Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, October 28, 2016

At a press conference on Thursday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) made it clear to Speaker of the House John Boehner that the ball is in his court when it comes to raising the debt ceiling.

If Boehner and House Republicans bring a clean debt limit bill to the House floor, Pelosi said, “We will provide a huge number of votes.”

She then made her case that a government shutdown and a potential U.S. default on loans would be disastrous.

“Shutting down the government is one bad thing,” she said. “Not raising the debt limit is unleashing a torrent, a river of no return.” This is a real threat, she argues, because of radical House Republicans. “Republicans are determined to hold the full faith and credit of the United States hostage to their radical demands,” said Pelosi, warning, “This poses a cataclysmic danger to the stability of our markets and the economic security of our middle class.”

Paradoxically, Speaker Boehner’s spokesman, Brendan Buck, insisted that it is not the intention of House Republicans to force a default on U.S. debt payments. “No one is threatening to default,” said Buck. “The president only uses these scare tactics to avoid having to show the courage needed to deal with our debt crisis. Every major deficit deal in the last 30 years has been tied to a debt limit increase, and this time should be no different.”

It will soon be clear if House Republicans will use the debt limit to “extort” President Obama and try to defund Obamacare, or if that is indeed not what they are threatening. As Pelosi made clear today, if Boehner truly wants to avoid default, he could pass a clean debt limit raise today.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 The National Memo
  • howa4x

    Funny we are only raising the debt limit to cover the bills that congress already spent. Most don’t remember or even realize that Afghanistan and Iraq were fought on a credit card, issued by China to the Bush administration, and they ran up a huge bill. The Bailout of the banking system was paid back, but we are still fighting for Kabul, and that costs billions per month. Also all those new weapons systems that the congress approves also are on credit. The bills are due and need to be paid. End of story. Pelosi is only doing to Boehner what he did to her by denying any republican votes on the ACA

  • charleo1

    Thug talk. “I told her, to hand over tha bag!” “Hey!” “It’s not my fault the ol’ lady
    got banged up, it’s hers!” “She knew what I wanted. All she had to do, was hand over the purse!” What? “Yeah, I had a gun.” “But it’s not like I was gonna shoot somebody!”

  • disqus_ivSI3ByGmh

    Cryin’ John is terrified of bringing an initial bill to the floor that does not defund the ACA. Were he to do so, he would have every Democrat and enough Republicans (at least those who understand what reality is) to pass. If he brings forward a bill that includes defunding, he will get a vote that passes, but it will be only on Republican votes. Once again, when the bill reaches the Senate, the defund proposal will be stripped and it will pass. When it goes back to the House as a “reconciled” version, then he will have no choice but to offer it back without the defund provision. All this will add unnecessarily to the time required to authorize the bill.

  • montanabill

    Let’s see, the usual retort will be to blame Washington’s enormous spending on ‘two unfunded wars’ rather than the monstrous growth of government, social programs and boondoggle spending. Those items are invisible to the slackers who think the world owes them something just for being alive.

    • Independent1

      What utter hogwash “monstrous growth of government”….Bill you continue to be the village idiot. It was Reagan that added 238,000 to the number of government workers and Clinton that actually reduced the size of government to less than the size that it was when Reagan took office – Clinton reduced the size of government by 380,000 federal employees. Yeah! Bush jr. added another 53,000 back and Obama the MONSTROUS AMOUNT of another 27,000 WOW!!!

      So the federal government today is 330,000 federal workers SMALLER than it was at the end of Reagan’s 2nd term.

      And the problem IS NOT SPENDING!!! Spending today adjusted for inflation is lower than it was 60 years ago!!! The problem is THE LACK OF TAX REVENUES BECAUSE THE GOP HAS REFUSED TO ENACT LEGISLATION THAT WOULD PROMOTE JOB GROWTH!! PROBABLY YOU INCLUDED!!!

      So there are still too many unemployed that AREN’T PAYING TAXES!!
      There are still hundreds/thousands of companies that went belly up which haven’t been replaced THAT AREN’T PAYING TAXES!!!

      And there are FAR TOO MANY companies and individuals that make millions and billions in income that use tax loop holes TO NOT PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES!!!

      • montanabill

        There’s that old ‘fair share of taxes’, when what you really mean is, “I don’t like people who are wealthier than me, and they need to have their money taken away to equalize things.” I will grant you that we need more people paying taxes, but taking investment money away from those who can create those jobs is hardly good policy nor will it do a single thing to create productive people. Forty years of the ‘War on Poverty’ should have taught you something.

        • Independent1

          I’m not begrudging the wealthy of making a reasonable effort to cut their tax burden – I’m talking about the hundreds and thousands of corporations and wealthy people who have hired lawyers to find them every tax loophole possible (and tons of them stuffing millions and billions of dollars off shore to evade taxation) such that even though they’ve earned millions and billions in income they pay effective tax rates less than 10% and hundreds and thousands of them actually pay zero with many actually getting refunds although they’ve made millions and billions in profits.

          I begrudge a company like Apple, deliberately setting up a fake corporation in Ireland, a country which has a law which does not require that you pay even it taxes if you’re a multi-national company with your headquarters outside Ireland, just so they could channel billions in profits to that fake corporation and thereby evade paying America billions of taxes that would have been due. And these loopholes were inserted into our tax laws by legislators that were bribed by lobbyists for these wealthy corporations to allow them to NOT PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES!!!

          When I was working and making 50-60,000/yr and ending up paying an effective 18-20% tax rate, I begrudge people like Mitt Romney who makes millions a year, using every tax gimmick he can find(tax gimmicks added to the code through rich people and companies bribing our legislators) so they can stash money in at least 3 foreign countries to evade more taxation, and then faking his tax returns when he ran for president to show tax rates over 10% when he probably hadn’t paid a tax rate over 5% hardly ever in his working life.
          It’s people like Mitt and companies like Apple that are as unAmerican as they get that I’m talking about. Trying to keep from over paying your taxes is one thing, but purposely looking for every tax loophole you can find including using overseas accounts to hide tax money is something else altogether!!!!!!!!

          • montanabill

            How many of the wealthy can you personally document who pay an effective tax rate less than 10%? What percentage of equivalent income earners do they represent? Do you care whether it is earned income or capital gains?

            Are you the arbitrator of what constitutes, ‘fair share of taxes’? If you are not, who is?

            If you were earning the income of Romney, would you look for every way you could to pay taxes, or would you look for ways to cut your taxes? Did you look for ways to cut your taxes when you earned $50-$60k? Did the people earning $25-$30k think you were not paying your fair share because you took a bigger mortgage loan deduction than they could?

            You do understand that Romney is regularly audited and that if his taxes were out of order, he would be required to pay more or face prosecution for illegal filing.

            I didn’t use 401K’s early on because the law allowed SAR-SEP. It said that if I contributed 15% of what my employees earned to their SEP, I could also contribute 15% of my own income to my SEP. That can mount up very quickly. We do use 401k’s now because the government forced it by having an employee limit on SAR-SEP. Under some pension plans, money not vested to an employee who leaves becomes part of the shared remainder. If you have a high employee count and a high turn-over, that can build each participants share above normal contributions. I doubt that, however, is the way Romney did it. (Just a note, as it turns out, the ‘tax deferred’ money I put into SEP now must be taken out at a much higher tax rate than when it went in.)

            While you are deriding Apple, you do know they are one of the highest tax paying corporations, if not the highest?

          • Independent1

            I think your comment about Apple being one of America’s biggest taxpayers is a bunch of BS; I’m still checking but here’s something about them paying ZERO taxes in the UK that might interest you (from the Huntington Post):

            Despite making millions in profit in Britain, Apple paid no corporate taxes to the U.K. last year, according to company filings cited by various news outlets.

            The tech giant logged a pre-tax profit of 68 million pounds — or more than $103 million — from its main U.K. subsidiaries last year, the Financial Times reports. It’s possible that the company made even bigger profit than that, but avoided the appearance of doing so by logging some of its sales elsewhere, according to the Telegraph.

            So how did Apple wipe out its UK tax liability? In large part by awarding employees stock options as part of their compensation, an expense the company can legally deduct from its taxes. Facebook used this same tax loophole to eliminate its entire U.S. tax burden in 2012, according to the Citizens for Tax Justice.

            And now you have FaceBook playing the “Let’s not paying any part of our fair share” BS. And no, I’m not the arbiter, but
            individuals and companies should not be able to reduce the 39% tax rate to Zero – they should only be able to reduce it from 39% to what a middle class taxpayer that doesn’t itemize has to pay 15%. 15% should be the “minimum fair share for corporations and the rich”.

            You do realize that just from their nature, corporations and rich people as a norm use a hugely disproportionate amount of both government and planet resources in just running their businesses and doing what wealthy people normally do – owning more houses, owning more bigger cars, traveling more, and on and on.

          • montanabill

            FYI: Apple paid $6 billion in U.S. corporate taxes in 2012.

          • Independent1

            Sorry, I’m not impressed. Even Congress isn’t impressed:

            The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations is nearly finished with a year-long investigation into the methods that large technology companies use to avoid paying U.S. corporate income tax. Apple, for its part, allocates some 70 percent of its income to overseas affiliates where tax rates are much lower.

            It appears that all of Apple’s techniques are legal by U.S. law, though some politicians have said that corporations going to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying income tax and that they are violating the spirit of tax laws.

            In its statement, Apple said it paid “an enormous amount of taxes” to local, state and federal governments. “In fiscal 2012 we paid $6 billion in federal corporate income taxes, which is 1 out of every 40 dollars in corporate income taxes collected by the U.S. government,” it said.

            (My comment: What garbage, the only reason Apple’s taxes are 1/40th of tax dollars collected is because thousands of corporations play the same game and many pay zero taxes. If all companies played fair, what Apple pays would be a miniscule amount of America’s total corporate tax collections.)

            Back to the article:

            Apple was one of the first companies to use the accounting scheme called a “Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich”, where profits are routed through Irish and Dutch subsidiaries before finally landing in the Caribbean. Now, hundreds of companies use those methods.

            Apple also has moved revenue to its Braeburn subsidiary in Nevada and International locales where the company pays little to no tax.

          • montanabill

            But everything they did was legal. If you don’t like that, get your Congress people to change the laws. One man’s legal deduction is another man’s, “he is not paying his fair”.