John Boehner Refuses to Allow the House to Vote on Sequester Replacement Bill

[gator996]

Someone needs to tell Leader Boehner two things:

1. Spending bills MUST start in the house

2. He hasn't moved a spending bill in this new congress


He's done nothing...



http://cdn.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Boehner-Hostage.jpg


http://www.politicususa.com/john-boehner-refuses-house-vote-sequester-replacement-bill.html

John Boehner Refuses to Allow the House to Vote on Sequester Replacement Bill


On the same day that John Boehner told the Senate to get off its ass, he refused to allow the House to vote on a sequester replacement bill.

According to Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), “Tonight marks the third time this year that House Republicans have refused to take up a Democratic substitute to the sequester while failing to put forth their own sequester alternative. With 750,000 jobs at stake – not to mention the furlough of hundreds of thousands of federal employees – this is a total abdication of leadership from Speaker Boehner and his caucus.”

Speaker Boehner’s stock line is that the House has already acted, but this is a lie. The House acted in the last Congress. The two bills that were passed in the 112 Congress died as soon as the 113th Congress was sworn in. The House has to pass a sequester replacement bill, but Republicans are refusing to allow Van Hollen’s bill to come to the floor for a vote.

His bill has adopted Obama’s balanced approach. It contains the Buffett Rule, and it cuts subsidies for agribusiness and Big Oil. The bill also contains a 2/3 cuts to 1/3 revenue ratio. Republicans refuse to allow the bill to come to the floor for a vote for one simple reason. They are afraid that it will pass. There are likely enough Republicans that will cross party lines and join with universal Democratic support to pass the bill. The Senate version of Van Hollen’s bill will be passed easily, and Obama would sign it in about a half a second.

[G8trGr8t]

And Reid allows everything to get voted on too. Hypocrite. Reid is biggest obstruction in DC.

If u are going to cut and paste this drivel isn't it supposed to be in quotes?

[gatorman_07732]

The sequester was the administrations idea, they made a calculation and it's going to blow up in there faces. They got their tax increase earlier with the agreement for cuts later. So now they want to change the agreement.

[g8orbill]

996- you make me laugh-tell me when has your prez even come close to submitting a passable budget or when has the Senate that is controlled by your party passed a budget

[tegator80]

Someone needs to tell Leader Boehner two things:

1. Spending bills MUST start in the house

2. He hasn't moved a spending bill in this new congress


He's done nothing...



http://cdn.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Boehner-Hostage.jpg


http://www.politicususa.com/john-boehner-refuses-house-vote-sequester-replacement-bill.html

John Boehner Refuses to Allow the House to Vote on Sequester Replacement Bill


On the same day that John Boehner told the Senate to get off its ass, he refused to allow the House to vote on a sequester replacement bill.

According to Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), “Tonight marks the third time this year that House Republicans have refused to take up a Democratic substitute to the sequester while failing to put forth their own sequester alternative. With 750,000 jobs at stake – not to mention the furlough of hundreds of thousands of federal employees – this is a total abdication of leadership from Speaker Boehner and his caucus.”

Speaker Boehner’s stock line is that the House has already acted, but this is a lie. The House acted in the last Congress. The two bills that were passed in the 112 Congress died as soon as the 113th Congress was sworn in. The House has to pass a sequester replacement bill, but Republicans are refusing to allow Van Hollen’s bill to come to the floor for a vote.

His bill has adopted Obama’s balanced approach. It contains the Buffett Rule, and it cuts subsidies for agribusiness and Big Oil. The bill also contains a 2/3 cuts to 1/3 revenue ratio. Republicans refuse to allow the bill to come to the floor for a vote for one simple reason. They are afraid that it will pass. There are likely enough Republicans that will cross party lines and join with universal Democratic support to pass the bill. The Senate version of Van Hollen’s bill will be passed easily, and Obama would sign it in about a half a second.

My offer still stands: you clean up yours, I will clean up mine.

[baygator1]

There is no question that Boehner and Obama are both equally complicit in this sequester fiasco.

Thankfully, Obama's days are numbered. And I hope Boehner's days are numbered, along with the Republican establishment. Red or Blue makes no distinction between establishment politicians.

[gator996]

The sequester was the administrations idea, they made a calculation and it's going to blow up in there faces. They got their tax increase earlier with the agreement for cuts later. So now they want to change the agreement.


The sequester was voted for by republicans & democrats...could have been avoided by congress with the super committee...was designed to be so crappy as to make getting a better negotiated deal easy.

That didn't happen because the house GOP can't manage its membership to negotiate a deal with anyone including Boehner.


Please explain the logic of blocking a vote to avoid the sequester.


And then you can explain how the GOP's politcal strategies have been working out recently...

[gatorman_07732]

The sequester was voted for by republicans & democrats...could have been avoided by congress with the super committee...was designed to be so crappy as to make getting a better negotiated deal easy.

That didn't happen because the house GOP can't manage its membership to negotiate a deal with anyone including Boehner.


Please explain the logic of blocking a vote to avoid the sequester.


And then you can explain how the GOP's politcal strategies have been working out recently...

Seriously you need to see where to sequester was derived and it wasn't congress

[PSGator66]

We need the cuts as a start and then more cuts.

[gator996]

Seriously you need to see where to sequester was derived and it wasn't congress



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Sequestration

On August 2, 2011, Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 as part of an agreement to resolve the debt-ceiling crisis. The Act provided for a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the "super committee") to produce legislation by late November that would decrease the deficit by $1.2 trillion over ten years. When the super committee failed to act,[1] another part of the BCA went into effect. This directed automatic across-the-board cuts (known as "sequestrations") split evenly between defense and domestic spending, beginning on January 2, 2013.

The sequestration became a major topic of the fiscal cliff debate. The debate's resolution, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA), eliminated much of the tax side of the dispute but only delayed the budget sequestrations for two months, thus reducing the original $110 billion to be saved per fiscal year to $85 billion in 2013.[2]

[gatorman_07732]

Hey 996 looks like Obama is going to be in trouble, this is a good move

Senate GOP ponders ceding power to President Obama

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/senate-gop-ponders-shifting-power-to-obama-88149.html?hp=l1

Days before the March 1 deadline, Senate Republicans are circulating a draft bill that would cancel $85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts and instead turn over authority to President Barack Obama to achieve the same level of savings under a plan to be filed by March 8.

[gatorman_07732]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Sequestration

On August 2, 2011, Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 as part of an agreement to resolve the debt-ceiling crisis. The Act provided for a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the "super committee") to produce legislation by late November that would decrease the deficit by $1.2 trillion over ten years. When the super committee failed to act,[1] another part of the BCA went into effect. This directed automatic across-the-board cuts (known as "sequestrations") split evenly between defense and domestic spending, beginning on January 2, 2013.

The sequestration became a major topic of the fiscal cliff debate. The debate's resolution, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA), eliminated much of the tax side of the dispute but only delayed the budget sequestrations for two months, thus reducing the original $110 billion to be saved per fiscal year to $85 billion in 2013.[2]

But the whole idea was crafted by the Obama administration in an effort to box in Republicans and make them cave for more tax hikes.

[gator996]

"a good move"...how because its good political gamesmanship?


the pubs are trying to pin the pain on Obama
(make him choose which govt programs get cut)


If you really thought this was a "good" idea then you should be all for Chris VanHollen's plan to replace the 1st year sequestration with increased revenue, abolishing some agri subsidies, & closing tax loopholes with no cuts needed year 1 to defense....

And those actions would continue on into the future...


Would you go for that offer instead of cutting defense?

[gator996]

But the whole idea was crafted by the Obama administration in an effort to box in Republicans and make them cave for more tax hikes.


Who cares?


If the Republicans didn't like it they didn't have to ote for it or could've avoided it by negotiating SOMETHING since the summer of 2011.

This is just a public show of the dysfunctionality of Congress....

...not Obama.

[gatorman_07732]

Hey it gives Obama more flexibility in his own plan, I mean what more can you ask for?

[gator996]

I can ask for the Congressional leaders to act like grownups and do their jobs....

[G8trGr8t]

and we can ask 0 and reid to act like grownups and not spoiled children who pitch a fit everytime somebody tells them no. arrogance and narcissism are not traits that lend themselves to good leadership and the wh and reid are overloaded with both

[gatorman_07732]

I can ask for the Congressional leaders to act like grownups and do their jobs....

This is huge for Obama, because now he can do something about the people he was claiming this was going to hurt.

[Minister_of_Information]

Irony thy name is democrat.

[gator996]

and we can ask 0 and reid to act like grownups and not spoiled children who pitch a fit everytime somebody tells them no. arrogance and narcissism are not traits that lend themselves to good leadership and the wh and reid are overloaded with both


Its all congressional leadership...McConnell/Reid Boehner/Pelosi......


At some point after a year & a half, they need Obama to hold their hand to cut pennies?


Please.


Van Hollen has an alternative to avoid the year 1 cuts...ideas from dems & pubs.


You're making an argument for congress not doing anything and POTUS being all-powerful....


Respect checks & balances ...and do your job congressional leaders!!!

[gatorman_07732]

I can see how 996 is upset because this truly boxes in Obama after his complaining tour using his pulpit

[Minister_of_Information]

So the House is now acting like the Senate has for 5 years. For shame!

[gator996]

It doesn't box Obama in at all...but it does give in to the inability of Congress to do anything...

Who's fault is that Obama's also?


I'm quite sure of one thing....

Obama's cuts won't come on the backs of the poor & middle class

[gator996]

So the House is now acting like the Senate has for 5 years. For shame!




This is a spending issue...the bill has to start in the house.

[gatorman_07732]

It doesn't box Obama in at all...but it does give in to the inability of Congress to do anything...

Who's fault is that Obama's also?


I'm quite sure of one thing....

Obama's cuts won't come on the backs of the poor & middle class

It most certainly does, because now he can do something about the very people he was scaring.

[mdgator05]

I can see how 996 is upset because this truly boxes in Obama after his complaining tour using his pulpit

It shows the problems with Republicans. They both want to cut spending and blame spending cuts on everybody else. It is why no Republican will ever be specific about what they want to cut. Romney spent an entire campaign refusing to give specifics. Rubio spent an entire response to the SOTU without giving specifics on what he would cut.

Republicans are desperately trying to convince everybody that they are going to cut somebody else's favorite spending. That way, when somebody actually acts like an adult and cuts spending, they will then scream about how horrible they were for hurting old people, poor people, military people, disabled people, unemployed people, etc. Of course while doing this, they will not actually offer real cuts that they would have done instead. They just would have cut "other spending."

[gatorman_07732]

It shows the problems with Republicans. They both want to cut spending and blame spending cuts on everybody else. It is why no Republican will ever be specific about what they want to cut. Romney spent an entire campaign refusing to give specifics. Rubio spent an entire response to the SOTU without giving specifics on what he would cut.

Republicans are desperately trying to convince everybody that they are going to cut somebody else's favorite spending. That way, when somebody actually acts like an adult and cuts spending, they will then scream about how horrible they were for hurting old people, poor people, military people, disabled people, unemployed people, etc. Of course while doing this, they will not actually offer real cuts that they would have done instead. They just would have cut "other spending."

This is pretty funny, this whole thing was concocted by the ABM administration and is now going to backfire. The kicker is Obama has lied about the whole thing and has been caught.

[mdgator05]

This is pretty funny, this whole thing was concocted by the ABM administration and is now going to backfire. The kicker is Obama has lied about the whole thing and has been caught.

You really figure that both chambers are going to pass that stupid bill? Political grandstanding at its finest. Let me know when all of you "Conservatives" start even pretending to get specific about what should be cut.

[gator996]

I know...why do you think this "pin it on Obama" thing is going anywhere?

[mdgator05]

If spending cuts are such great policy, as they like to claim, shouldn't conservatives be clamoring to be given credit for these cuts?

[tegator80]

Personally, I find this very entertaining. You are seeing some fine lawyering right now. I also find it entertaining to see posters in the Too Hot rooting for their side. Wait a little bit and Reid/Pelosi/Obama will make a counter-move and then it will be up to "the good guys" to counter the counter.

Guys, it is all a play for your emotions...and your pocketbooks. No one is clean in this and if you really want to root for something, how about the US and kick them all out. Of course we had that chance last November and we decided it wasn't worth the effort. Sorry, but all of us are outnumbered by the truly stupid and disconnected. Might as well get to that place ASAP.

[gatorman_07732]

I know...why do you think this "pin it on Obama" thing is going anywhere?

From Woodward:

Bob Woodward: Obama Made Big Mistake on Sequester

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100491803

Woodward documents in his 2012 book The Price of Politics that team Obama first proposed the idea of the sequester. Expanding on his work in a Sunday Washington Post op-ed, he noted—as he has before—that both President Obama and his would-be Treasury Secretary Jack Lew lied on the campaign trail by saying the sequester originated with House Republicans. The White House has now ceded that fact.

The sequester was a risky gambit by the president. It succeeded in preventing a government default with a debt ceiling deal right before he sought re-election. But it failed to work as advertised on deficit reduction because people assumed it wouldn't happen.

Obama now stares down another debt ceiling deal—after the sequester is slated to start—with negotiations polluted by the recent past.

[G8trGr8t]

yes, 0 was confident that after he got his tax increases he would be able to add even more taxes by leveraging political pressure from the sequester. pubs made it clear that the tax increases approved as part of the debt ceiling would be the last ones but the narcissist in chief was certain that the lmsm would carry his message of pain and crisis to the masses and force the pubs to cave again. now like a spoiled child, he is stamping his feet and pitching a fit because he can't have what he wanted all along, more and more taxes. it is apparent that his mommy never taught him the meaning of the word no

[mdgator05]

yes, 0 was confident that after he got his tax increases he would be able to add even more taxes by leveraging political pressure from the sequester. pubs made it clear that the tax increases approved as part of the debt ceiling would be the last ones but the narcissist in chief was certain that the lmsm would carry his message of pain and crisis to the masses and force the pubs to cave again. now like a spoiled child, he is stamping his feet and pitching a fit because he can't have what he wanted all along, more and more taxes. it is apparent that his mommy never taught him the meaning of the word no

Given the reactions to anything that he does on this board, this is an ironic post.

[chemgator]

The sequester was voted for by republicans & democrats...could have been avoided by congress with the super committee...was designed to be so crappy as to make getting a better negotiated deal easy.

That didn't happen because the house GOP can't manage its membership to negotiate a deal with anyone including Boehner.


Please explain the logic of blocking a vote to avoid the sequester.


And then you can explain how the GOP's politcal strategies have been working out recently...
Please explain what's wrong with the sequester. Why does it need to be avoided? Didn't Obama increase discretionary spending 84% in his first four years? Didn't these spending increases fail to "stimulate" the economy? Is it too much to ask that Obama lead us toward smarter spending, instead of randomly increasing spending until a recovery somehow magically occurs?

I think the republican strategies are working fine. We might finally go a year without a double-digit discretionary spending increase. We will probably have to wait to get a real leader in the White House before we can actually cut any spending.

[gator996]

Please explain what's wrong with the sequester. Why does it need to be avoided? Didn't Obama increase discretionary spending 84% in his first four years? Didn't these spending increases fail to "stimulate" the economy? Is it too much to ask that Obama lead us toward smarter spending, instead of randomly increasing spending until a recovery somehow magically occurs?

I think the republican strategies are working fine. We might finally go a year without a double-digit discretionary spending increase. We will probably have to wait to get a real leader in the White House before we can actually cut any spending.



Let's answer your 2nd question first....

http://factcheck.org/2010/11/sunday-replay-29/

Domestic Spending Is Up, But How Much?

Two Republicans on two different talk shows made the claim that discretionary domestic spending is up 84 percent since President Barack Obama took office. But that’s an inflated figure. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has produced reports that show the figure is actually 28 percent.



Here’s what the politicians said:


Rep. Mike Pence on ABC’s "This Week": The president yesterday called for a spending freeze. Well, we — we think we ought to go back to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels and freeze there — there’s been an 84 percent increase in domestic spending since this administration took office. We’ve got to roll back there.

Rep. Paul Ryan on "Fox News Sunday": This category of spending [non-defense, discretionary] — the base spending went up 24 percent in the last two years. When we add stimulus, it went up 84 percent. We have had spending on a gusher.



The 84 percent figure is a product of the Republican staff of the House Budget Committee. The GOP report says it represents "non-defense discretionary spending" for fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010. But the report is flawed.

The GOP report estimated the "discretionary stimulus spending" for fiscal year 2010 to be $259 billion. But in a February 2009 report, the CBO put that figure at $110.7 billion. The one-year figure used by the Republican staff is actually close to what CBO said the cost would be for an entire decade of stimulus spending: $308 billion spread over 10 years. (The total cost of the stimulus measure was higher, but much of it came in tax cuts, not discretionary spending.)

Also, the GOP staffers are counting budget authority as "spending," which is incorrect. Budget authority is not spending. It’s the amount that Congress has authorized to be spent, and often the actual spending stretches over more than one year. It is more accurate to use actual outlays, which represent dollars spent. Also, the CBO says (page 21) budget authority includes "spending from the Highway Trust Fund and the Airport and Airway Trust Fund … and is not considered discretionary."

Finally, the GOP staffers used old CBO budget authority data from when the spending bills were passed, rather than the CBO’s updated spending data.

A more current and accurate measure of non-defense discretionary spending can be found in two recent CBO reports: The Budget and Economic Outlook issued in January 2010 and The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update issued in August 2010.

In the January 2010 report, the CBO (on table 3-8) reports that total non-defense discretionary outlays were $522 billion in 2008 (actual), $581 billion in 2009 (actual) and $682 billion in 2010 (estimated). That’s an increase of 31 percent, from $522 billion to $682 billion. The 2009 and 2010 figures include stimulus funds.

The August update (table 1-5) revised the 2010 non-defense discretionary figure downward to $666 billion, meaning the increase from 2008 to 2010 is now at 28 percent. The fiscal year closed on Sept. 30, so the 2010 figure issued in August should be close to the actual amount.


Now the answer to Question #3 is "no", the stimulus DID help the economy.

The answer to Question #4 ignores the targeted spending the republicans have favored, sometimes originated, that Obama is trying to get passed and now they block.

Explain to me the resistance to funding the infrastructure bank?



Where in your opinion is all of the job creation legislation that the House GOP ran on in 2010 midterms?


Lets be honest here...they did nothing and got ousted in 2012 for being obstructionist.

:yes:

[surfn1080]

http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2013/02/27/107451

IMg doesn't seem to work. Anyhow now the prez is saying most won't feel the cuts....

[surfn1080]

Let's answer your 2nd question first....

http://factcheck.org/2010/11/sunday-replay-29/

Domestic Spending Is Up, But How Much?

Two Republicans on two different talk shows made the claim that discretionary domestic spending is up 84 percent since President Barack Obama took office. But that’s an inflated figure. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has produced reports that show the figure is actually 28 percent.



Here’s what the politicians said:


Rep. Mike Pence on ABC’s "This Week": The president yesterday called for a spending freeze. Well, we — we think we ought to go back to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels and freeze there — there’s been an 84 percent increase in domestic spending since this administration took office. We’ve got to roll back there.

Rep. Paul Ryan on "Fox News Sunday": This category of spending [non-defense, discretionary] — the base spending went up 24 percent in the last two years. When we add stimulus, it went up 84 percent. We have had spending on a gusher.



The 84 percent figure is a product of the Republican staff of the House Budget Committee. The GOP report says it represents "non-defense discretionary spending" for fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010. But the report is flawed.

The GOP report estimated the "discretionary stimulus spending" for fiscal year 2010 to be $259 billion. But in a February 2009 report, the CBO put that figure at $110.7 billion. The one-year figure used by the Republican staff is actually close to what CBO said the cost would be for an entire decade of stimulus spending: $308 billion spread over 10 years. (The total cost of the stimulus measure was higher, but much of it came in tax cuts, not discretionary spending.)

Also, the GOP staffers are counting budget authority as "spending," which is incorrect. Budget authority is not spending. It’s the amount that Congress has authorized to be spent, and often the actual spending stretches over more than one year. It is more accurate to use actual outlays, which represent dollars spent. Also, the CBO says (page 21) budget authority includes "spending from the Highway Trust Fund and the Airport and Airway Trust Fund … and is not considered discretionary."

Finally, the GOP staffers used old CBO budget authority data from when the spending bills were passed, rather than the CBO’s updated spending data.

A more current and accurate measure of non-defense discretionary spending can be found in two recent CBO reports: The Budget and Economic Outlook issued in January 2010 and The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update issued in August 2010.

In the January 2010 report, the CBO (on table 3-8) reports that total non-defense discretionary outlays were $522 billion in 2008 (actual), $581 billion in 2009 (actual) and $682 billion in 2010 (estimated). That’s an increase of 31 percent, from $522 billion to $682 billion. The 2009 and 2010 figures include stimulus funds.

The August update (table 1-5) revised the 2010 non-defense discretionary figure downward to $666 billion, meaning the increase from 2008 to 2010 is now at 28 percent. The fiscal year closed on Sept. 30, so the 2010 figure issued in August should be close to the actual amount.


Now the answer to Question #3 is "no", the stimulus DID help the economy.

The answer to Question #4 ignores the targeted spending the republicans have favored, sometimes originated, that Obama is trying to get passed and now they block.

Explain to me the resistance to funding the infrastructure bank?



Where in your opinion is all of the job creation legislation that the House GOP ran on in 2010 midterms?


Lets be honest here...they did nothing and got ousted in 2012 for being obstructionist.

:yes:

Lets not pretend both sides don't do this. Obama has been spewing out fear all week on just 2% and is now already back tracking. Either way spending increased when we were promised a reduced deficit!

[Minister_of_Information]

Republicans are the Debil!

[gator996]

Lets not pretend both sides don't do this. Obama has been spewing out fear all week on just 2% and is now already back tracking. Either way spending increased when we were promised a reduced deficit!



Newsflash....

You got a reduced deficit.


The deficit is the annual borrowing plug to meet our obligations...
That's gone down under Obama...

The national debt is the sum of the deficits...

[surfn1080]

Really.... I'm sorry did I miss where we are not over 1 trillion per year still? Oh and Obama is already talking adding new spending. We all knew the extra tax revenue would go quickly.

[gator996]

http://business.time.com/2013/02/13/does-president-obama-really-believe-in-deficit-reduction/

Does President Obama Really Believe in Deficit Reduction?
By Christopher MatthewsFeb. 13, 2013


President Obama has always at least paid lip service to the idea that the deficit and debt pose a threat to the American economy. He was in office for less than a month before he convened a “fiscal responsibility summit” at the White House — where he and Congressional leaders discussed ways to reduce the budget deficit, which was 10.1% of GDP in 2010. And in 2011, under serious pressure from Congressional Republicans who refused to raise the debt ceiling without spending cuts, the federal government enacted a series of budget cuts and limits to future spending increases, which cut the ten year budget deficit by $1.5 trillion when compared to the 2010 baseline. Last year further deficit reduction of $647 billion was achieved mostly through tax increases on those earning more than $400,000 per year ($450,000 for couples).

Furthermore, the recovering economy has done its part to reduce the deficit on top of measures taken to trim spending and raise taxes. According to a recent Congressional Budget Office Report, the 2013 budget deficit will be 5.3% of GDP — nearly half of what it was when the President took office. The report also showed that the growth of healthcare spending continues to slow, which may be due to structural changes in the healthcare system introduced by the 2010 healthcare reform law. Both of these dynamics have combined to show the total debt remaining somewhat steady between 72.5% and 77% of GDP in the next ten years.

In other words, the budget picture has improved markedly. But how much is enough? The supposed reason the President is calling for $1.5 trillion of further reductions is because that would put the total reduction in line with what the Bowles-Simpson comission decided in 2010 was needed to stabilize the long term debt picture. But the baseline assumptions of Bowles-Simpson included the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on workers making more than $200,000, as well as draw down from war efforts – meaning that the commission called for $4 trillion in savings on top of those cost savings. So the President’s $4 trillion and Bowles-Simpson’s $4 trillion are not the same thing.

Meanwhile, many economists continue to believe that our total debt as a percentage of GDP is too high. Indeed, there is evidence that debt levels in the 70% range can slow economic growth by reducing private investment (if private companies are lending the government money, they aren’t investing it in their businesses). High debt levels may also prevent the government from effectively responding to another crisis — be it a recession or some sort of national security emergency.

But the idea that debt at 77% of GDP is dangerous while 35% or some other number is not is, for now, just a theory. There isn’t a ton of historical data to draw from, given that the international monetary system we find ourselves in is just 40 years old. After all, Japan’s government has a debt-to-GDP of well over 200% but can still borrow freely and at very low rates in the bond market.