John King and Gloria Borger: Liars and Partisan Political Hacks on The Liar Network

Yes, John King is a liar, and a partisan political hack. see ,u aroc;es tpdau pm tje debt ceo;omg/


Yes, I heard John King, on his CNN show this Tuesday, START his "analysis" of the debt ceiling "crisis' with a LIE. He said, stating the official CNN position also stated by the partisan Gloria Borger (including with the equally despicable liar, Wolf Blitzer): "If we fail to raise the debt ceiling, there would be a default..."


Nope. That is a LIE. First, what is a "default"? It is part of the CNN Big Lie (the George Orwell term for an obvous lie that people are expected to believe by brainwashing and repitition) to not define your terms. The CREDIT DEFAULT--debt default--is what would have dire financial consequences, and means not payinb your DEBT ibkugatuibs,


What happens if we don't raise the debt ceiling? It is simply ot ture that we automatically default on our debt. We have 14.4 TRILLION or so in debt. That debt REMAINS, wheteher we raise the debt ceiling or not. The intrest on that debt is somewheere around 20-25 billion dollars per month. That is, we have debt payments due in August of this amount. We have REVENUE of about 200 billion (maybe a little less) per month. Thus, we have NO PROBLEM paying our debt obligations with the money we are taking in, and there will be NO "default". When the financial markets talk about "default", that is what they mean.


Don't we have "obligations" that won't be paid? See my article on the debt ceiling earlier tonight. Yes, we have "obligations" already approved by Congress, but that is NOT what the financial community means by a default. In fact, Congress could CHANGE those "obligationis", and it is absurd to say that those represent the "credit' of the Untied States. The "credit" of the Untied States is only involved in the DEBT, and we have more than enough money to coverf our debt obligations (the short-term interest /debt payments that are due).


What will haveppne, of course--if not necessarily no August 2--is that a failure to raise the debt ceiling will force PARTS of the government to SHUT DOWN (if we want to fully fund other parts--such as Social Security, debt payments, military pay, etc.). Now that could be an economic disaster, in a number of ways, including that financial markets may lose "confidence" (lol) in the ability of the United States to manage its financial affairs. NO DEFAULT on our debt, but wew would be in a mess.


But would it not be a different kind of "default" for us to not fund the obligations already approved by Congress? That is the DECEPTION here, isn't it? It is what labels CNN, John King, Gloria Borger and tghe rest dELIBERATGE LIARS. Yes, if you SWITCH to a LOOSE "definition" of "default", you can say it would be a "default". But that is not the CREDIT MARKET definition of default--the default faced by GREECE. To manipulate the definiton of words like this, expecailly without even acknowledging you are ding it, labels you a DELIBERATE LIAR. John King and Gloria Borger are DELIBERATE LIARS. As I have stated in previous articles, Congress could pass a law REQURING "prioritizing" of spenindg to fund our debt and stay within the debt ceiling. Then there would be no "obligations" upon which we are "defaulting", under any sense of the word. However, the point here is that CNN is deliberately trying to confuse a financial default on our debt with an entirely different, "made up" "default" on our general obligations appropirated by Congress.


Nope. It is NOT TRUE that we have "never defaulted on our general obligations before". Of course we have. In my lifetime, Preisdent Nixo asserted the right to IMPOUND funds approriated by Congress, rather than spend them. That was held unconstitutional, but he DID IT (for awhikle). The United States Government is OFTGEN sued for not "meeting its obligations". Sure, you can say that that is not a gneral failure to fund so much of the government, but it is absrud to say that we have "nvever defaulted on our obligations before". Not ture. What is true is that we have never DEFAULTED ON OUR DEBT BEFORE. This merely emphasizes how desperattely the mainstream media is trying to LIE about this, by confusing a very speefcific meaning of "default" with a very loose, mde up meaning of default. As stated, this is DELIBERATE, and labels King and Borger as DELIBERATE LIARS.


What does happen if we don't raise the debt ceiling? What happens is an IMMEDIATE 40% cut in Federl spending. Yes, it is perfectly true that we can't possibly keep that up for long. A good part of the government would have to shut down, OR we would have to 'pro-rate" all payments besides our debt payments. But we would NOT "default"--undesr the financial market meaning of the term that is the meaning that directly affects our "credit rating". Say you have budgeted $10,000 to pay your child's college bills, but you don't have that much after you have paid your credit crad/loan obligations. Do you "default' if you can't honor your commitment to your child? Of course not. You just don't have the money,. That is what happens if we don't raise the debt ceiling.


The problem i,s of ocurse, that we are so ADDICTGED to spending that there is no wayour economy can survive an IMMEDIATE 40$ cut in spending--over any extended period of time. But will we IMMEDIATELY self-destruct? Of course not. We couldd certainly get along for a week or two. But the diruption in the financial markets may be pretty bad. Here, I am NOT talking about the BLACKMAIL--threatened constantly on CNBC--by Wll Street telling us that they will MAKE SURE satocks drop if a "compromise" is not reached. That is one of those things that makes me LONG for NOT raising the debt ceiling, since lwe need to teach Wall Street that they can't get awya with that kind of EXTORTION AND BLACKIMAIL. If you see a drop in the sock market being used as an ARGUMENT for plicy, you should know you are being HAD. Just teaching Wll Street that we won't give in to their blackmail would be a valuable thing. But the overall disruption in the economy from even a week of no debt ceiling raise, after we have reached the debt ceiling, will be a bad thing.


This is where Gloria Borger--LIAR AND PARTISN POLTICAL HACK--comes in. She says that REPUBLICANS cannot pretend to stand for American "exceptionalism", and still want our goveernment to fail to pay its debts. As stated, of course, we WOULD "apy our debtgs'. But do you see the Gloria Borger Big Lie here? You should, if you have been paying attention.


Why is this about REPUBLICANS? The Republican House of Representatives has passed a budget. If Democrats agreed to that budget for next year, Republicans could hardly refuse to raise the debt limit, and would nt. "But," Borger stutters, "Obama and the Democrats won't accept that." Right. They won't. So it is THEM who are putting other things ahead of raising the debt ceiling? That is the Borger Big Lie here. She assumes Democrats have a RIGHT to hgave the positon that some principles are more important than raising the debt ceiling. Why, then, do Republicans not have the same RIGHT? Nope. Gloria Borger is a LIAR, and a PARTISAN POLITICAL HACK.


If both sides stand on principle, and take the position that their other principles are more important than raising the debt ceiling, does that not mean that the debt ceiling does not get raised? Does that not put us in the soup? Yes. But you can't BLAME either party for taking the position that some principles can't be given up, because they are more important to the country than even the importance of raising the debt ceiling. In that case, it becomes a case of which party is RIGHT. Will the contry be RUINED if we accept sham spending cuts and raised taxes on "the rich" (Republican position, among others). Or will the country be RUINED if we cut spending tooo much, and don't make "the rich" "share" the "sacrifices" required of the middle class and the poor? (Oama/Democrat position). Note that "compromise' of thsse positnos MAy make it MORE CERTAIN that the country will be ruined, since it may unfdermine both positons. The point is that Borger is a LIAR because she only purpots to see one side of this, and assumers that Republicans are WRONG when they say higher taxes nd more debt will RUIN the country. Make no mistake. That is the Republican position. And Borger LIES when she fails to say that such a position is not automaqtically wrong, any more than the Democrat position that you MUST have "revenue increases' is automatically wrong. Which is right is an argument ON THE MERITS, and has nothing whatever to do with "American exceptionalism". Obama and the Democrats have no more claim to being more "reasonable" for demanding tax increases than Republicans for demanding spending cuts without tax increases.


Yes, this blog has proposed a soluton to the fact that the parites are so far apart on PRINCIPLE that they can't arrive at a "grand deal". See the earlier arciles in this blog on the debt ceiling, and forcing Congress to directly tie spending bills and the debt ceiling. No, that does not solve the "who is right" problem, but it forces the politicians to be HONEST with the public. And it puts this prnciple directly to the text: We are not SUPPOSED to spend any money not appropriated by the House of Representatives. That is how our system is et up . So how can Democrats FORCE Republicans to pass spending fills with which they do not agree? If Republicans pass spending bills that will keep the government runnign, on what basis do Democrats DEMAND spending? Why did Obama go thourgh that battle on ObamaCare? Why did he not just DEMAND that Congress pass ObamaCaere the way he wanted, or else he would not approve AnY spending bill? This idea that one party can dEMAND that the other party agree to spend mney strikes me as absurd. Now that does not mean Republicans can RESTRUCTGURE Medicre or Social Security without some sort of deal with Democrats, or more lection victories, but there is no way for Democrats to FORCE Republicans to pass spending. CNN and Gloria Borger seem not to grasp this at all.


P.S. no proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).