I originally posted my disappointment over the fact that he hadn't specifically expressed support of Feingold's censure proposal while he was (rightfully) clobbering that nit Allard for calling Feingold a traitor. When I did that I was jumped all over for "not understanding" Dean's job, derided in a general sense for a lack of knowledge that allegedly exemplifies why the Dems lose, and finally told in no uncertain terms that Dean can only speak on unified party positions, and that's why he hadn't specifically mentioned censure...the implication being there is no unified Dem position on Bush**'s illegal authorization of domestic wiretapping.

Well it turns out maybe I do understand the parameters of Dean's job, and my disappointment is valid. Either that, or you and I are both wrong!

About supporting Dems -- I am. 100%. Through their campaign sites, after hearing about them here and having a look at what they themselves say on their site. I've donated more this way than I would have given to the DNC.

I also contributed to Feingold. I believe more of what he has is what the Dem Party needs: integrity matched with the courage to fly in the face of the Republicans for no more reason than because justice demands it. It isn't Dem-bashing to point out when our reps and leaders fail us by putting their own careers before this country. In my case, I put my loyalty to my country and its laws before any party, and I like that Feingold does that too.

I'm a liberal Independent who has faithfully voted Democratic since '92. I recognize that we have a two-party (kinda) system and my energies are best spent here. But I have to admit I find the "toe the line or shut up" mentality that some have off-putting.

That's where I'm at. I sincerely hopes it helps clarify where I'm coming from.

[madfloridian]

19. I think that most likely...it was the fact so many posts were here lately.

I started trying to keep track of all the posts here saying they had a call from the party and said no, or posts calling for Democrats to speak out or they were gone. I kept a list in my Edit Pad program, but it depressed me so I did not bother and deleted.

Many like you are probably sincere. However there is an organized effort going on to hurt the rebuilding of the party. It was pretty openly stated here a few times. A couple in some groups are moving away from this idea, but some are not.

I would say most likely it was that there have been so many of these posts. I really need to stop defending the DNC at a Democratic forum because I get too upset.

There has to be organization, if not we all kind of flounder...doing what each of us likes to do not worrying about the rest. I support the DNC because of the Democracy Bond program, an attempt to make a place in the party for us.

I believe Medicare and Social Security are in great danger from being phased out, perhaps totally destroyed altogether. Many of our Democrats are for privatizing it, and that leads often to no oversight.

Thus I believe the only hope we have of changing things back from the corporate nature of the party is to support the DNC with monthly payments. If you want to do it your way, that is what you need to do.
But alone and without organization, there is no power to stop them from taking away the social programs.

[magellan]

22. MF, I get you, totally

Sorry for not replying earlier, I had work to do and dogs to walk, lol. But I've read your post a couple of times now, and I completely get what you're saying. And I feel how bummed you are.

I think perhaps people are just so steamed by now at what the Republicans have managed to destroy (both literally and figuratively) in the last 5 years, and in some cases with Dem help, and without seeing a change for the better from most of the Dem leadership, they are frustrated. I know I sure am. It appears to me, from my complete layman point of view and with only the political insight I've gained from the internet since 2000, that in some cases parts of the Dem leadership are even working against us. So I can't really blame anyone for striking out on their own at this point.

However, I'm not one of those who encourages leaving or dumping the Dems. (I saw the sign and it said DO NOT! :)) And even if I could I wouldn't because I still think the Democratic Party represents the only near-term chance we have of a strong opposition party. It just needs a lot of work at this stage. And that puts people off, no doubt. I know it's counter-intuitive. But there's only so long you can say 'change it from within' before people get tired of seeing no result and start looking for more productive ways to spend their money and time.

I'm partly hypothesizing and partly drawing from what I feel here when I say the above.

As for contributions, personally I just don't trust any big political organization with my money. Never have. I'd rather send it to a specific candidate I've chosen than send it off and not ever know who it was used for. That's just me. I have supported the DNC in the past, but after the election fraud whitewash from them last year I got really turned off. I'm not opposed to Dean at all; I would have happily voted for him had he got the nomination. Probably more happily than I did for Kerry.

Please do me a favor. I would like it very much if you could explain the DNC to me. Just give me the outline of what you know. I'd prefer it was someone pleasant like yourself than the people who have been screeching at me lately.

Sell it to me, baby. Tell me why I should put my money in the DNC, and what happens to it.

[Coexist]

18. He was right! No Democrats voted for this:

http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-03-16T165603Z_01_N16206950_RTRIDST_0_ECONOMY-TREASURY-LIMIT-UPDATE-1.XML

"No Democrats voted for raising the debt limit, leaving Republicans with casting the politically-difficult vote in favor of increased borrowing.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said the rapid run-up in U.S. debt since 2002 was because of the "reckless fiscal policies of this president" and because of a Republican-controlled Congress that he said is a "rubber stamp" of Bush's initiatives."

[blm]

21. I think Dean called it right - Dems ARE more fiscally aware as a national

security issue, too.

Here's Kerry's statement:


Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, about 16 months ago, we debated an $800 billion increase in the debt limit. At the time, this was the Bush administration's third request to increase the debt limit for a grand total of $2.2 trillion. During this debate, I discussed how in less than four-years, a 20-year $5.6 trillion budget surplus was turned into a $2.4 trillion deficit. I thought at the time the fiscal outlook could not get much worse and the budget situation would have to improve.

Unfortunately, I was wrong. Since the last debate on increasing the debt ceiling, the administration has not submitted budgets that would put us on a path towards deficit reduction. As part of last year's budget resolution, Congress passed legislation that would reduce spending by almost $40 billion. Many of these cuts will impact those that have the least. Now Congress is in the process of wrapping up a $70 billion tax bill. When you combine the spending and the tax bill, the numbers do not add up to put us on a path towards deficit reduction. The combined total increases the deficit and increases the debt.

The Bush administration's budget for fiscal year 2007 includes more of the same and the fiscal situation even gets worse. The administration estimates that the deficit for 2006 will be $423 billion, the largest in history. The projected surplus of $5.6 trillion that this administration inherited will now turn into a $3.3 trillion deficit, a reversal of $8.9 trillion.

The repeated pattern of deficits and irresponsible budgets necessitate another increase in the debt limit. Today we have before us an increase of $781 billion, which will bring the total to $3 trillion under this administration's watch. If the President's budget is adopted, the debt is expected to reach $8.6 trillion at the end of this year. Under this budget, with alternative minimum tax reform and ongoing war costs added in, the debt will explode to $12 trillion by 2011.

We cannot continue on this unsustainable path. Yesterday, Senator Conrad offered an amendment to the budget resolution to restore the original pay-as-you-go-rule that led us on a path to a balanced budget, projected surpluses, and expectations of paying down the debt. These pay-go rules simply require new mandatory spending and new tax cuts to be offset. The current pay-go rule has a glaring loophole. Tax and spending increases that are provided in the budget resolution are exempted. This rule does not promote fiscal responsibility. A prime example of this is the tax and spending reconciliation instructions included in last year's budget resolution. These bills will increase the deficit by $30 billion.

Repeatedly, efforts to restore pay-go have been defeated and these efforts were defeated once again yesterday. In the context of today's debate, I do not know how anyone could oppose an amendment to restore these rules. Without strong pay-go rules, we will be back here in a year debating another increase in the debt limit.

We have a fundamental obligation to restore fiscal responsibility rather than merely voting to raise the debt limit as if there was an endless credit card at the expense of the American people. Americans struggle every day to balance their own budgets. Across this country, I have heard how families struggle to keep up with the rising costs of health care, tuition, and gasoline. Median household income has declined by $1,669 or 3.6 percent after inflation. Americans are sitting around their kitchen tables trying to figure out how to pay their bills. They do not have a magic credit card with no limit. Congress should play by the same rules.

We need to be responsible and think about future generations. We made tough choices during the 1990s in order to dig ourselves out of a hole, and now we are back in an even deeper hole. We need to face the consequences. The interest payments on the debt alone are


staggering and depriving of us choices that we need to make for the long term investment of our country. This debt will affect our children and grandchildren. Each individual's share of the public debt is over $16,000 and a family of four's share is a staggering $64,533.

The interest on the debt for this year alone is over $220 billion and according to the administration's budget it will grow to $322 billion in 2011. Just think of how this money could be put to better use. It could be used to help uninsured Americans with the rising cost of health care. We cannot afford expensive interest payments and ever-increasing debt with the retirement of the baby boomers on the horizon.

Not only is the amount of debt a problem, I am also concerned about the amount of debt that is foreign held, almost $2.2 trillion. Japan holds the most, $685 billion. China holds $258 billion. Even the Caribbean banking centers hold $111 billion. Over 51 percent of the public debt is held by foreign investors.

Sixty percent of the foreign debt is held by official foreign investors. It is dangerous for our Government and our standard of living to be dependent on foreign capital. If foreign investors decided to stop financing our borrowing habits, it could have a spiraling impact on our economy. If those investors began to withdraw their capital, our financial markets would plummet and interest rates would climb. This would filter down to American families. Homes, education, and cars would become more expensive.

Debt is more than a financial liability it--weakens our security, our diplomacy, and our trade policy. The negligence of our borrow and spend policies leaves us vulnerable to the priorities of foreign creditors. How do you go to a country that holds so much of your debt while your economy is closely linked to theirs and make an argument about nuclear proliferation, human rights, democratization, or other issues that are of importance and great consequence to our country?

We need to make economic opportunity and fiscal responsibility a common goal. We need to live by rules that give the debt limit meaning. I will not support a borrow and spend economic policy that has no limits. There are better alternatives.