Obama Debt Ceiling Deadline Motivated By Fundraiser?

Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert is arguing that president Obama set an August 3rd deadline for debt ceiling negotiations because he has a fundraising dinner scheduled for the next day. Cenk Uygur and Jayar Jackson discuss.

The Largest Online News Show in the World.

Google+: http://www.gplus.to/TheYoungTurks

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/tytnation

Twitter: http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=theyoungturks

Subscribe: http://bit.ly/eWuu5i

FREE Movies(!): http://www.netflix.com/tyt

Read Ana's blog and subscribe at:
http://www.examiner.com/x-5445-Politics-in-Education-Examiner

Read Cenk's Blog:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• DebtCeiling
• President
• Obama
• Birthday
• Bash
• Celebration
• Celebrities
• Deadline
• Party
• Fundraiser
• Dinner
• Fundraising
• LouieGohmert
• Texas
• Republican
• Gop
• Cenk
• Uygur
• YoungTurks
• Tyt
• JayarJackson

[TheUSMetalhead]

@biggydx It's called Firefox and Adblockerplus. Get it, live it, love it. No ads ever. It could also be an option in your youtube account that needs to be set but I have NEVER seen these ads you people talk about.

[sonofsarek]

I'm a liberal and I don't want them to raise the debt ceiling. They'll just use the extra monies as justification for continuing the 2.5 wars in the middle east. It seems like the only way to force them to stop funding those idiotic wars is to go into default. 

[blechtic]

@usam1981 Anyway, thanks for the conversation even if this medium really isn't suited for it.

[blechtic]

@usam1981 If a government is to enforce rights of the individual, it has to also limit them. Rights and freedoms are inherently contradictory. "Getting the government out of the way of people making a living" is the propaganda and always results in people getting shafted.

As to "spouting opinions"... You do realize that opinions are the point of a decent conversation. If I stop "spouting" them, there will no longer be any conversation.

Anyway, I agree this conversation is pretty much dead.

[usam1981]

@blechtic Also, a government that limits the rights of the individual is the wrong type of government. Why do you think that is a good thing? We are not pushing for corporations or oligarchs to take over, that is purly propoganda, and you know it. We don't push for no government, and minimum government is a good thing, because it gets the government out of the way of people making a living, and doing well. When you stop spouting your opinions, we will have a decent conversation.

[usam1981]

@blechtic Oh please, Bush's spending is miniscule in comparison to what Obama has spent so far, so don't go comparing him to Obama. Governemt has no constitutional right to interfere with business at all, because when they do, they make things far worse. Do you know how many pages of restrictions someone has to go through to start a new company. I bet you don't, the number is too large to count. Governemt makes things harder, not easier.

[blechtic]

@usam1981 [...] There are no power vacuums. It's like with militaries: People don't like the killing, but there will be a military in your country - if it's not yours, it's someone else's.

But we seem to be getting off the track here. I suggest we stop before a flamewar. This medium's not suited for discussion.

I'm sure we share many values, but differ wrt what the respective parties are responsible for and what to do with economy.

(Had nice 1 earlier, tho: /all_comments?v=b-tIY99QFFk&pa­ge=3)

[blechtic]

@usam1981 [...] The point being that the government has to counterbalance and limit the power of the markets, corporations and the individuals, for the protection and well-being of people. When you push for minimum or no government, you're pushing for corporations and oligarchs to take over. They are amoral and will only do something against their will if they're made to do it, so the government has to be stronger than them.

You get to vote for government, you don't get to vote corporations. ...

[blechtic]

@usam1981 Oh, please. See the spending while Bush was in power. Then see the things Republicans pushed when Obama was in, namely all the increased spending.

And the whole "trying to get money they have no right taking" sounds like the intellectually dishonest ..talk.. you get from minimal/no government types, who are against all taxation. The problem with the ideal they push is that they refuse to see the government as a form of self government of the people which it is or should be. [...]

[usam1981]

@blechtic You are saying that we are the ones spending money, which party has brought us to the debt ceiling, not the republicans, the Democrats. Democrats are the ones spending money we don't have, and trying to get money they have no right taking.

[blechtic]

@usam1981 Also, I would be very cautious to call it Obama's spending. The House makes the budget decisions, no?

(Sure, the president can use the veto powers to cut a deal, but this one couldn't negotiate himself out of a wet paper bag.)



[blechtic]

@usam1981 What I was referring to was that you can't cut yourself out of a recession. Deficit is a long term goal.

At the moment, it is cheaper to increase the deficit and spend the money on poorer people, who'll use it to buy things, retaining the demand and, thus, jobs. It also further stimulates the economy and gets more jobs. People with jobs increase tax revenue. It'll also keeps them off the dole, etc. which cuts costs.

But right wing likes slash and burn. It costs big time in a recession.