As we noted in this post, the U.S. economy failed to meet expectations for the first quarter of 2013 – growing at a disappointing 2.5 percent rate from January to March.
But while the engine of our nation sputtered (again), the government choking off its growth kept on spending like there’s no tomorrow. The result? America’s debt-to-GDP ratio climbed from 103 percent last quarter to a new post-World War II high of 104.8 percent.
What does this progression look like over the last few years?
Take a look at this chart (courtesy of Zero Hedge) …
(Click to enlarge)
Yikes …
So to recap, America’s workforce has shrunk to a 34-year-low while its debt-to-GDP ratio is at a new peacetime high. All thanks to the greatest government intervention in the economy since the New Deal.
***
78 comments
Meanwhile, the officials at the City of Columbia have an endless supply of money in which to benefit themselves.
Meanwhile, the officials at the City of Columbia have an endless supply of money in which to benefit themselves.
DUH!!!!..WTF did you think FITS????…Are you this Stupid????
You told us Obama was no worse than Romney. We’ll never know what Romney would have done. But we D*@n sure KNOW Obama is, and has been, a complete F*#kin’ Failure…So why are you surprised???
We know exactly what Rombama would have done. The exact same thing the Blinton, Cush, Obamney, Creagan and the Pnut demigod would have done. The exact same thing every other Repuklicrat and Demlican has done for the last 50 years.
Have a Great Day!! :) There won’t be many left with the Demlicans and Republicrats in charge.
Frank Pytel
Uemployment was at an average of 5% when Bush was president. Inflation was non-existent. Household incomes were on average $5,000 more annually than they are now. Gas was cheap, and there was pride in America.
People who attacked us found out that we would make their lives H#!!…
We did not have to fear government like Obama-care is terrifying anyone w/ a brain.
You are Broken-record, F*#kin Cliche idiot, too stupid to think for yourself, because thinking is too hard for Dumb@$$#$…
I’m quite capable of thinking for myself. But are you.
When was the last time you saw, or historically (take your pick), that spending went down in this country. Not vs gdp, not a reduction of the increase in spending, not in inflation/deflation adjusted dollars.
When was the last time it decreased in the actual amount? Easily found on the CBO website. I’ll bet it wasn’t in the last 50 years you little repuklicrat cutie pie you. Such a darling.
Have a Great Day!! :) There won’t be many left with the Demlicans and Republicrats in charge.
Frank Pytel
Now you’ve it! GrandTurd is stumped again…
Did you change your screen name Big T(urd) or is this a clone?
I’m thinking the same thing.
Let’s see if this will smoke him out.
Hey, “Grand Tango”, did ya’ mama deflate your Sarah Palin blow up, life size doll?
YOU BETCHA!
YOU BETCHA!
>People who attacked us found out that we would make their lives H#!!…
The people who attacked us don’t have to pay trillions of dollars over the coming decades, now do they? Whoops.
Exactly. Two wings of the same party…the party of privilege, money, and power. Ralph Nader and Jesse Ventura-just two of the voices who push this TRUTH.
We’ll never know what Romney would have done.
“Revenue-neutral” tax breaks for the rich, continuing the War on Terror, watching as Senate Democrats cockblock him from killing ObamaCare… Yeah, Romney would’ve made a world of difference. What little he would have had power to change, he wouldn’t have, or in some cases, those changes wouldn’t do jack shit for anyone.
Romney is a piss poor candidate to replace Obama with, but so was Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann, Perry… Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman were the only two running that were even remotely respectable. The only real props here is that at least Romney went with a more competent running mate than McCain did in 2008.
Don’t blame Will for the failure of the GOP to take the White House, blame the GOP.
Bottom line: the country is a F*#kin Mess. And it’s just getting worse…no matter what delusions you live under…
You are wrong. We are in a decent recovery. Look at the stock market. You sound like you are not in the market. If you are, check your 401 k. It should be doing well. Everyone’s is. That is REAL money.
You missed the best one of the lot Smirks……Governor and 4 time Congressman Buddy Roemer. The establishment, especially the MSM was scared to death of him.
Yes, you’re right about Buddy Roemer. I heard him speak at the College of Charleston and met him afterward. He was not beholden to special interests and he lambasted the crooks and liars in charge. No way the media was going to cover such an honest, decent, and intelligent reformer as Mr. Roemer.
Ok so we don’t want our children and grandchildren to inherit our debt. So instead we will leave them uneducated, with a toxic mess that can never be cleaned up and unemployed. You right wingers with all the answers– what is the answer other than get the black man out of the white house.
Face it: Obama has been, is, a major F*#k up…your inability to admit reality, does not change it….
“There is no means of avoiding a final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.”
– Ludwig von Mises
Uh, deleveraging? Granted, no one in charge and very few on the ground seem remotely interested in that.
“There is no means of avoiding a final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.”
– Ludwig von Mises
Uh, deleveraging? Granted, no one in charge and very few on the ground seem remotely interested in that.
It means the COLLAPSE OF THE U.S. DOLLAR!
Calm down Mr./Ms./Mrs. (what’s the title for a queen/tranny?) Little. It’s Friday. It will be ok.
BBBBwwewwwahahaahahahahahaha
Have a Great Day!! :) There won’t be many left with the Demlicans and Republicrats in charge.
Frank Pytel
It means the COLLAPSE OF THE U.S. DOLLAR!
Calm down Mr./Ms./Mrs. (what’s the title for a queen/tranny?) Little. It’s Friday. It will be ok.
BBBBwwewwwahahaahahahahahaha
Have a Great Day!! :) There won’t be many left with the Demlicans and Republicrats in charge.
Frank Pytel
The only reason anyone talks about the Debt to GDP ratio is because all of the anti-Keynesians and other sundry deficit hawks view debt as a morality play.As the Krugman has remarked, “many people have a visceral sense that we sinned [by living beyond our means] and must seek redemption through suffering — and neither economic argument nor the observation that the people now suffering aren’t at all the same people who sinned during the bubble years makes much of a dent.”
The austerians have repeatedly cited the paper by Reinhart and Rogoff that alleged that a 90% Debt to GDP ratio represented some sort of tipping point that would lead to economic ruin. Even when other academics found an error in R-R’s Excel spreadsheet, the folks who want to cut taxes and “entitlements” still try to scare us about the 90% danger zone.
Austerity has been an abject failure in the US over the past four years, and Europe seems doomed to keep bleeding the patient until it dies. A little Keynesianism could solve our jobs problem and our recession, but this sort of misguided commentary leaves me pessimistic.
“As the Krugman has remarked, “many people have a visceral sense that we sinned [by living beyond our means] and must seek redemption through suffering…
Economics meets psychoanalysis. One wonders what Krugman used to discern this bit of wisdom. smh.
“Austerity has been an abject failure in the US over the past four years”
QE1, QE2, & Operation Twist(all in the last four years) and ongoing $85 Billion a month in new issuance are “austerity” to you?
How can anyone with an economics degree take you seriously when you write such things?
An economist would understand that QE1, QE2 and Operation Twist are monetary policy tools that the Fed has used to try to turn this recession around.
No economist would mistake these efforts for “austerity,” which is a fiscal policy that cuts spending at a time when stimulus is the proper policy.
All of the cuts in government spending and the loss of public sector jobs (see the graph) would be classified as austerity during a time when Keynesian macroeconomics calls for government stimulus spending to replace the collapse of private spending.
BTW, I am not an economist: are you?
I have a two year degree, which I’m quite sure is more than you.
Further,
“No economist would mistake these efforts for “austerity,” which is a fiscal policy that cuts spending at a time when stimulus is the proper policy.”
You have a funny definition of “austerity” my friend, which is not atypical of Keynesian’s in many technical definitions. The Austrian economists only create new words for NEW concepts, they don’t change definitions of the English language.(because there is no intent to obscure)
“In economics, austerity describes policies used by governments to reduce budget deficits during adverse economic conditions.”
This is the Keynesian definition on an economic basis, which like other words they have conflated(or outright ignored) from the standard English language use to manage expectation and/or change public opinion.
Here’s the English dictionary definition of austere:
1. Severe or stern in disposition or appearance; somber and grave: the austere figure of a Puritan minister.
2. Strict or severe in discipline; ascetic: a desert nomad’s austere life. See Synonyms at severe.
3. Having no adornment or ornamentation; bare: an austere style.
So do you think the average people around the kitchen table discussing the Keynesian concept of “austerity” think in their world view that it means “less deficit spending”?
Doubtful Tom, the Keynesians have to be disingenuous and not accurate. Do you think they will ever match the definitions but the economic and English language? Of course not, that’s why they changed it in the first place.
That’s also why they are not real economists.
They work via fabricating a false sense of comfort in the masses while weaving their apologia backed by a variety of money influenced contributors from the Chicago school, supporters of fractional reserve, eager to spend pols, etc. knowing they obscure the truth.
In the end, like how every fiat currency of failed empires demise, so will ours. Who knows the specifics as far as how/when, but the basic premise: that you can’t sustain a policy of spending more than you take in, filling the gaps with various monetary issuing programs indefinitely-will come to pass.
When that happens Keynesians will be revealed for the hacks they are, their old ideas once again exposed.(even if in the past the namesake of the old bisexual wasn’t used)
We can only hope that mankind retains the lesson this time around.
You are wrong on many things, and your degree exceeding mine is just one more on the list., although we are in agreement that arguments should be based on data, not on appeals to authority.
It is truly unfortunate that some folks sitting around their kitchen table have no clue what economists mean when they use “austerity” to describe a certain fiscal policy. And, while the Austrian school of economics may embrace austerity, there is no etymological connection.
“It is truly unfortunate that some folks sitting around their kitchen table have no clue what economists mean when they use “austerity” to describe a certain fiscal policy.”
My case is that just because Keynesians change the meaning of the word, they have no right to expect that population outside of their beliefs(99%?) conform to a definition that the rest of the world does not hold.
You might claim that the definition of austerity is a matter of opinion, in which case we can’t even have a basic debate.
If you can’t see the ridiculousness of calling a “reduction” in deficit spending “austerity” then we can go no further on that point, EXCEPT to say that even in the tortured Keynesian definition of austerity the fact that the “fiscal cliff”(which is the basis for this austerity label) still results in $4 trillion being added to the deficit STILL DOES NOT FIT THEIR OWN DEFINITION.
That is aside from the programs I pointed out above.(QE1,2,O.T.)
Btw, if you’re answer is a Keynesian economist would take you seriously, you have made a valid point. I will concede.
I will change my statement to reflect instead, “Economists of schools outside of Keynesian or people with common sense.”
Even further, “Reinhart and Rogoff” failed because it was empirically based, which is a major failing of Keynesians as well. It was poor work:
economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/04/the-embarrassing-error-of-empirical.html
Last, rather than worry about an “appeal to authority” Tom on whether someone having any degree, certification, etc. should be allowed to think or contribute to ANYTHING, I think it would do well to pay attention to arguments that fit a rational/logic basis first. If the world operated on the logical fallacy under to appeal to authority fallacies the losses from autodidactics and hose of other uncertified master from antiquity would be staggering.
I don’t wave a 2 year degree, or my 4’s in other fields in anyone’s face. It’s not gracious or appropriate. Also, an umemployment chart is not proof of what is causing unemployment.
Please pay attention. That was not an unemployment chart; that was an employment chart.
The only reason anyone talks about the Debt to GDP ratio is because all of the anti-Keynesians and other sundry deficit hawks view debt as a morality play.As the Krugman has remarked, “many people have a visceral sense that we sinned [by living beyond our means] and must seek redemption through suffering — and neither economic argument nor the observation that the people now suffering aren’t at all the same people who sinned during the bubble years makes much of a dent.”
The austerians have repeatedly cited the paper by Reinhart and Rogoff that alleged that a 90% Debt to GDP ratio represented some sort of tipping point that would lead to economic ruin. Even when other academics found an error in R-R’s Excel spreadsheet, the folks who want to cut taxes and “entitlements” still try to scare us about the 90% danger zone.
Austerity has been an abject failure in the US over the past four years, and Europe seems doomed to keep bleeding the patient until it dies. A little Keynesianism could solve our jobs problem and our recession, but this sort of misguided commentary leaves me pessimistic.
“As the Krugman has remarked, “many people have a visceral sense that we sinned [by living beyond our means] and must seek redemption through suffering…
Economics meets psychoanalysis. One wonders what Krugman used to discern this bit of wisdom. smh.
“Austerity has been an abject failure in the US over the past four years”
QE1, QE2, & Operation Twist(all in the last four years) and ongoing $85 Billion a month in new issuance are “austerity” to you?
How can anyone with an economics degree take you seriously when you write such things?
An economist would understand that QE1, QE2 and Operation Twist are monetary policy tools that the Fed has used to try to turn this recession around.
No economist would mistake these efforts for “austerity,” which is a fiscal policy that cuts spending at a time when stimulus is the proper policy.
All of the cuts in government spending and the loss of public sector jobs (see the graph) would be classified as austerity during a time when Keynesian macroeconomics calls for government stimulus spending to replace the collapse of private spending.
BTW, I am not an economist: are you?
I have a two year degree, which I’m quite sure is more than you.
Further,
“No economist would mistake these efforts for “austerity,” which is a fiscal policy that cuts spending at a time when stimulus is the proper policy.”
You have a funny definition of “austerity” my friend, which is not atypical of Keynesian’s in many technical definitions. The Austrian economists only create new words for NEW concepts, they don’t change definitions of the English language.(because there is no intent to obscure)
“In economics, austerity describes policies used by governments to reduce budget deficits during adverse economic conditions.”
This is the Keynesian definition on an economic basis, which like other words they have conflated(or outright ignored) from the standard English language use to manage expectation and/or change public opinion.
Here’s the English dictionary definition of austere:
1. Severe or stern in disposition or appearance; somber and grave: the austere figure of a Puritan minister.
2. Strict or severe in discipline; ascetic: a desert nomad’s austere life. See Synonyms at severe.
3. Having no adornment or ornamentation; bare: an austere style.
So do you think the average people around the kitchen table discussing the Keynesian concept of “austerity” think in their world view that it means “less deficit spending”?
Doubtful Tom, the Keynesians have to be disingenuous and not accurate. Do you think they will ever match the definitions but the economic and English language? Of course not, that’s why they changed it in the first place.
That’s also why they are not real economists.
They work via fabricating a false sense of comfort in the masses while weaving their apologia backed by a variety of money influenced contributors from the Chicago school, supporters of fractional reserve, eager to spend pols, etc. knowing they obscure the truth.
In the end, like how every fiat currency of failed empires demise, so will ours. Who knows the specifics as far as how/when, but the basic premise: that you can’t sustain a policy of spending more than you take in, filling the gaps with various monetary issuing programs indefinitely-will come to pass.
When that happens Keynesians will be revealed for the hacks they are, their old ideas once again exposed.(even if in the past the namesake of the old bisexual wasn’t used)
We can only hope that mankind retains the lesson this time around.
You are wrong on many things, and your degree exceeding mine is just one more on the list., although we are in agreement that arguments should be based on data, not on appeals to authority.
It is truly unfortunate that some folks sitting around their kitchen table have no clue what economists mean when they use “austerity” to describe a certain fiscal policy. And, while the Austrian school of economics may embrace austerity, there is no etymological connection.
“It is truly unfortunate that some folks sitting around their kitchen table have no clue what economists mean when they use “austerity” to describe a certain fiscal policy.”
My case is that just because Keynesians change the meaning of the word, they have no right to expect that population outside of their beliefs(99%?) conform to a definition that the rest of the world does not hold.
You might claim that the definition of austerity is a matter of opinion, in which case we can’t even have a basic debate.
If you can’t see the ridiculousness of calling a “reduction” in deficit spending “austerity” then we can go no further on that point, EXCEPT to say that even in the tortured Keynesian definition of austerity the fact that the “fiscal cliff”(which is the basis for this austerity label) still results in $4 trillion being added to the deficit STILL DOES NOT FIT THEIR OWN DEFINITION.
That is aside from the programs I pointed out above.(QE1,2,O.T.)
Btw, if you’re answer is a Keynesian economist would take you seriously, you have made a valid point. I will concede.
I will change my statement to reflect instead, “Economists of schools outside of Keynesian or people with common sense.”
Even further, “Reinhart and Rogoff” failed because it was empirically based, which is a major failing of Keynesians as well. It was poor work:
economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/04/the-embarrassing-error-of-empirical.html
Last, rather than worry about an “appeal to authority” Tom on whether someone having any degree, certification, etc. should be allowed to think or contribute to ANYTHING, I think it would do well to pay attention to arguments that fit a rational/logic basis first. If the world operated on the logical fallacy under to appeal to authority fallacies the losses from autodidactics and hose of other uncertified master from antiquity would be staggering.
I don’t wave a 2 year degree, or my 4’s in other fields in anyone’s face. It’s not gracious or appropriate. Also, an umemployment chart is not proof of what is causing unemployment.
Please pay attention. That was not an unemployment chart; that was an employment chart.
R-R did not fail because it was empirically based, it failed because the authors ignored data that did not fit their premise. Their sloppy work was not the most dangerous aspect of their “90% GDP/Debt” paper: it was that the paper was so pleasing to those in Congress who embraced it as scholarly affirmation of their penchant for cutting spending.
The funniest part was that any old mathematician knows that the Debt to GDP ratio can change not only from an increase in the numerator, but just as easily by a change in the denominator.
Well when you put a nigga in charge they think the money last as long as the check book!!! This country will end just like all the great nations before us!!!
Kiss your own ass since your fucking head is already in it.
Well when you put a nigga in charge they think the money last as long as the check book!!! This country will end just like all the great nations before us!!!
Kiss your own ass since your fucking head is already in it.
And if they didn’t prop up the economy with fiat money, you wouldn’t have an audience to read your stupid fucking articles. Ayn Rand was wrong, time to get over it.
And if they didn’t prop up the economy with fiat money, you wouldn’t have an audience to read your stupid fucking articles. Ayn Rand was wrong, time to get over it.
This is a bit long-winded.You need an editor.
The econony is going to get alot worse. infation is high. think how food prices have gone up. 5 years ago you could get 3 boxed of craft dinner for a buck now it’s 1.89 a box. thing about how alot of food has become smaller coffe in a can is not a pound anymore. bage of ten cheap burretos are that were 2.99 are now 4.99 and only have 8.
taxes are up.
This is a bit long-winded.You need an editor.
The econony is going to get alot worse. infation is high. think how food prices have gone up. 5 years ago you could get 3 boxed of craft dinner for a buck now it’s 1.89 a box. thing about how alot of food has become smaller coffe in a can is not a pound anymore. bage of ten cheap burretos are that were 2.99 are now 4.99 and only have 8.
taxes are up.
Debt does not make our nation poorer; it is money we owe to ourselves. Deficts would be bad for us if they led to trade deficits or crowding out investment, leading to reduced future capacity. But right now we have no overwhelming trade deficits and business investment has recovered reasonably. Profits are soaring and along with that, the stock market. So the rich are still rich. Companies are sitting on piles of cash because there is no reason to expand capacity when you cannot sell enough to use the capacity you do have.
We must be concerned about the debt college kids are piling on, and the schoolteachers whose jobs are being slashed. The austerians would have us think that debt is bad and Social Security must be slashed. They are wrong. Debt is the only way out of a horrible recession like this. Cutting is not the way to go.
“Debt does not make our nation poorer; it is money we owe to ourselves.”
You ever hear of a thing called interest? (let alone issuance/devaluation)
“Deficts would be bad for us if they led to trade deficits or crowding out investment, leading to reduced future capacity.”
That’s exactly what is happening, the issuance goes to UNPRODUCTIVE areas versus organic.
economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/joe-weisenthals-amazing-dont-sweat-debt.html
Debt does not make our nation poorer; it is money we owe to ourselves. Deficts would be bad for us if they led to trade deficits or crowding out investment, leading to reduced future capacity. But right now we have no overwhelming trade deficits and business investment has recovered reasonably. Profits are soaring and along with that, the stock market. So the rich are still rich. Companies are sitting on piles of cash because there is no reason to expand capacity when you cannot sell enough to use the capacity you do have.
We must be concerned about the debt college kids are piling on, and the schoolteachers whose jobs are being slashed. The austerians would have us think that debt is bad and Social Security must be slashed. They are wrong. Debt is the only way out of a horrible recession like this. Cutting is not the way to go.
“Debt does not make our nation poorer; it is money we owe to ourselves.”
You ever hear of a thing called interest? (let alone issuance/devaluation)
“Deficts would be bad for us if they led to trade deficits or crowding out investment, leading to reduced future capacity.”
That’s exactly what is happening, the issuance goes to UNPRODUCTIVE areas versus organic.
economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/joe-weisenthals-amazing-dont-sweat-debt.html
Instead of trying to panic the uninformed about the scary Debt to GDP ratio, why not take a look at the Public Debt Interest burden to GDP ratio? It is an interesting (pun intended) facet of the Fed’s Twisting and Easing that when the profit it makes on held assets is returned to the Treasury, the Interest/GDP ratio falls below 1% today.
The efforts of the Fed to relieve this recession by monetary policy are limited, and there is no chance that Congress will act with direct fiscal stimulus, so we will have to suffer until enough voters realize who is holding back this recovery. (Hint: it’s the Republicans in Congress.)
Source of the chart: Congressional Budget Office.
Instead of trying to panic the uninformed about the scary Debt to GDP ratio, why not take a look at the Public Debt Interest burden to GDP ratio? It is an interesting (pun intended) facet of the Fed’s Twisting and Easing that when the profit it makes on held assets is returned to the Treasury, the Interest/GDP ratio falls below 1% today.
The efforts of the Fed to relieve this recession by monetary policy are limited, and there is no chance that Congress will act with direct fiscal stimulus, so we will have to suffer until enough voters realize who is holding back this recovery. (Hint: it’s the Republicans in Congress.)
Source of the chart: Congressional Budget Office.
Willie!! economics is complicated. but this part actually is not. if the government wasn’t spending money, there would be no money at all flowing around and our economy would be dead (see: europe)
Willie!! economics is complicated. but this part actually is not. if the government wasn’t spending money, there would be no money at all flowing around and our economy would be dead (see: europe)
By this site quitting…does that mean Sanford has conceded his “comeback?” …and stopped funding….
Republicans: Obama Must Take Action in Syria So We Can Criticize Action He Took in Syria
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) — A growing chorus of Republican lawmakers are demanding that President Obama take some action in Syria so that they can attack whatever action he took in Syria.
Appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) laid out the situation in stark terms: “The time for President Obama to do something in Syria that we can eviscerate him for is long overdue.”
Arguing that there are a variety of options available to Mr. Obama for dealing with Syria, Sen. Graham said, “The President needs to choose one of those options so that we can immediately identify it as a catastrophic choice and demand that he be impeached.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) used an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” to express impatience with Mr. Obama’s “steadfast refusal to give us something new to rake him over the coals for.”
“The American people have grown weary of my nonstop criticism of the President’s handling of Libya,” he said. “They are ready to hear me incessantly berate him for his handling of a different country.”
At the end of his television appearance, Sen. McCain seemed to draw a line in the sand, making a direct challenge to Mr. Obama: “Mr. President, we are sick and tired of attacking you for your inaction. The time has come for us to attack you for your action.”
Your problem: Who needs satire, or more shiiling for Obama from leftists dumb@$$#$ like you?) The media is so far up Obama’s @$$, it is satire???
You didn’t see the W.H. Correspondents Dinner…Even Obama is making for of the media for being such sycophant @$$ kissers for him…
In other words: It’s already a F*#kin joke, how much the media’s kisses the leftwing’s @$$…Why fabricate lame bull-$#!* (like you post) to make a point???
Republicans: Obama Must Take Action in Syria So We Can Criticize Action He Took in Syria
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) — A growing chorus of Republican lawmakers are demanding that President Obama take some action in Syria so that they can attack whatever action he took in Syria.
Appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) laid out the situation in stark terms: “The time for President Obama to do something in Syria that we can eviscerate him for is long overdue.”
Arguing that there are a variety of options available to Mr. Obama for dealing with Syria, Sen. Graham said, “The President needs to choose one of those options so that we can immediately identify it as a catastrophic choice and demand that he be impeached.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) used an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” to express impatience with Mr. Obama’s “steadfast refusal to give us something new to rake him over the coals for.”
“The American people have grown weary of my nonstop criticism of the President’s handling of Libya,” he said. “They are ready to hear me incessantly berate him for his handling of a different country.”
At the end of his television appearance, Sen. McCain seemed to draw a line in the sand, making a direct challenge to Mr. Obama: “Mr. President, we are sick and tired of attacking you for your inaction. The time has come for us to attack you for your action.”