The debt limit

[cutthemdown]

Odd there isn't a thread on what is the big issue with Obama and Congress right now. Republicans won't raise taxes, so they are holding up raising the limit so the treasury dept can pay off the countries creditors. The Dems holding it up because they won't agree to any cuts to the budget without a corresponding tax increase on what they say will be the rich. (that is another issue)

So now it looks like Obama may try and say the debt limit in unconstitutional and runs afoul of the consititution.

I think it would be a good idea for repubs to go ahead and let Obama raise the debt limit without Congress. That will be good ammo for the election he is a spender and will bypass Congress when it suits him. How come we aren't talking about this more?

[alkemical]

....there's nothing that can be done.

that's why.

[Mr.Meanie]

Odd there isn't a thread on what is the big issue with Obama and Congress right now. Republicans won't raise taxes, so they are holding up raising the limit so the treasury dept can pay off the countries creditors. The Dems holding it up because they won't agree to any cuts to the budget without a corresponding tax increase on what they say will be the rich. (that is another issue)

So now it looks like Obama may try and say the debt limit in unconstitutional and runs afoul of the consititution.

I think it would be a good idea for repubs to go ahead and let Obama raise the debt limit without Congress. That will be good ammo for the election he is a spender and will bypass Congress when it suits him. How come we aren't talking about this more?

I ****ing hate this politics garbage. If we want to take the enviable AAA credit rating status the US currently enjoys, and plunge it to 'D' rating junk status it would send the entire globe reeling and could spark another global depression. It would be something that could take decades to undo. And to do that because a couple of politicians want to score some points for an election in a few years? Absolutely disgraceful. I can't believe someone would advocate for that.

We need to fix a number of things, but trashing our status in the world for a temporary political play is beyond reckless.

[alkemical]

We just need a plague.

[cutthemdown]

I ****ing hate this politics garbage. If we want to take the enviable AAA credit rating status the US currently enjoys, and plunge it to 'D' rating junk status it would send the entire globe reeling and could spark another global depression. It would be something that could take decades to undo. And to do that because a couple of politicians want to score some points for an election in a few years? Absolutely disgraceful. I can't believe someone would advocate for that.

We need to fix a number of things, but trashing our status in the world for a temporary political play is beyond reckless.

Ok then why are the dems demanding tax increases to do it? If its not political? If its that important then raising the debt limit should have no strings attached? Obviously neither side sees it like that so how is one worst then the other. Obviously people around here know that I like to follow the political aspect of it. It's interesting to me how the strategy's of the two sides play out. So then you agree they shouldnt play games with it. So would you agree that since repubs have the power, and its so important, that the dems should just make the cuts, raise the limit and stop playing political games with it? Or do you think its the repubs who should deal and raise taxes? How can you expect repubs who just ran on a no raise tax platform to do that? The dems did not run on a we won't make any cuts platform so IMO they should deal. They repubs just wont the election and to the victor goes the spoils. Just like How dems used that to push healthcare through with reconcilliation and shifty accounting.

[cutthemdown]

It looks like the debt limit will get raised despite Congress so why should repubs raise taxes? If Obama will be forced to do it unilaterally its smarter to let him do it and not raise the taxes? If Obama going to raise the limit no matter what then what incentive would the repubs have to raise taxes?

[Mr.Meanie]

Ok then why are the dems demanding tax increases to do it? If its not political? If its that important then raising the debt limit should have no strings attached? Obviously neither side sees it like that so how is one worst then the other. Obviously people around here know that I like to follow the political aspect of it. It's interesting to me how the strategy's of the two sides play out. So then you agree they shouldnt play games with it. So would you agree that since repubs have the power, and its so important, that the dems should just make the cuts, raise the limit and stop playing political games with it? Or do you think its the repubs who should deal and raise taxes? How can you expect repubs who just ran on a no raise tax platform to do that? The dems did not run on a we won't make any cuts platform so IMO they should deal. They repubs just wont the election and to the victor goes the spoils. Just like How dems used that to push healthcare through with reconcilliation and shifty accounting.

I'm saying everyone needs to stop playing political games with our our country's financial future. Both sides. You were saying they should not raise the debt limit to try to screw over Obama, when you don't realize trashing our credit rating will just screw over the entire country. Both sides are responsible for the mess we are in, both sides need to fix it.

And they need to hear more "lets fix this" from their supporters, and less "lets try to score political points".

[Mr.Meanie]

It looks like the debt limit will get raised despite Congress so why should repubs raise taxes? If Obama will be forced to do it unilaterally its smarter to let him do it and not raise the taxes? If Obama going to raise the limit no matter what then what incentive would the repubs have to raise taxes?

It is the job of Congress to raise the debt limit, not the President. You are saying they should not do their job and let the country fail in it's debt obligations, so they can force the President to bail America out and then use it to attack him in the next election.

**** that. And **** anyone who has that horrible partisan attitude. Politics in this country are depressingly sad.

[That One Guy]

It is the job of Congress to raise the debt limit, not the President. You are saying they should not do their job and let the country fail in it's debt obligations, so they can force the President to bail America out and then use it to attack him in the next election.

**** that. And **** anyone who has that horrible partisan attitude. Politics in this country are depressingly sad.

Well it's at least commendable that the politicians are agreeing something needs to change. If the options are: 1. Force budget cuts and try to get the debt under control or 2. Change nothing, raise the ceiling, and trust that the politicians will come together to get something done... then, yeah, I kinda appreciate someone holding the process up and demanding change.

[TonyR]

Good post from Andrew Sullivan on this today...

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/06/boehners-economic-terrorism.html

[Mr.Meanie]

Well it's at least commendable that the politicians are agreeing something needs to change. If the options are: 1. Force budget cuts and try to get the debt under control or 2. Change nothing, raise the ceiling, and trust that the politicians will come together to get something done... then, yeah, I kinda appreciate someone holding the process up and demanding change.

I agree with you, and I absolutely agree it's a good place to hold the debate.

My issue was the original post saying Congress should just default on our debts so Obama has to scramble to try to save us, and then that could be used for political gain.

[Mr.Meanie]

Good post from Andrew Sullivan on this today...

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/06/boehners-economic-terrorism.html

That was a great article. It's unreal that this is even a possibility.

[That One Guy]

I agree with you, and I absolutely agree it's a good place to hold the debate.

My issue was the original post saying Congress should just default on our debts so Obama has to scramble to try to save us, and then that could be used for political gain.

Ahh, then yes. I think his point was just that while Obama now has this possible move in his pocket, it would be a political loss either way. I'd be absolutely disappointed in anyone who, at this point in the game, shut down negotiations for the pure gain of political points in that scenario. I have to think he meant as a contingency.

[Rigs11]

how many times was the debt limit increased while the previous prez was in power?

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Ok then why are the dems demanding tax increases to do it? If its not political? If its that important then raising the debt limit should have no strings attached? Obviously neither side sees it like that so how is one worst then the other. Obviously people around here know that I like to follow the political aspect of it. It's interesting to me how the strategy's of the two sides play out. So then you agree they shouldnt play games with it. So would you agree that since repubs have the power, and its so important, that the dems should just make the cuts, raise the limit and stop playing political games with it? Or do you think its the repubs who should deal and raise taxes? How can you expect repubs who just ran on a no raise tax platform to do that? The dems did not run on a we won't make any cuts platform so IMO they should deal. They repubs just wont the election and to the victor goes the spoils. Just like How dems used that to push healthcare through with reconcilliation and shifty accounting.

Ok, why won't the Republicans agree to tax loophole closures -- because that's what they are; not a raise in taxes, they're loophole closures -- since they're getting cuts in the TRILLIONS of dollars. That's what we adults call "a negotiation." You get some of what you want. We get some of what we want. Then we all go and have a beer together because we've helped the country, which I thought was what this was all about.

But no. Republicans walking away from the negotiating table because they didn't get their way. Guess what, guys? You're in the minority. You don't get to have your way every time.

That's not how adults behave.

[That One Guy]

Good post from Andrew Sullivan on this today...

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/06/boehners-economic-terrorism.html

When the issue is a matter of trillions, you start with the cuts. Once the number you need to make up for a balanced budget is at least in the billions, then talk about higher revenue. I'm not opposed to everything that has been discussed on the revenue side but the spending is so obscene, the revenue side can't even begin to approach it.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

When the issue is a matter of trillions, you start with the cuts. Once the number you need to make up for a balanced budget is at least in the billions, then talk about higher revenue. I'm not opposed to everything that has been discussed on the revenue side but the spending is so obscene, the revenue side can't even begin to approach it.

It needs to be BOTH. If you want out of the deficit quickly, it needs to be BOTH. If you want a long term solution to the problem, it needs to be BOTH.

The left gets it. They've agreed to spending cuts in the trillions. The right doesn't get it.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Good post from Andrew Sullivan on this today...

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/06/boehners-economic-terrorism.html

Great article. Thanks for posting.

The money quote:
"For the GOP to use the debt ceiling to put a gun to the head of the US and global economy until they get only massive spending cuts and no revenue enhancement is therefore the clearest sign yet of their abandonment of the last shreds of a conservative disposition. A conservative does not risk the entire economic system to score an ideological victory. That is what a fanatic does. And when that fanatical faction was responsible for huge spending binges in the recent past, for two off-budget wars costing $4.4 trillion, a new Medicare benefit, and tax revenues at a 50-year low relative to GDP and tax rates below the levels of Ronald Reagan, this insistence is lunacy, when it isn't gob-smackingly hypocritical. I say this as someone who was railing against too much spending when these people were throwing money away like it was confetti. "Deficits don't matter," remember?"

[That One Guy]

It needs to be BOTH. If you want out of the deficit quickly, it needs to be BOTH. If you want a long term solution to the problem, it needs to be BOTH.

The left gets it. They've agreed to spending cuts in the trillions. The right doesn't get it.

I absolutely agree. I don't know if I've heard any talk of eliminating the deficit though. It seems to me that it's pretty much spiteful resistance from the Ds at this point. There's gonna be a deficit still; that's not disputed. The question is just a matter of how much of one there is.

If they were actually intending to balance the budget, I'd absolutely say more revenue is reasonable to patch the final gaps.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

I absolutely agree. I don't know if I've heard any talk of eliminating the deficit though. It seems to me that it's pretty much spiteful resistance from the Ds at this point. There's gonna be a deficit still; that's not disputed. The question is just a matter of how much of one there is.

If they were actually intending to balance the budget, I'd absolutely say more revenue is reasonable to patch the final gaps.

But revenue spending is off the table, according to Republican lawmakers on the Hill.

Look, eliminating the deficit can happen, but it's going to take spending cuts AND revenue increases, and it's not going to happen in a year. We spent 8 years under Bush building this deficit. We have spent another two adding to it. I don't deny this, I don't think anyone else does either.

How can there be resistance from the D's when they've already agreed to TRILLIONS of dollars of cuts, provided they're paired with tax loophole closures?

[DenverBrit]

Good post from Andrew Sullivan on this today...

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/06/boehners-economic-terrorism.html

Excellent.

He summed up the issue nicely with this paragraph.

For the GOP to use the debt ceiling to put a gun to the head of the US and global economy until they get only massive spending cuts and no revenue enhancement is therefore the clearest sign yet of their abandonment of the last shreds of a conservative disposition. A conservative does not risk the entire economic system to score an ideological victory. That is what a fanatic does. And when that fanatical faction was responsible for huge spending binges in the recent past, for two off-budget wars costing $4.4 trillion, a new Medicare benefit, and tax revenues at a 50-year low relative to GDP and tax rates below the levels of Ronald Reagan, this insistence is lunacy, when it isn't gob-smackingly hypocritical.

I say this as someone who was railing against too much spending when these people were throwing money away like it was confetti. "Deficits don't matter," remember?

[Fedaykin]

When the issue is a matter of trillions, you start with the cuts. Once the number you need to make up for a balanced budget is at least in the billions, then talk about higher revenue. I'm not opposed to everything that has been discussed on the revenue side but the spending is so obscene, the revenue side can't even begin to approach it.

Why tie one hand behind your back when trying to accomplish a goal best done with two hands?

And also, the spending problem is only obscene in an absolute sense. The U.S. Federal government actually has one of the smallest governments of the developed world when compared to the total gdp and tax base.

[Fedaykin]

I absolutely agree. I don't know if I've heard any talk of eliminating the deficit though. It seems to me that it's pretty much spiteful resistance from the Ds at this point. There's gonna be a deficit still; that's not disputed. The question is just a matter of how much of one there is.

If they were actually intending to balance the budget, I'd absolutely say more revenue is reasonable to patch the final gaps.

It's not possible to eliminate the deficit in one fell swoop. It will take at least several years. It's not spiteful resistance -- it's realism.

[cutthemdown]

I'm saying everyone needs to stop playing political games with our our country's financial future. Both sides. You were saying they should not raise the debt limit to try to screw over Obama, when you don't realize trashing our credit rating will just screw over the entire country. Both sides are responsible for the mess we are in, both sides need to fix it.

And they need to hear more "lets fix this" from their supporters, and less "lets try to score political points".

No I didn't say that. I said if all Obama has to do is say it's unconstitutional, and then treasury raises the limit anyways, then why all the fuss? Why try to force a tax increase with it? Why try and force spending cuts with it? The repubs can let Obama do it on his own, then limit gets raised, the credit rating maintained, but they can then use that to some extent in the election.

Sorry if I try to see what angle the politicians are working, its not always that I think its the right thing to do. I do find it funny they are pointing at the repubs while at same time trying to force many of them to go against campaign promises and also raise taxes along with it. Also if they can raise the limit by saying it violates the constitution then why all the fuss?

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Stop saying it's a tax increase. It isn't a tax increase.

It's the closure of tax loopholes. Our current economic climate requires that EVERYONE pay their full share. Loopholes keep people from paying their full share. Closing the loopholes TEMPORARILY will get those who can to pay their full share.

Stop calling them tax increases. It's the same tax. We'd just ACTUALLY collect it.

[tnedator]

Good post from Andrew Sullivan on this today...

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/06/boehners-economic-terrorism.html

Good as in highly partisan and looking at only one side of the equation?

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Good as in highly partisan and looking at only one side of the equation?

Not insulting, honestly asking:

You really think that looks at only one side of the equation? It openly criticizes the deficit, how we got there, and the need for cuts... IN ADDITION to increasing revenue.

I am really very curious why you're so anti-revenue. Someone mentioned doing the job with one hand instead of two... and it makes sense. Why not attack this very real issue from both the spending AND revenue side?

Seems like if you're serious about it being a threat, and you're serious about fixing it, and fixing it quickly, that's the only course you can take.

[cutthemdown]

Stop saying it's a tax increase. It isn't a tax increase.

It's the closure of tax loopholes. Our current economic climate requires that EVERYONE pay their full share. Loopholes keep people from paying their full share. Closing the loopholes TEMPORARILY will get those who can to pay their full share.

Stop calling them tax increases. It's the same tax. We'd just ACTUALLY collect it.

Just because liberals love to call increases anything but, doesn't mean they aren't taxes. Just like how you all did it with the healthcare BS.

[Boomhauer]

The debt limit OP: Odd there isn't a thread on what is the big issue with Obama and Congress right now. ... How come we aren't talking about this more?

Because it's a non-issue.
There's no debt-limit wall reached in early August, that's just political hysteria. In the same way DC and pundits sold that TARP, little-O stimulus #1 and #2, Obamacare, fascist takeover of GM and Chrysler, Quantitative Easing #1 and #2, etc, etc, were all essential or the world would collapse, this arbitrary date of claimed default is meaningless.

What's important was the 2010 Budget CR earlier this spring that Repubs sold out and lied to the people on ($38bil saved?), and the upcoming 2012 budget talks and passage. If there's no surplus, the nation's debt will continue to rise and the Treasury will continue to print as much or more money as necessary.

[tnedator]

Stop saying it's a tax increase. It isn't a tax increase.

It's the closure of tax loopholes. Our current economic climate requires that EVERYONE pay their full share. Loopholes keep people from paying their full share. Closing the loopholes TEMPORARILY will get those who can to pay their full share.

Stop calling them tax increases. It's the same tax. We'd just ACTUALLY collect it.

That's Dem speak -- "their full share." We have a progressive tax system, so the more wealthy pay far, far, far more than an equal share, so how do you determine what a "full" or "fair" share is?

As to the loopholes, I am fully in favor of killing many of them, like subsidizing corn purchases for ethanol, which will decrease our food costs, since it artificially inflates the corn cost. Get rid of the splash and dash thing, which I think is still in place, which was a misguided/poorly written subsidy for bio-diesel.

I toured a bio-diesel facility a little over a year ago, and they said that without the subsidy (I think a dollar a gallon) it was not economical to produce it.

There are a LOT of big tax loopholes, incentives and tax credits that add up to a lot of money, but do little if anything for our economy. Unfortunately, many of them are related to "green energy", but not all.

I'm with the President, lets end the tax break for private aviation, but don't use it at a press conference to further a class warfare agenda, especially since that tax break is a drop in the bucket in terms of real dollars.

However, I'm not for some of the things that the President wants to do like eliminating LIFO accounting for tax purposes, as this will equate to an across the board tax increase on businesses large and small.

There are things we can and should do, but right now, both sides are playing a political game of chicken.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Their full share = the full percentage that everyone is charged PRIOR TO ANY LOOPHOLES. That's not a raise on taxes. It's a closure of a loophole.

And how is adding revenue to the pot a BAD thing? How is negotiation a BAD thing?

The Republicans are not negotiating. It really is that simple. One side is agreeing to MASSIVE spending cuts (in the TRILLIONS of dollars). The other is saying "Great! We'll take it! But we're not touching taxes, because we don't really want to fix this problem; we just want to cut all social programs and do some right-wing social engineering."

[cutthemdown]

Because it's a non-issue.
There's no debt-limit wall reached in early August, that's just political hysteria. In the same way DC and pundits sold that TARP, little-O stimulus #1 and #2, Obamacare, fascist takeover of GM and Chrysler, Quantitative Easing #1 and #2, budget Continuing Resolution extending 2010 bill through all 2011, etc, etc, were all essential or the world would collapse, this arbitrary date of claimed default is meaningless.

What's important was the 2010 Budget CR earlier this spring that Repubs sold out and lied to the people on ($38bil saved?), and the upcoming 2012 budget talks and passage. If there's no surplus, the nation's debt will continue to rise and the Treasury will continue to print as much or more money as necessary.

I have heard others say this is all much to do about nothing. Thanks for the input.

[DenverBrit]

Good as in highly partisan and looking at only one side of the equation?

Sullivan was a war supporting 'Conservative' until Bush & Co screwed up.

Sullivan supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States, and was initially hawkish in the war on terror, arguing that weakness would embolden terrorists. Immediately following the September 11 attacks in 2001, he wrote a controversial essay for The Sunday Times, in which he stated, "The middle part of the country—the great red zone that voted for Bush—is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead—and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column."[44] In an October 14, 2001 post, Sullivan announced that recent anthrax attacks had sealed his support for war on Iraq, including the possible use of nuclear weaponry by the United States.

In recent times, Andrew Sullivan has changed his position on the Iraq war and described it as a mistake. On the October 27, 2006 edition of Real Time with Bill Maher, he described conservatives and Republicans who refused to admit they had been wrong to support the Iraq War as "cowards." On February 26, 2008 he wrote on his blog: "After 9/11, I was clearly blinded by fear of al Qaeda and deluded by the overwhelming military superiority of the US and the ease of democratic transitions in Eastern Europe into thinking we could simply fight our way to victory against Islamist terror. I wasn't alone. But I was surely wrong."[48]

Sullivan authored an opinion piece featured as the cover article of the October 2009 edition of The Atlantic magazine ("Dear President Bush"). This piece called upon former President Bush to take personal responsibility for the incidents and practices of torture that occurred during his administration as part of the "War on Terror".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan#War_on_terror

[tnedator]

Not insulting, honestly asking:

You really think that looks at only one side of the equation? It openly criticizes the deficit, how we got there, and the need for cuts... IN ADDITION to increasing revenue.

I am really very curious why you're so anti-revenue. Someone mentioned doing the job with one hand instead of two... and it makes sense. Why not attack this very real issue from both the spending AND revenue side?

Seems like if you're serious about it being a threat, and you're serious about fixing it, and fixing it quickly, that's the only course you can take.

Which state was it that a year or two ago (maybe three or so) instituted a "millionaires" tax? Maryland or Delaware or something like that. What happened? They didn't raise anything near the tax revenue they estimated, and in fact I believe their tax revenue went down across the board. People with money will adjust. They will move their money, divert income, delay taking capital gains, etc.

So, the first fallacy is that by simply raising the tax rates we will see an increase in revenue based on the taxable income staying the same. It just won't happen.

Second, while there is disagreement as to how many businesses are affected, the fact is that increasing the upper tax brackets WILL impact a great many small businesses who have pass through entities (sole proprietorship's, partnerships, LLCs, etc.).

Third, we massively increased our spending immediately upon the Democrats getting full, filibuster-proof control of federal spending. So, now we spend like drunken sailors (to use a popular phrase) for 2 1/2 years, and then when the national debt jumps 3-4 trillion, we say, oops, we have to raise taxes to pay for it.

People like myself and other conservatives saw this coming within the first month or so of the President taking the oath. It was immediately clear that federal spending was going to skyrocket, causing a 'crisis' that could only be solved with tax increases, aka more revenue.

Finally, the best way to get more revenue is to get the economy going. The stronger the economy, the more income and therefore the more taxes paid. Even many Democrats last year said that ANY tax increase during a recession like we were/are in (depending if you use the technical term or the practical term -- don't want to get a question wrong and be labeled misinformed) is NOT good for economic recovery.

Right now, the Democrats are saying we need to spend more to reduce the debt. So, let's see how that works.

I'm maxed out on my credit cards, my home equity LOC is fully used, I have two car payments, and I say to my wife, "hey hon, I think we should go ahead and get that Capital One (I except paid endorsement gigs) card they keep mailing us about, because I think we need to get that bass boat, and new home theater setup, because I heard that the best way for us to reduce our debt is to spend some more.

[tnedator]

Sullivan was a war supporting 'Conservative' until Bush & Co screwed up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan#War_on_terror

Doesn't change the fact his article "today" is partisan in nature.

Their full share = the full percentage that everyone is charged PRIOR TO ANY LOOPHOLES. That's not a raise on taxes. It's a closure of a loophole.

And how is adding revenue to the pot a BAD thing? How is negotiation a BAD thing?

The Republicans are not negotiating. It really is that simple. One side is agreeing to MASSIVE spending cuts (in the TRILLIONS of dollars). The other is saying "Great! We'll take it! But we're not touching taxes, because we don't really want to fix this problem; we just want to cut all social programs and do some right-wing social engineering."

Ok, following that along, do you agree to get rid of tax subsidies like the tax credit for producing ethanol, producing bio-diesel, etc.? Or, is it only "some" loopholes and tax credits we want to get rid of?

Should we get rid of the tax credit for making wooden arrows that was in the $900 billion stimulus bill, because the Boy Scouts buy arrows from this company, and it's the last wooden arrow company in the US or something like that (forgive me, I pulled that gem from a two years backlog of memories)?

Do we eliminate the earned income credit? The tax credits for paying student tuitions, or for covering the cost of uniforms in certain jobs?

What about the tax credits for fuel for farmers?

What about deducting your IRA contributions from your income?

What about flexible spending plans?

These are all "loopholes" of one sort or another.

Now, I am ALL for trying to find a system that eliminates all of them, and am not even opposed to eliminating some of them in isolation. I'm not sold on the Fair Tax thing yet, but something akin to that is needed. Something that would eliminate the need for a massively complicated tax code, that let's guys like Rangle (and others) write in one special tax break after another for single corporations or special interest groups. The stimulus bill (and to a lesser extent the health care bill) was full of them.

****, for Arkansas, Blanch Lincoln got one passed and written in such away that it was a tax break/credit/subsidy for Arkansas farmers that had a contract with one chicken producer (don't remember which one now) that went bankrupt and left the chicken farmers in a bind. The companies name was never mentioned, but by putting in a description, date range, etc., it only applied to this one situation.

I'm just saying lets get past the talking points and talk specifically about the problem.

BS talking points like "full share" or "fair share" are just that, BS. They are not a basis for negotiation or finding a solution for the actual problem, because EVERY single person can define them their own way.

[Boomhauer]

I have heard others say this is all much to do about nothing. Thanks for the input.

Sure, to further clarify; The 'debt ceiling' is a Congress imposed cap with no actual meaning, kind of like pledges not to raise taxes. What has meaning is how budgets are made. Congress signs one into law every year (except 2011 when Dems rubber stamped the 2010 budget) with set spending and projected revenue. When the revenue doesn't match up and when 'emergency' spending is implemented, a gap is created and we go over budget. Sometimes budgets are signed that are know to breach the debt ceiling, sometimes it happens by default, but doesn't change the fact the Treasury Department of the Executive Branch prints the cash to cover the debt and is not affected by Congress' debt ceiling.

[DenverBrit]

Doesn't change the fact his article "today" is partisan in nature.


Do you have a non-partisan article on the debt ceiling that you can post?

[TonyR]

Good as in highly partisan and looking at only one side of the equation?

I don't know why you say this. You agree with the GOP position of no compromise? The Norquist school of thought? Ideology above all else? You think putting the country's, and world's, economy at risk for political advantage and opportunism is the right way to go? This ploy is probably a good political play but it certainly isn't good for the country. We need compromise or nothing is ever going to get done. The GOP clearly isn't willing to compromise, and hasn't been since Obama has been in office.

By the way, do you disagree with the way the Tories have been doing thing in Great Britain the last several months? They're making huge cuts and increasing revenues. Same thing has to be done in this country.

[TonyR]

Americans support tax increases for the purpose of deficit reduction, by the way.

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2292/americans-support-higher-taxes-really

[cutthemdown]

Most of the 60% saying the are fine with raising them aren't in the brackets that will pay more. Also those high income brackets already paying all the tax. Sure if you ask some guy making 40 grand a yr do you mind if some guy who makes 700 grand pays more in tax the answer will almost always be no i don't mind.

[Boomhauer]

Americans support tax increases (on other people) for the purpose of deficit reduction, by the way.

Corrected that for you. I'm sure if you asked Americans if they'd be willing to personally deport an illegal if it meant they'd get their job, most would jump at the opportunity. Probably lead to +10mil Americans getting jobs, paying taxes, covering mortgages and buying goods in under 3mos. That's stimulus baby!

[elsid13]

Do people not understand if we destroy our credit rating we are still going to borrow but have to pay a higher interest rate??? It not like if we don't raise the debt ceiling we magically aren't going to need to issue T-bonds for the deficit.

Spending cuts won't get us there, we need to raise taxes, by closing tax loop holes and raising rates (like back to Clinton era).

Obama administration proposal to the Republicans was to solve this problem 83% cut in spending and 17 tax increase revenue (closing tax loop hold and raise some rates). Which was close to the report that was on the House Speaker website.

[elsid13]

Because it's a non-issue.
There's no debt-limit wall reached in early August, that's just political hysteria. In the same way DC and pundits sold that TARP, little-O stimulus #1 and #2, Obamacare, fascist takeover of GM and Chrysler, Quantitative Easing #1 and #2, etc, etc, were all essential or the world would collapse, this arbitrary date of claimed default is meaningless.

What's important was the 2010 Budget CR earlier this spring that Repubs sold out and lied to the people on ($38bil saved?), and the upcoming 2012 budget talks and passage. If there's no surplus, the nation's debt will continue to rise and the Treasury will continue to print as much or more money as necessary.

S&P has already stated they will cut the Bond Rating for USA Treasure Bonds if we fail to raise the ceiling. Moody's also indicate they would downgrade us.

[Meck77]

They aren't going to fix this folks. Convert your stocks, IRAs, or extra cash if you have it to gold. They are going to have to raise the debt limit again and again thus devaluing the dollar and pushing gold higher and higher.

Yeah gold is "expensive". It's always expensive.

[cutthemdown]

You aren't going to fool repubs into tax increases. We saw you do that to Bush SR then Clinton used it against him in election. Remember that? No way you will get tea party and repubs who just ran on a cut but no new taxes platform to do anything that could be construed as a tax increase. It's not going to happen. Obama will have to drop the tax increase, make the cuts, and raise the ceiling. He has very little choice because if economy goes further south he can forget about sniffing the ****e house again.

[tnedator]

I don't know why you say this. You agree with the GOP position of no compromise? The Norquist school of thought? Ideology above all else? You think putting the country's, and world's, economy at risk for political advantage and opportunism is the right way to go? This ploy is probably a good political play but it certainly isn't good for the country. We need compromise or nothing is ever going to get done. The GOP clearly isn't willing to compromise, and hasn't been since Obama has been in office.

By the way, do you disagree with the way the Tories have been doing thing in Great Britain the last several months? They're making huge cuts and increasing revenues. Same thing has to be done in this country.

As to no compromise, that's what the Dems with a newsy super majority did in'09 And '10, which sky rocketed the deficit and debt. It's not ideology above all else, it's a difference of opinion on how we got here and how we need to dig out.

At some point you need to figure out that just because someone disagrees with your 'opinion' doesn't mean out it's just blindly following some ideology.

As too what the GOP leaders are doing, they are trying to stop the unsustainable spending path the Dem majority put us on.

Sorry for the lack of verbosity or typos, I'm on my Android tablet now.

[elsid13]

You aren't going to fool repubs into tax increases. We saw you do that to Bush SR then Clinton used it against him in election. Remember that? No way you will get tea party and repubs who just ran on a cut but no new taxes platform to do anything that could be construed as a tax increase. It's not going to happen. Obama will have to drop the tax increase, make the cuts, and raise the ceiling. He has very little choice because if economy goes further south he can forget about sniffing the ****e house again.

Obama can not raise the ceiling, the power of the purse is with Congress. They need to do their jobs.

[Meck77]

Oh and Geithner is about to hit the bricks after making his buddies a couple billion.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_18384546

[tnedator]

Do you have a non-partisan article on the debt ceiling that you can post?

Start by looking for one that doesn't start out by calling the Speaker of the House a terrorist.

[DenverBrit]

Start by looking for one that doesn't start out by calling the Speaker of the House a terrorist.

Pretty much everything I see has a partisan bent. That's why I asked.

[tnedator]

Pretty much everything I see has a partisan bent. That's why I asked.

Some more than others, but yes, many are biased one way or another. A starting point, besides not using outlandishly partisan and inflammatory speech, is to at least attempt to explore both sides of the issue.

[TonyR]

As too what the GOP leaders are doing, they are trying to stop the unsustainable spending path the Dem majority put us on.


So this "path" is all the Dem's doing? Seriously? And you really think the GOP will follow through with the cuts they're currently talking about? You're a little overly optimistic. Like almost all politicians the first order of business is getting re-elected.

[Boomhauer]

Do people not understand if we destroy our credit rating we are still going to borrow but have to pay a higher interest rate? ...
~~and~~
S&P has already stated they will cut the Bond Rating for USA Treasure Bonds if we fail to raise the ceiling. Moody's also indicate they would downgrade us.

Hate to break the news, but when it comes to countries, debt rating is a manner in which banks choose to cooperate with or fleece nations. It has nothing to do with fundamentals. If it was, the US, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland would all be about the same rate. ie; The US, Britain, Germany and France all borrow at near the same rate (+3%), though their economic outlooks are vastly different. Spain (20% unemployment) and Italy borrow a bit higher (~5%) while Portugal and Ireland are at (~10%).

[tnedator]

So this "path" is all the Dem's doing? Seriously? And you really think the GOP will follow through with the cuts they're currently talking about? You're a little overly optimistic. Like almost all politicians the first order of business is getting re-elected.

All? No. The massive two and a half year spending spree that accelerated the problem? Yes.

[That One Guy]

Why tie one hand behind your back when trying to accomplish a goal best done with two hands?

And also, the spending problem is only obscene in an absolute sense. The U.S. Federal government actually has one of the smallest governments of the developed world when compared to the total gdp and tax base.

My issue with it is if they aren't going to actually balance the budget anyways, don't go taking more of people's money. Only start taking more of people's money if you're actually trying to solve the problem.

The area where I differ from the 'cut spending' folks is that I'd like to see more of a standardization of the taxes. Less deductions, credits, etc and I think that would close what are being referred to as the "loopholes" everywhere. Be competitive but straight forward as well - make sure no one is having to carry weight for someone else but ensure they are carrying their own.

Other than that, I think their number one focus should be on cutting spending and I'd like to see programs moved to the state level to give the people more say in what sorts of programs they'd like to support. It all makes sense to me.

[Boomhauer]

Obama can not raise the ceiling, the power of the purse is with Congress. They need to do their jobs.

Congress is in charge of the Budget, approving trades and taking out loans, but the Executive Branch runs the printing press. When the dollar was removed from the gold standard, the Prez gained the right to print money and manipulate monetary policy without oversight from Congress. The current National Debt and Debt Ceiling is the on-book record of Congress, but the Prez (via Treasury Department) can print money to pay debts and service without approval form Congress.

Some of you may have heard of auditing the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, etc. During the last few years of liquidity injection, bank/loan support, quantitative easing, etc, etc, around $4tril was printed off-book. Overall, I've heard guesses of around $9tril has been printed off-book through the years if you include State Department and Black funding.
ie: a few hundred $mil or maybe a $bil here and there for Columbian, Saudi, Afghan, Paki, etc leaders, domestic R&D projects, corporations essential to national security, etc. Also include the counterfeiting press we gave Iran to help fund the CIA.

You may have also heard of a Debt:GDP ratio used to gauge economic strength that's at almost 100% now ($14.4tril : $14.6tril). If you include all the money printed off-book, we're already higher than Greece and Lebanon's %150+.

[Meck77]

Geithner admited he's never had a real job. http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_18385597

Perfect time to leave the public sector and reap the rewards of the billions you tossed around to your buddies.

[barryr]

You just have to follow the Obama admin´s belief that to reduce debt, just keep spending and maybe "invest in shovel ready" projects that they even had to admit don´t really exist. So try that people. Try spending more using your credit card and see if that debt just magically goes away.

[barryr]

Geithner admited he's never had a real job. http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_18385597

Perfect time to leave the public sector and reap the rewards of the billions you tossed around to your buddies.

Still unbelievable to me this guy not only got the job he has, but still has it. A tax cheat in such a position?

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

All? No. The massive two and a half year spending spree that accelerated the problem? Yes.

8 years prior to that, which by the way included two wars that WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET. When Obama took office, they were included in the budget. Because they're expenditures. So they should be included in the budget.

That is responsible for a large part of that number Republicans are throwing out as an "increase in spending" when in reality it was merely putting that spending down in the book.

[tnedator]

8 years prior to that, which by the way included two wars that WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET. When Obama took office, they were included in the budget. Because they're expenditures. So they should be included in the budget.

That is responsible for a large part of that number Republicans are throwing out as an "increase in spending" when in reality it was merely putting that spending down in the book.

That "not included in the budget" thing is a red herring.

So, let's address that first.

Was it paid for? If so, how?

Did the money spent count towards annual deficits and the national debt?

As to Obama, what budget? What did they have a budget for one year or something like that?

So, if I take your logic, if it wasn't in a budget, then it doesn't count towards the debt? Correct, it's free money?

So, the stimulus bill and the $500 billion omnibus spending bill in 2009, that was free money? Didn't increase the debt?

No 2010 budget, so the US didn't increase it's debt by one dime?

Bush's wars didn't count towards the debt, that was free money? We didn't have to increase debt ceilings or any of that to pay for it?

Come on, let's dispense with the talking points and stop with the red herrings.

Spending is spending, whether it's in a budget or not.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

That "not included in the budget" thing is a red herring.

So, let's address that first.

Was it paid for? If so, how?

Did the money spent count towards annual deficits and the national debt?

As to Obama, what budget? What did they have a budget for one year or something like that?

So, if I take your logic, if it wasn't in a budget, then it doesn't count towards the debt? Correct, it's free money?

So, the stimulus bill and the $500 billion omnibus spending bill in 2009, that was free money? Didn't increase the debt?

No 2010 budget, so the US didn't increase it's debt by one dime?

Bush's wars didn't count towards the debt, that was free money? We didn't have to increase debt ceilings or any of that to pay for it?

Come on, let's dispense with the talking points and stop with the red herrings.

Spending is spending, whether it's in a budget or not.

It is a way of hiding money from the prying eyes of the populace. You know it, I know it, and the administration knew it. They did it anyway.

It's wrong. Of COURSE it was paid for. Of COURSE it was. They just didn't want anyone to know how much it was costing. How can you wrap your mind around defending these ****ty ass policies? "Let's hide money from the people we're supposed to be serving!" Awesome.

[tnedator]

It is a way of hiding money from the prying eyes of the populace. You know it, I know it, and the administration knew it. They did it anyway.

It's wrong. Of COURSE it was paid for. Of COURSE it was. They just didn't want anyone to know how much it was costing. How can you wrap your mind around defending these ****ty ass policies? "Let's hide money from the people we're supposed to be serving!" Awesome.

Please answer my questions above.

Unless I'm missing something, you posted an outright lie (possibly unintentional) regarding the spending, deficit and national debt increases during the Obama years.

At the very least, your argument was disingenuous, by stating that by not putting it on the budget, the spending, annual deficit and national debt didn't increase until Obama did it he 'right way".

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Please answer my questions above.

Unless I'm missing something, you posted an outright lie (possibly unintentional) regarding the spending, deficit and national debt increases during the Obama years.

At the very least, your argument was disingenuous, by stating that by not putting it on the budget, the spending, annual deficit and national debt didn't increase until Obama did it he 'right way".

I was under the impression that if it was not on the books, it did not count toward the debt. Not the case?

And if that's not the case, why keep it off the budget? What's the point of such an unprecedented maneuver?

[tnedator]

I was under the impression that if it was not on the books, it did not count toward the debt. Not the case?

And if that's not the case, why keep it off the budget? What's the point of such an unprecedented maneuver?

Let me put it this way.

How do we pay for things? We collect taxex.

What happens when we have more spending than tax revenue? We run a deficit.

What happens when we are running a deficit and need money to pay for our spending? We sell treasury bonds and raise money to pay our debt.

What happens when we hit our credit limit (dept ceiling)? We have to increase the debt ceiling (which Senator Obama voted against doing).

Why do we have to increase the debt limit/ceiling? Because our national debt is about to exceed the maximum debt that the US is allowed to have outstanding.

Now, the annual "deficit" calculation does count some things and not others (I can't remember off the top of my head all of it), but I think for instance "borrowing" from social security doesn't count towards the annual deficit, some supplemental spending doesn't count, etc.

So, it is my understanding that parts of the Bush and Obama spending did not count towards the annual deficit (not sure the bailout count towards either deficit, maybe someone can chime in on that), but when we have to borrow money because our spending far out paces our revenues, and we increase the debt limit, it's all counted.

The national debt has increased about 4 trillion under Obama, and 4.2 trillion in eight years of Bush (including Katrina, 9/11 and the wars). Now, arguably 'some' of the debt increase under Obama can be pointed back at Bush, but it's a small amount.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Let me put it this way.

How do we pay for things? We collect taxex.

What happens when we have more spending than tax revenue? We run a deficit.

What happens when we are running a deficit and need money to pay for our spending? We sell treasury bonds and raise money to pay our debt.

What happens when we hit our credit limit (dept ceiling)? We have to increase the debt ceiling (which Senator Obama voted against doing).

Why do we have to increase the debt limit/ceiling? Because our national debt is about to exceed the maximum debt that the US is allowed to have outstanding.

Now, the annual "deficit" calculation does count some things and not others (I can't remember off the top of my head all of it), but I think for instance "borrowing" from social security doesn't count towards the annual deficit, some supplemental spending doesn't count, etc.

So, it is my understanding that parts of the Bush and Obama spending did not count towards the annual deficit (not sure the bailout count towards either deficit, maybe someone can chime in on that), but when we have to borrow money because our spending far out paces our revenues, and we increase the debt limit, it's all counted.

The national debt has increased about 4 trillion under Obama, and 4.2 trillion in eight years of Bush (including Katrina, 9/11 and the wars). Now, arguably 'some' of the debt increase under Obama can be pointed back at Bush, but it's a small amount.

I get that Obama has run up a huge deficit. I won't debate that point; it is sound.

However, I will state that by starting two off-the-book wars AND cutting taxes, Bush shot himself and this country in the foot by over-spending and under-collecting. It's time to make a compromise. The Dems have agreed to TRILLIONS in cuts. Now it's time for the R's to make a compromise as well. This isn't the time to be walking away from the table, and it's not the time to be drawing lines in the sand about things that are "off the table." That's not a negotiation. And frankly, the R's aren't in a position (as the majority in only one house of Congress, the lower house) to be making further demands where they need not give up anything.

I get what you're saying. Spending cuts are necessary, and they'll be implemented. Just as soon as the Republicans agree to cutting some loopholes.

What it comes down to is do you want to play politics? Or do you want to fix the problem?

[tnedator]

I get that Obama has run up a huge deficit. I won't debate that point; it is sound.

However, I will state that by starting two off-the-book wars AND cutting taxes, Bush shot himself and this country in the foot by over-spending and under-collecting. It's time to make a compromise. The Dems have agreed to TRILLIONS in cuts. Now it's time for the R's to make a compromise as well. This isn't the time to be walking away from the table, and it's not the time to be drawing lines in the sand about things that are "off the table." That's not a negotiation. And frankly, the R's aren't in a position (as the majority in only one house of Congress, the lower house) to be making further demands where they need not give up anything.

I get what you're saying. Spending cuts are necessary, and they'll be implemented. Just as soon as the Republicans agree to cutting some loopholes.

What it comes down to is do you want to play politics? Or do you want to fix the problem?

I don't think you ever responded to my post about loopholes. I think I asked if you wanted to cut all loopholes, or just the ones the Democrats don't like. I'll go bump it.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

I don't think you ever responded to my post about loopholes. I think I asked if you wanted to cut all loopholes, or just the ones the Democrats don't like. I'll go bump it.

I think you're going to have to go line by line to figure out which ones should be cut.

And some Republicans are on board with some loophole closures. Do they want to cut all loophole closures, or just the ones they don't like?

Unless your post mentioned each and every loophole that is available to be closed, I don't see what good re-posting it will do.

[tnedator]

I think you're going to have to go line by line to figure out which ones should be cut.

And some Republicans are on board with some loophole closures. Do they want to cut all loophole closures, or just the ones they don't like?

Here are some of the issues I brought up in direct response to a couple of your posts:

That's Dem speak -- "their full share." We have a progressive tax system, so the more wealthy pay far, far, far more than an equal share, so how do you determine what a "full" or "fair" share is?

As to the loopholes, I am fully in favor of killing many of them, like subsidizing corn purchases for ethanol, which will decrease our food costs, since it artificially inflates the corn cost. Get rid of the splash and dash thing, which I think is still in place, which was a misguided/poorly written subsidy for bio-diesel.

I toured a bio-diesel facility a little over a year ago, and they said that without the subsidy (I think a dollar a gallon) it was not economical to produce it.

There are a LOT of big tax loopholes, incentives and tax credits that add up to a lot of money, but do little if anything for our economy. Unfortunately, many of them are related to "green energy", but not all.

I'm with the President, lets end the tax break for private aviation, but don't use it at a press conference to further a class warfare agenda, especially since that tax break is a drop in the bucket in terms of real dollars.

However, I'm not for some of the things that the President wants to do like eliminating LIFO accounting for tax purposes, as this will equate to an across the board tax increase on businesses large and small.

There are things we can and should do, but right now, both sides are playing a political game of chicken.


Ok, following that along, do you agree to get rid of tax subsidies like the tax credit for producing ethanol, producing bio-diesel, etc.? Or, is it only "some" loopholes and tax credits we want to get rid of?

Should we get rid of the tax credit for making wooden arrows that was in the $900 billion stimulus bill, because the Boy Scouts buy arrows from this company, and it's the last wooden arrow company in the US or something like that (forgive me, I pulled that gem from a two years backlog of memories)?

Do we eliminate the earned income credit? The tax credits for paying student tuitions, or for covering the cost of uniforms in certain jobs?

What about the tax credits for fuel for farmers?

What about deducting your IRA contributions from your income?

What about flexible spending plans?

These are all "loopholes" of one sort or another.

Now, I am ALL for trying to find a system that eliminates all of them, and am not even opposed to eliminating some of them in isolation. I'm not sold on the Fair Tax thing yet, but something akin to that is needed. Something that would eliminate the need for a massively complicated tax code, that let's guys like Rangle (and others) write in one special tax break after another for single corporations or special interest groups. The stimulus bill (and to a lesser extent the health care bill) was full of them.

****, for Arkansas, Blanch Lincoln got one passed and written in such away that it was a tax break/credit/subsidy for Arkansas farmers that had a contract with one chicken producer (don't remember which one now) that went bankrupt and left the chicken farmers in a bind. The companies name was never mentioned, but by putting in a description, date range, etc., it only applied to this one situation.

I'm just saying lets get past the talking points and talk specifically about the problem.

BS talking points like "full share" or "fair share" are just that, BS. They are not a basis for negotiation or finding a solution for the actual problem, because EVERY single person can define them their own way.

[tnedator]

Unless your post mentioned each and every loophole that is available to be closed, I don't see what good re-posting it will do.

Because it shows that once again, like with "fair share", the Democratic talking point du jour is "close the loop holes" and the President wages class warfare talking about the pittance of cost for the private plane fuel tax credit or whatever it is. I have no problem killing that, it was renewed in the DEMOCRATS stimulus bill in '09, was it not?

It's just important to talk beyond the talking points. There are a LOT of loop holes, tax credits and such.

So saying "close the loopholes" is no more meaningful than saying "let's reduce the debt" or "let's cure cancer" or "let's have peace on earth."

The statements are so broad and lack specificity, that saying them is just one step short of worthless.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Here are some of the issues I brought up in direct response to a couple of your posts:

Thanks for re-posting.

Let's cut 'em all. I still think green energy exploration is too important to cut, but I may be alone on that. And I'm odd on that issue anyway, since I work for an oil company; most folks I work with are afraid of greener energy.

I'd like to see some of the tax cuts that oil companies (like mine) get go away. These companies (like mine) are pulling in BILLIONS in profits, not creating anything new or cleaner, not creating jobs, and are getting tax cuts on top of the profit. That seems absurd to me, and I work in the industry. If you're turning a huge profit, do you need subsidies? I say no.

You're making a big deal out of the "fair share" comment. Look. The tax rate is X%. Because of the loopholes, subsidies, etc., people are paying Y%. X% > Y%. Temporarily, say for two years (until the deficit is back to a number which is a bit more reasonable), everyone has to pay X%, or their full share of taxes. No loopholes. No subsidies (obviously exceptions should be made for food growers and probably a bunch of other people who require these subsidies for the good of the nation's food supply, etc. I'd expand on this, but I value my job and can't really go line by line at the moment).

Oil and gas companies absolutely can pay their full share. They aren't. That is absurd.

We can either attack this deficit problem from one side, or both. One side isn't effective. We'll be in the same spot year after year as program after program that people rely on is eliminated from the budget. And we'll never get the deficit down that way. If we attack it from both sides, where EVERYONE has to make sacrifices, not just those at the bottom, we can get out of this mess quickly and get back to being the greatest country on earth.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Why don't we start here, tn:

Which loopholes would you be okay with closing? Where would YOU start closing loopholes? Corporate jets, and...?

[tnedator]

Why don't we start here, tn:

Which loopholes would you be okay with closing? Where would YOU start closing loopholes? Corporate jets, and...?

In response to your previous post, I'm on board. I can also see the need for keeping some loopholes, tax credits, etc.

Since it's impossible to say which ones can be kept, because I"m not sure anyone even knows which ones exist, let me first hit on some I think need to stay.

Earned income credit. Tuition credit(s). IRA, 401k and flexible spending being deducted, cost of health insurance, etc. from AGI. Deducting mortgage interest (even though Dems have proposed getting rid of this fairly recently, I don't think most people could take the income hit).

So, in general, I think until we re-write the tax code to something far simpler, I think we need to keep most of the current tax credits or deductions (aka loopholes) that affect normal working people, retired people, etc.

So, I don't think at this time, we should remove the "loopholes" (can you tell I hate this now politicized term that really just refers to tax credits or deductions?) that will impact the lower and middle class. Many of these already have caps in place for the wealthier, like a max amount of mortgage interest that can be deducted.

I also don't think we should screw with loopholes, such as cost basis escalation (not sure the technical term) on a house when a parent dies and things like that.

So, put another way, most of the loopholes that the average person puts on the 1099 should be left until we replace the current income tax system, or at least the economy is back on it's feet.

Now, what I think needs to go is the thousands of tax credits and deductions written into dozens or hundreds of bills each year. As I said, I don't even know where to look. I know we can look at the $900 billion stimulus package and find a bunch, like the one of the wooden arrow manufacturer, but I certainly don't know them all.

I think what needs to be done is have an accounting of the ones that cost the most, and work the list that way.

IMO, the ethanol and biodiesel subsidies should go away immediately. If the technology isn't there to produce these fuels at this time, so be it, let industry figure it out. When the cost of soybeans skyrocketed, the biodiesel guys turned to things like chicken fat and other materials.

I'm not sure exactly what subsidies that the oil companies are getting, so I can't speak to them directly, other than saying it's hard for me to believe that I would want to keep them.

Same for "green energy technology" companies like GE. Stop the tax credits they get for wind turbines and the like. Beyond it being expensive, it creates an insidious relationship between companies like GE, their news arm (when they owned it), lobbyist and Washington where environmental issues and GE profit issues became very muddled.

I do not think that companies should have to change from LiFo to FiFo for tax purposes. This will amount to an across the board increase in taxes on most businesses that aren't running on a cash basis, whether they are large or small.

The private jet thing, not even 100% what it is, because it's just a political weapon at this point, is fine by me if it goes. I think it was something put in after 9/11 when the aviation industry was crushed, and then it was renewed in the Democrats' stimulus bill.

In general, I oppose any tax credits that are aimed towards one company, institution or group of people (the exception possibly being something like a Katrina or BP oil spill situation). The guys in Washington on both sides of the aisle don't even have the balls to put in the company name, they just right the description so it can only apply to one company or university or the like, and by not 'naming' a single entity, they claim that anyone that meets that criteria can take advantage -- there were a bunch of these in the stimulus and health care bills, but it's been going on for a lot longer than that and happens on both sides of the aisle.

Anyway, in very broad strokes, because I don't have a list to work from, that should give a pretty good idea of my thinking on the subject.

I don't have time to proof this, so it may have even more typos than normal -- sorry. :D

[That One Guy]

I think they should just throw everything out and if you don't have a consensus between the two branches for it to return, it doesn't come back. Unfortunately, everyone would just negotiate for their pet projects and it probably wouldn't be any better.

"I'll give you funding for the Lego super-mansion if you'll back my Kool-Aid waterfall. Deal?"

[cutthemdown]

The fact Obama voted against things as a Senator, that he now asks for as President, highlights the fantasy land many in Congress live in. They often get to take stands that really are on principal, once they are President the new reality sets in. Things like making the President get Congressional approval to use military force sound great as a Senator, but not so great once you are the man in charge. That is why governors make the best Presidents.

[Rigs11]

You just have to follow the Obama admin´s belief that to reduce debt, just keep spending and maybe "invest in shovel ready" projects that they even had to admit don´t really exist. So try that people. Try spending more using your credit card and see if that debt just magically goes away.

no instead we should follow your way to reduce debt which is to keep handing out tax cuts,start wars and cut taxes, enact the medicare drug benefit and keep tax cuts in place,cut social programs and cut taxes, if that doesn't work cut taxes some more

[cutthemdown]

My sales tax in calif went down by 1% today. Thanks Jerry Brown! :)

[barryr]

no instead we should follow your way to reduce debt which is to keep handing out tax cuts,start wars and cut taxes, enact the medicare drug benefit and keep tax cuts in place,cut social programs and cut taxes, if that doesn't work cut taxes some more

Wow, a simplistic view of what conservatives supposedly believe. Just raising taxes, which ultimately everyone will pay, has never generated the revenue claimed. Ever.

[peacepipe]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/schumer-obama-may-not-need-congress-to-avoid-default----but-congress-needs-to-act.php?ref=fpb

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

obama may have the authority to raise the debt limit himself,via the 14th ammendment. congress cannot force a default.

[That One Guy]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/schumer-obama-may-not-need-congress-to-avoid-default----but-congress-needs-to-act.php?ref=fpb



obama may have the authority to raise the debt limit himself,via the 14th ammendment. congress cannot force a default.

Yeah, but does he really want to make this a pissing match against the house? He's gotta get some stuff done still before the election.

And it does suck that this can protect the government from someone trying to force change on the system but "shall be reserved to the states" was effectively removed from the constitution because it just didn't fit what everyone was trying to do at the time.

[peacepipe]

Yeah, but does he really want to make this a pissing match against the house? He's gotta get some stuff done still before the election.

And it does suck that this can protect the government from someone trying to force change on the system but "shall be reserved to the states" was effectively removed from the constitution because it just didn't fit what everyone was trying to do at the time.
With the current make up of congress he is not going to get anything done anyway. The last thing he needs is to stand idly by & let republicans default on debt ceiling.

[cutthemdown]

My point exactly! If Obama can just raise the limit by telling the tres sec to pay the bills, then what possible motivation would repubs have for going against campaign promises and raise taxes?

[That One Guy]

The beauty of this whole scenario is that, in some facets, the Tea Partiers win merely by stopping gov't. If they want budget cuts, they can grind the whole gov't to a halt until they get their way. The big gov't types eventually have to give in so it is win/win for the TPers.

So, as it pertains to the debt, the Tea Party can basically retaliate against him usurping congress by grinding everything to a halt. No gov't or a shrunken gov't - both fulfill TP goals in one way or another.

[elsid13]

The beauty of this whole scenario is that, in some facets, the Tea Partiers win merely by stopping gov't. If they want budget cuts, they can grind the whole gov't to a halt until they get their way. The big gov't types eventually have to give in so it is win/win for the TPers.

So, as it pertains to the debt, the Tea Party can basically retaliate against him usurping congress by grinding everything to a halt. No gov't or a shrunken gov't - both fulfill TP goals in one way or another.

So tea baggers would love the country to fail in economic disaster to make a political point?

[elsid13]

My point exactly! If Obama can just raise the limit by telling the tres sec to pay the bills, then what possible motivation would repubs have for going against campaign promises and raise taxes?

The credit market will still downgrade the US credit rating and it would be challenged in the courts resulting in more economic uncertainty.

As for use of the 14th amendment

"Grim and Saass point to the 1935 Perry v. U.S Supreme Court ruling, which determined that the language in the Fourteenth Amendment does apply to the national debt. What's more, they observe, according to the majority opinion on the case, no act of Congress can undermine promises of debt payment from the federal government. "

To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise; a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pledgor," wrote Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who presided over the case.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/could-obama-ignore-congress-refuse-raise-debt-ceiling-142136726.html

[peacepipe]

I predict that at the end of the day there will be a clean vote to raise the debt ceiling.

[cutthemdown]

The scuttle Peace is that Obama will be forced into another republican victory. They are going to cut, without raising any taxes, and raise the debt limit. Repubs will claim victory and move on.

Also there are rumors that Geithner wants out and Obama trying to keep him. Obama knows that any type of confirmation right now through Congress would be very difficult. Hell he would maybe have to choose a repub to get him through. Also it would put all of the admins economic plans on trial during the election. Just horrid horrid news for Obama right now. His admin getting kicked in the nuts with high unemployment, wars, natural disasters, the midterms going repub, his admin dropping like flies, approval rating plummeting. I have some respect for how he has handled himself in the face of immense pressure from his own party, and from the tea party and repubs. I think though he is in over his head and reeling from not knowing what to do and a lack of experience. IMO the dems would be better off having a primary and making sure he is the best candidate you have.

[That One Guy]

So tea baggers would love the country to fail in economic disaster to make a political point?

Maybe rather than say it's win/win for the TP, it should be said it's lose lose for the Ds.

For me though, I think the gov'ts job is to make laws for the common good then get the F out of the way. I want them to take a machete in one hand and a chainsaw in the other and get to cutting. To default is to just waste money but anything that could potentially turn the system on its head is intriguing to me.

[peacepipe]

The scuttle Peace is that Obama will be forced into another republican victory. They are going to cut, without raising any taxes, and raise the debt limit. Repubs will claim victory and move on.

Also there are rumors that Geithner wants out and Obama trying to keep him. Obama knows that any type of confirmation right now through Congress would be very difficult. Hell he would maybe have to choose a repub to get him through. Also it would put all of the admins economic plans on trial during the election. Just horrid horrid news for Obama right now. His admin getting kicked in the nuts with high unemployment, wars, natural disasters, the midterms going repub, his admin dropping like flies, approval rating plummeting. I have some respect for how he has handled himself in the face of immense pressure from his own party, and from the tea party and repubs. I think though he is in over his head and reeling from not knowing what to do and a lack of experience. IMO the dems would be better off having a primary and making sure he is the best candidate you have.

there's no such thing as having experience when it comes to the presidency. Considering he may be able to raise the debt limit without congress he could just as easily veto any bill out of congress & still raise the debt limit.

[cutthemdown]

I just feel Governors are a little more prepared then Senators for the huge administration they will need to control. Just my opinion. If Obama won't agree to cuts, raises debt limit repubs sort of can spin that a win. If he cuts and raises limit repub can say that is a win. The only way Obama can win is to get the limit raises, do cuts, and a tax increase. Not sure he has the clout to get that done after pushing the repubs around on healthcare. What do you think Peacepipe, can you really see him winning that battle?

[cutthemdown]

Right now Hilliary and Geithner both won't off the boat. Hilliary not a big deal but no way does Obama want to fight to confirm a treasury sec right now.

[tnedator]

Right now Hilliary and Geithner both won't off the boat. Hilliary not a big deal but no way does Obama want to fight to confirm a treasury sec right now.

Recess appointment.

[cutthemdown]

Recess appointment.

Wow for something that big? Also those don't last that long and the uncertainty of if the guy would stay, go, etc etc would be bad for the markets. I will have to disagree and say I don't think that is a plausible outcome if Geithner left. More likely Obama would nominate someone the repubs would confirm.

[tnedator]

Wow for something that big? Also those don't last that long and the uncertainty of if the guy would stay, go, etc etc would be bad for the markets. I will have to disagree and say I don't think that is a plausible outcome if Geithner left. More likely Obama would nominate someone the repubs would confirm.

True. I guess a recess appointment only lasts until the next Congress.

The fact he couldn't last through his first term might deter him, but I don't think the size of the appointment would. He seems like a ends justify the means guy.

[cutthemdown]

True. I guess a recess appointment only lasts until the next Congress.

The fact he couldn't last through his first term might deter him, but I don't think the size of the appointment would. He seems like a ends justify the means guy.

That particular position though is probably not one Obama wants to mess with. I think he pressures Geithner to hang on for another yr at least. Its not the size of the appointment, even SOS is a huge one. It's just the markets would not react well to the uncertainty of a recess appointment for tres sec. Politically the smart move would be ALA gates for def sec. Nominate someone the repubs will support.

[elsid13]

I just feel Governors are a little more prepared then Senators for the huge administration they will need to control. Just my opinion. If Obama won't agree to cuts, raises debt limit repubs sort of can spin that a win. If he cuts and raises limit repub can say that is a win. The only way Obama can win is to get the limit raises, do cuts, and a tax increase. Not sure he has the clout to get that done after pushing the repubs around on healthcare. What do you think Peacepipe, can you really see him winning that battle?

Obama did agree to cuts but he also insisted on slight tax raise and the Republicans walked out. Who acting like little children and demanding everything and unwilling to cooperate?

[barryr]

Obama did agree to cuts but he also insisted on slight tax raise and the Republicans walked out. Who acting like little children and demanding everything and unwilling to cooperate?

Obama has thrown out phrases like "bringing a gun to a fight" and "republicans get in the back of the bus" so Obama had hardly been acting like a mature adult in any of this. A "slight" tax increase will mean an increase for everybody in reality and with this horrid economy, that does not help in job creation in the least. It might mean more people in government programs, but that hardly is way to help people thrive.

[peacepipe]

I just feel Governors are a little more prepared then Senators for the huge administration they will need to control. Just my opinion. If Obama won't agree to cuts, raises debt limit repubs sort of can spin that a win. If he cuts and raises limit repub can say that is a win. The only way Obama can win is to get the limit raises, do cuts, and a tax increase. Not sure he has the clout to get that done after pushing the repubs around on healthcare. What do you think Peacepipe, can you really see him winning that battle?yes,he'll get what he wants,which is a clean vote on the debt ceiling. for one major reason, if Obama raises the debt ceiling via the debt ceiling being unconstitutional it will take away the ability for congress to negotiate on it in the future. the supreme court will side with the president due to it being a blatant part of the constitution.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

I just feel Governors are a little more prepared then Senators for the huge administration they will need to control. Just my opinion. If Obama won't agree to cuts, raises debt limit repubs sort of can spin that a win. If he cuts and raises limit repub can say that is a win. The only way Obama can win is to get the limit raises, do cuts, and a tax increase. Not sure he has the clout to get that done after pushing the repubs around on healthcare. What do you think Peacepipe, can you really see him winning that battle?

Cuts have been agreed to. Saying otherwise is an outright lie. don't be a liar.

The cuts are in the TRILLIONS. They should be paired with tax loophole closures to attack this problem from both sides.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Obama has thrown out phrases like "bringing a gun to a fight" and "republicans get in the back of the bus" so Obama had hardly been acting like a mature adult in any of this. A "slight" tax increase will mean an increase for everybody in reality and with this horrid economy, that does not help in job creation in the least. It might mean more people in government programs, but that hardly is way to help people thrive.

Uh, link? For either of those "quotes"?

Come on, Mr. Google. Find 'em.

[tnedator]

Cuts have been agreed to. Saying otherwise is an outright lie. don't be a liar.

The cuts are in the TRILLIONS. They should be paired with tax loophole closures to attack this problem from both sides.

To be fair, I believe based on what's been reported, the cuts are around 1.6 trillion over ten years, to go with 400 billion odd in tax hikes, to reach a 2 trillion total to get agreement to raise the debt ceiling by 2 trillion. Is that not correct?

I point that out, because to say the cuts are in the TRILLIONS in caps, is a bit deceiving, because while it is over a trillion, it's over a 10 year period, so we are talking about $160 billion or so a year when we are running ~$1.3 trillion year deficits since Obama took office.

The cuts are simply enough to get agreement to raise the debt ceiling, not any meaningful attempt to reduce spending, just to get back to pre-2009 spending levels which would at least slow down the rapid increase of the national debt.

As to the tax increases that President Obama wants, he wants to increases taxes on anyone making more than $200k a year (who he terms millionaires), change the accounting requirements from LIFO to FIFO, causing nearly all businesses that don't run on a cash basis (large or small) to see an effective increase in their taxes paid, and then some selective loophole closures on the rich or corporations. Among the most concerning is reducing the write of for charitable donations which will increase revenue very little, but likely will have a net negative impact on charitable donations.

[TonyR]

Former Senator Ted Kaufman on the topic:


It is ironic that the primary group arguing for voting against raising the debt limit claims to be fiscally responsible. Using this one vote to force the government to radically reduce the deficit, they say, will make America more economically sound.

Yet it is clear that not passing the debt limit bill would result in higher interest rates, an increased cost of the federal debt, and an additional burden on all Americans.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that adding a point to interest rates on the federal debt increases the deficit over the next 10 years by $1.3 trillion. That one point could easily be three or five or six points -- nobody knows. But leave it at one, surely the most optimistic scenario.

This means that a significant number of "fiscally responsible" Americans are supporting action that would increase the debt by an amount at least equal to the entire $1.3 trillion 2010 deficit.

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110703/OPINION07/107030327/Debt-deadlock-should-all-us-afraid?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CHome%7Cp

[Play2win]

Here's a thought, raise the debt limit and cut Defense.

As a nation, having a responsible debt ceiling, and responsible Defense spending will go a long ways to the future health of this country.

That, and along with responsible infrastructure spending and responsible educational spending.

There is no right, and there is no wrong, there is only B A L A N C E.

[cutthemdown]

Obama did agree to cuts but he also insisted on slight tax raise and the Republicans walked out. Who acting like little children and demanding everything and unwilling to cooperate?

Yeah but this isn't the way to get his tax increase. He's trying to make repubs vote for it when he knows the ran on a platform of not raising taxes. Obama could have raised them when he had Congress but didn't. he instead rammed home his healthcare. Repubs remember that and aren't too keen to compromise on this. He's going to have to accept that he's going to lose on this issue, make the cuts, raise the limit, and forget about repubs going along with a tax hike.

[cutthemdown]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/schumer-obama-may-not-need-congress-to-avoid-default----but-congress-needs-to-act.php?ref=fpb



obama may have the authority to raise the debt limit himself,via the 14th ammendment. congress cannot force a default.

I don't think repubs would mind that. They can then paint Obama as a president who changes the rules as he goes to avoid spending cuts.

[peacepipe]

I don't think repubs would mind that. They can then paint Obama as a president who changes the rules as he goes to avoid spending cuts.

the counter to that would be him being the only adult in the room with congress acting like children. it's a win/win for Obama. reps would only look like hypocrites complaining about it. not to mention that in this scenerio medicare will not get any cuts and reps will be stuck holding the bag on the ryan budget plan.

[cutthemdown]

the counter to that would be him being the only adult in the room with congress acting like children. it's a win/win for Obama. reps would only look like hypocrites complaining about it.

We disagree then. I think right now political speaking the repubs in the best spot. Mainly just because Obama can't afford any more hits to the economy. If it gets worst and all he does is blame the Repubs again I think he is in dangerous territory.

[peacepipe]

We disagree then. I think right now political speaking the repubs in the best spot. Mainly just because Obama can't afford any more hits to the economy. If it gets worst and all he does is blame the Repubs again I think he is in dangerous territory.that's the main reason Obama will opt to rule the debt ceiling unconstitutional. Everyone knows defaulting would be really bad for the economy. reps won't be able to go back to their constituents and say they got spending cuts.

[That One Guy]

that's the main reason Obama will opt to rule the debt ceiling unconstitutional. Everyone knows defaulting would be really bad for the economy. reps won't be able to go back to their constituents and say they got spending cuts.

But best case scenario for the Ds would be for Rs to already start getting criticized for not following through on their pledges. Otherwise Ds continue to get bounced as people look for someone to blame. If Rs can go back and say "Hey, we stood our ground, and we'll keep fighting until we get our cuts..." then they've held their promise to the voters and the president is the bad guy. This absolves blame from the Rs because they stood their ground.

[cutthemdown]

I agree Thatoneguy it will be really hard for Obama to win politically on this particular issue. He may be able to break even somehow but I think in the end this will either hurt Obama or help repubs. Obama almost below the 45% approval rating. Basically about 40% will approve no matter what so he is getting dangerously close to the political mendoza line. Geithner leaving would put his policies on trial in a new confirmation process and would be the worst case scenario for Obama to come of this issue. Geithner seems to want to get limit raised, then leave.

[That One Guy]

I agree Thatoneguy it will be really hard for Obama to win politically on this particular issue. He may be able to break even somehow but I think in the end this will either hurt Obama or help repubs. Obama almost below the 45% approval rating. Basically about 40% will approve no matter what so he is getting dangerously close to the political mendoza line. Geithner leaving would put his policies on trial in a new confirmation process and would be the worst case scenario for Obama to come of this issue. Geithner seems to want to get limit raised, then leave.

Well the X factor is as someone pointed out previously or in a different thread - people want cuts but they don't want to lose anything. How that will work out, we have no idea. If cuts come through, are people going to be happy or pissed because old people are getting the boot from social programs? Will they be happier if they get health care or more pissed that they ended up with new taxes? You never know how people will respond.

[Mr.Meanie]

Conservative David Brooks calling it like it is:

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred billion dollars of revenue increases.

A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.

The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.

His article in the nytimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1)

Directly on point with this article. I wish the saner conservative voices weren't being marginalized by the crazies in the current GOP.

[DenverBrit]

Conservative David Brooks calling it like it is:

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred billion dollars of revenue increases.

A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.

The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.

His article in the nytimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1)

Directly on point with this article. I wish the saner conservative voices weren't being marginalized by the crazies in the current GOP.

It's an excellent piece and on the money.

If the debt ceiling talks fail, independents voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.

And they will be right.

[cutthemdown]

I can agree that the tax increases are probably not outrageous. The problem is the last time Republicans ran on a no new taxes platform, then went against that, which at the time was something the dems agreed with, it got used against them following election. So dems would like repubs to be reasonable, but they also know that once election comes around they will say repubs liars, they said no tax raising then raised taxes. So IMO you can forget about any tea party types agreeing to a tax raise. Politically speaking they can't survive it. Maybe the smart move is for Obama to just say we are raising it regardless, and just pay the bills. Not like Congress really the last say in this IMO.

[Boomhauer]

(On a new Treasury Secretary) Recess appointment.
According to the Constitution, recess appointments must be voted on by Congress before the end of the following session.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

To be fair, I believe based on what's been reported, the cuts are around 1.6 trillion over ten years, to go with 400 billion odd in tax hikes, to reach a 2 trillion total to get agreement to raise the debt ceiling by 2 trillion. Is that not correct?

I point that out, because to say the cuts are in the TRILLIONS in caps, is a bit deceiving, because while it is over a trillion, it's over a 10 year period, so we are talking about $160 billion or so a year when we are running ~$1.3 trillion year deficits since Obama took office.

The cuts are simply enough to get agreement to raise the debt ceiling, not any meaningful attempt to reduce spending, just to get back to pre-2009 spending levels which would at least slow down the rapid increase of the national debt.

As to the tax increases that President Obama wants, he wants to increases taxes on anyone making more than $200k a year (who he terms millionaires), change the accounting requirements from LIFO to FIFO, causing nearly all businesses that don't run on a cash basis (large or small) to see an effective increase in their taxes paid, and then some selective loophole closures on the rich or corporations. Among the most concerning is reducing the write of for charitable donations which will increase revenue very little, but likely will have a net negative impact on charitable donations.

Look. You're going to have to start somewhere. Remember anyone saying that? I'll give you a hint: it was Republican lawmakers when discussing their desire to cut funding for NPR and PBS, which is a VERY small drop in a very large bucket. yet there they were, fighting to rid the airwaves of Sesame Street.

Meet in the middle. This is a negotiation. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

And while 1.6 Trillion over 10 years isn't that much, if you combine it with increased revenue we can actually start getting everything on track again.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

According to the Constitution, recess appointments must be voted on by Congress before the end of the following session.

Hooray. Let's not appoint any federal judges anymore. That way cases will NEVER see the light of day.

hey, as long as you can kneecap your political opponent! Hooray for America! :strong:

[TonyR]

If the GOP doesn't cut a deal sometime pretty soon, we're either going to default on our debt (hello, financial crisis, unemployment spike, substantial and immediate drop in GDP, followed by an angry mob of voters descending on their polling places with pitchforks), or we're going to cut a bunch of programs that beneficiaries are very attached to. (Hello, angry mob of seniors descending on their representatives with machetes.) There is no deal that they can cut which does not include raising more revenue; the Democrats aren't going to be the only people offering compromise, and I don't blame them.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/why-cant-the-gop-get-to-yes/241437/


Reagan, I'm pretty sure, would take the deal and lift the debt ceiling. Maybe that would be wrong - though I doubt it - but yet again we see that many of those who profess their unswavering devotion to all things Gipper worship a corrupted version of their god that cannot withstand much comparison with the reality of the man himself.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/7072835/reagan-would-raise-the-debt-ceiling.thtml

[TonyR]

Ronald Reagan in 1983:

Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/05/14/National-Politics/Graphics/reagan_letter_0514.pdf

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Ronald Reagan in 1983:

Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/05/14/National-Politics/Graphics/reagan_letter_0514.pdf

The GOP in 2011:

**** those guys. Let's default our debt. I'm going to go prank call the President via Twitter. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/06/house-republcians-crash-obamas-twitter-event-on-jobs_n_891254.html#s303945&title=AndrewBreitbart)

[cutthemdown]

Both sides holding up the agreement so I don't see how pointing to repubs and saying they won't raise taxes works Tony. I mean sure it needs to be raised, but without tax increases. Also in 83 was Reagen saying raise taxes along with raising the limit, after a bunch in Congress ran on no tax increase plantform? Different set of parameters right now. If it's so important then Obama should cave. They pushed dems around on healthcare, on the stimulus, they aren't getting pushed around anymore, its time to fight the big spenders.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Both sides holding up the agreement so I don't see how pointing to repubs and saying they won't raise taxes works Tony. I mean sure it needs to be raised, but without tax increases. Also in 83 was Reagen saying raise taxes along with raising the limit, after a bunch in Congress ran on no tax increase plantform? Different set of parameters right now. If it's so important then Obama should cave. They pushed dems around on healthcare, on the stimulus, they aren't getting pushed around anymore, its time to fight the big spenders.

How can you even make such a ludicrous claim?

First of all, TRILLIONS in cuts have been agreed to. This is a fact.

Second of all, the TRILLIONS will only see the light if the REpublicans close some tax loopholes. They are refusing to do that. That is not "both sides holding up the agreement." It is not rooted in reality.

One side meeting in the middle, agreeing to cut spending. The other side responding with "you will cut spending but we will not give up anything for our rich-ass donors and corporate entitlements." And you say "both sides" are holding it up?

That's so absurd. Too absurd for words.

[cutthemdown]

Everyone agrees cuts are needed. Taxes is up for debate.

[cutthemdown]

Plenty of economists say raising taxes not a good idea. How many say though govt shouldn't cut spending? One does not have to go with the other and dems trying to tie the 2 is just more BS from the party of send your money to us. The stimulus didn't work, healthcare is a joke, and reubs have the power to fight now. Go ahead and go down swinging on the tax increases.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Everyone agrees cuts are needed. Taxes is up for debate.

No, not really.

Unless you cut out every single program, you're never going to get the deficit under control using ONLY cuts. Revenue increases are a MUST.

The only folks debating that are on the right side of the aisle, and they're wrong. You can't build a bridge with one hand tied behind your back.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Plenty of economists say raising taxes not a good idea. How many say though govt shouldn't cut spending? One does not have to go with the other and dems trying to tie the 2 is just more BS from the party of send your money to us. The stimulus didn't work, healthcare is a joke, and reubs have the power to fight now. Go ahead and go down swinging on the tax increases.

Dude, it is NOT raising taxes. The tax rate IS NOT CHANGING. Not at all.

Now, if you want to lie to yourself, that's fine. Lying to everyone here isn't, and you should be better than that. I think you're an honest person. Your taxes won't go up. Neither will anyone else's. They'll actually pay the FULL 35% rate that they're supposed to pay on a temporary basis. That isn't a tax hike.

Stop repeating the bull**** and start thinking for yourself.

[cutthemdown]

No, not really.

Unless you cut out every single program, you're never going to get the deficit under control using ONLY cuts. Revenue increases are a MUST.

The only folks debating that are on the right side of the aisle, and they're wrong. You can't build a bridge with one hand tied behind your back.

revenue will increase when the economy picks up.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

revenue will increase when the economy picks up.

Then why is the focus not on jobs -- as Boehner and every other right winger promised -- until we get it there? The focus this whole time should have been on getting the economy back on track, with the assumption that once it is where we need it to be, we can focus on the deficit.

Boehner ran on a platform that stated he was "laser focused" on jobs. Yet there has not been one piece of legislation from this Congress on the matter. In fact, this Congress may well go down in history as the least active Congress in history.

And why? So they can block the Democratic President for political gain.

Good show.

[cutthemdown]

He has to be blocked. If not we get more healthcare, more stimulus BS. The stimulus was used to redice borrowing, pay down debt, and therefore never became liquid into the economy. They totally blew it. I can admit that the repubs in congress are full of it. They don't know how to create jobs. Laser focused huh, well the private sector makes the jobs. Govt job is to make fair business practices, enforce the laws, keep us safe, not hire us and give us jobs. We should have just rode the recession out like a smart President would do. You don't just blow a trillion dollars and get nothing for it.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

He has to be blocked. If not we get more healthcare, more stimulus BS. The stimulus was used to redice borrowing, pay down debt, and therefore never became liquid into the economy. They totally blew it. I can admit that the repubs in congress are full of it. They don't know how to create jobs. Laser focused huh, well the private sector makes the jobs. Govt job is to make fair business practices, enforce the laws, keep us safe, not hire us and give us jobs. We should have just rode the recession out like a smart President would do. You don't just blow a trillion dollars and get nothing for it.

Hate to break it to you, since you seem to rejoice at the slightest hint of bad news about the economy and what that might mean for your team, but the economy IS recovering. It's recovering slowly, but after 8 years of no net job gains under Bush, jobs actually ARE being created. It's a slow process.

Just like Americans before us, we're going to ride out the storm. I do not think that electing a total ****ing moron who helped get us into this mess in the first place is the answer. And I certainly don't think giving the Republicans a rubber stamp Congress for a Republican President is any sort of answer whatsoever.

PS: Healthcare will lower costs. It's a far superior system to the private bull**** preexisting conditions insurance nonsense we've had here for decades. The initial cost is high, yes. The long-term savings are enormous.

I know, I know. You don't like long-term goals.

When you're spending more on healthcare than any other developed nation AND getting worse results, something is horribly, horribly wrong. The GOP plan: Don't get sick. Solid work, guys.

[cutthemdown]

The Stimulus actually slowed down the recovery if you believe people like economists who work at Stanford teaching the ****. Obama lied and said he was going to spend it on infrastructure, tangible things that would create jobs. Instead he gave it away to union pensions, unemployment in places like CA, high speed trains that won't get built, and then local govt who got hand on money used it to reduce borrowing and pay down debt. It wasn't a stimulus, it was a giveaway. I can admit that trying to keep tax breaks for ethanol and corp jets is stupid. Repubs should just give in on that. Raising income tax on people over 250 grand, which is a seperate fight i know, is a bad idea. Raise the debt limit, make the cuts, rescind the corp jet writeoff and the ethanol subsidies and get it done. But nothing you can say can save the Obama Recovery Act. It didn't work, was a huge waste of money. Also its too bad they didn't spend it on infrastructure, at least we would have something to show for it.

[tnedator]

No, not really.

Unless you cut out every single program, you're never going to get the deficit under control using ONLY cuts. Revenue increases are a MUST.

The only folks debating that are on the right side of the aisle, and they're wrong. You can't build a bridge with one hand tied behind your back.

I don't know, I'm pretty sure Ben Nelson is on the left side of the aisle:

Reform of the tax code is essential in helping achieve long-term budget and economic stability, Nelson said. Focusing on specific so-called tax loopholes is "not really going to close the deficit," he said.

"Raising taxes at a time when the economy remains fragile takes us in the wrong direction," he said during a conference call from Washington.

Read more: http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/article_40913c24-081a-5cfb-b04a-06ab0ce6a90b.html#ixzz1RPDIgr6a

[cutthemdown]

Hate to break it to you, since you seem to rejoice at the slightest hint of bad news about the economy and what that might mean for your team, but the economy IS recovering. It's recovering slowly, but after 8 years of no net job gains under Bush, jobs actually ARE being created. It's a slow process.

Just like Americans before us, we're going to ride out the storm. I do not think that electing a total ****ing moron who helped get us into this mess in the first place is the answer. And I certainly don't think giving the Republicans a rubber stamp Congress for a Republican President is any sort of answer whatsoever.

PS: Healthcare will lower costs. It's a far superior system to the private bull**** preexisting conditions insurance nonsense we've had here for decades. The initial cost is high, yes. The long-term savings are enormous.

I know, I know. You don't like long-term goals.

When you're spending more on healthcare than any other developed nation AND getting worse results, something is horribly, horribly wrong. The GOP plan: Don't get sick. Solid work, guys.

Nope I agree things are slowly getting better. That is normal for a recession. Eventually it starts to grow again. I am saying we would have been better off not doing the porkulus bill. Growth would be about the same, according to some economists maybe even better. Had Obama actually spent it on infrastructure it would have kick started employment and given us something to show for it. Can you at least agree that the govt lie it would go to shovel ready projects around the country to rebuild our infrastructure was sort of a joke? I can admit Bush screwed the pooch on medicare. You could even say stimulus didnt work but you still like Obama. Not like it ruined the country it just ****ed the dollar and the debt a ton. We can actually, and will actually pull out of it regardless of who wins the elections. Its just that along the way they are wasting a ton of money and slowing it down. The repubs also. Until they are willing to put pentagon spending on the table I see them as shills as well. I will vote for the repub that is willing to say he will reel in defense spending. Not a ton, just enough to show that every segment pitching in. I want a strong military, i just think we could cut by 10 15% and still easily dominate all comers.

[cutthemdown]

If economy takes off and Obama still President, and the Congress is repub, there is a chance I wouldn't mind it staying that way. Not sure I want any party to control all 3 ever again. When dems recently did IMO that was not a pretty sight. I wouldn't want to see what repubs might do with a trifecta of power. To give that I think the President would have to be really special. Not sure any of the people running is that type. Not Obama, not IMO. Romney? I could see him pushed around by a big repub majority.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

If economy takes off and Obama still President, and the Congress is repub, there is a chance I wouldn't mind it staying that way. Not sure I want any party to control all 3 ever again. When dems recently did IMO that was not a pretty sight. I wouldn't want to see what repubs might do with a trifecta of power. To give that I think the President would have to be really special. Not sure any of the people running is that type. Not Obama, not IMO. Romney? I could see him pushed around by a big repub majority.

You already saw what the Repubs having all three looks like. From 2000 to 2006. And you're right, it wasn't pretty.

And I will agree with you that one party shouldn't control all three. Every time it happens, it's a bad deal for the country, it seems.

But SOMEthing has got to change. The hyperbole from either side is deafening, and it's keeping us from actually reaching the goals we set out for ourselves. Everything Obama does is the worst ever? Well, no, not really, but the right's gotta rev up that base. Everything Bush did was the worst ever? No, not really, but the left had to rev up the base.

What I'm EXTREMELY tired of is the personal attacks on peoples' character simply because they're on the other side of the aisle. I know I've been guilty of it too, but when it becomes orchestrated by media on either side of the aisle, demagogues like Rush Limbaugh et al, it becomes a serious problem because it obstructs the dialog. The shrill hyperbole becomes the argument instead of the ACTUAL argument.

And to be truthful, the Internet was built for hyperbole. It's like a giant, anonymous hype machine where you can say Obama is an idiot or Bush ruined everything without any consequence. And now that the politicians are taking part, things are getting worse.

[tnedator]

You already saw what the Repubs having all three looks like. From 2000 to 2006. And you're right, it wasn't pretty.

And I will agree with you that one party shouldn't control all three. Every time it happens, it's a bad deal for the country, it seems.

We just saw what happens when all three are controlled by Dems, as they had filibuster proof control for only the fifth time in history, or something like that. It wasn't pretty, and they didn't even make a pretense of working in a bi-partisan fashion.

But SOMEthing has got to change. The hyperbole from either side is deafening, and it's keeping us from actually reaching the goals we set out for ourselves. Everything Obama does is the worst ever? Well, no, not really, but the right's gotta rev up that base. Everything Bush did was the worst ever? No, not really, but the left had to rev up the base.

What I'm EXTREMELY tired of is the personal attacks on peoples' character simply because they're on the other side of the aisle. I know I've been guilty of it too, but when it becomes orchestrated by media on either side of the aisle, demagogues like Rush Limbaugh et al, it becomes a serious problem because it obstructs the dialog. The shrill hyperbole becomes the argument instead of the ACTUAL argument.

And to be truthful, the Internet was built for hyperbole. It's like a giant, anonymous hype machine where you can say Obama is an idiot or Bush ruined everything without any consequence. And now that the politicians are taking part, things are getting worse.



I know from you perspective it's easy to pick out someone like Rush, but there has been a LOT coming from the left, not just people like Olbermann, Matthews, Madow, Stephenoplous and others, but even from members of Congress. These guys calling Bush a murderer and the like.

Congressman waters screaming "Bush is a liar" and other choice words at a Rally. Grayson having a "Bush lied, people died" bumper sticker, and I believe it was Grayson on the floor saying the Republicans health care plan was to kill people.

There are so many other comments that I'm not thinking of right now, where not only the leftist media lashing out with inflammatory rhetoric, but also Congressmen and Senators doing the same, including vicious verbal attacks on the President.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

I know from you perspective it's easy to pick out someone like Rush, but there has been a LOT coming from the left, not just people like Olbermann, Matthews, Madow, Stephenoplous and others, but even from members of Congress. These guys calling Bush a murderer and the like.

Congressman waters screaming "Bush is a liar" and other choice words at a Rally. Grayson having a "Bush lied, people died" bumper sticker, and I believe it was Grayson on the floor saying the Republicans health care plan was to kill people.

There are so many other comments that I'm not thinking of right now, where not only the leftist media lashing out with inflammatory rhetoric, but also Congressmen and Senators doing the same, including vicious verbal attacks on the President.

No comments on "death panels" and "socialized medicine" and "community organizer" and "Rev. Wright" and...?

[TonyR]

...Olbermann, Matthews, Madow, Stephenoplous and otherst...

You're generally a very reasonable poster but with the possible exception of Olbermann I don't think comparing these people to Rush Limbaugh is fair. Particularly Stephanopoulos, the guy is really just a talking head and doesn't really throw a lot of opinion out there, particularly in the manner of fashion that Limbaugh does. These comparisons just generally don't work.

[DenverBrit]

http://media.economist.com/images/images-magazine/2011/07/02/us/20110702_usd000.jpg

[cutthemdown]

Hate to break it to you, since you seem to rejoice at the slightest hint of bad news about the economy and what that might mean for your team, but the economy IS recovering. It's recovering slowly, but after 8 years of no net job gains under Bush, jobs actually ARE being created. It's a slow process.

Just like Americans before us, we're going to ride out the storm. I do not think that electing a total ****ing moron who helped get us into this mess in the first place is the answer. And I certainly don't think giving the Republicans a rubber stamp Congress for a Republican President is any sort of answer whatsoever.

PS: Healthcare will lower costs. It's a far superior system to the private bull**** preexisting conditions insurance nonsense we've had here for decades. The initial cost is high, yes. The long-term savings are enormous.

I know, I know. You don't like long-term goals.

When you're spending more on healthcare than any other developed nation AND getting worse results, something is horribly, horribly wrong. The GOP plan: Don't get sick. Solid work, guys.

What a joke you are. The recovery is the slowest in the history of the country. The stimulus did nothing. Had economic recovery actually occurred we would not have such flat job numbers. The may numbers were bad, and june was even worst. Even with gas prices dropping it didn't get better. Basically liberals plan was if economy picked up after stimulus we say SEE THE RECOVERY ACT WORKED, if it doesn't you say, WOW BUSH REALLY MADE IT BAD, IMAGINE OW BAD WITHOUT THE STIMULUS! either way you can argue you are right.

[That One Guy]

What a joke you are. The recovery is the slowest in the history of the country. The stimulus did nothing. Had economic recovery actually occurred we would not have such flat job numbers. The may numbers were bad, and june was even worst. Even with gas prices dropping it didn't get better. Basically liberals plan was if economy picked up after stimulus we say SEE THE RECOVERY ACT WORKED, if it doesn't you say, WOW BUSH REALLY MADE IT BAD, IMAGINE OW BAD WITHOUT THE STIMULUS! either way you can argue you are right.

The problem with the "recovery" is that all they tried to recover were the bubbles they had beforehand. They didn't try to fix anything, they just tried to get the money flowing like it had been. Until the job situation is fixed in the US and people know they will have work for a long, consistent period, nobody is going to fall for the tricks.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

What a joke you are. The recovery is the slowest in the history of the country. The stimulus did nothing. Had economic recovery actually occurred we would not have such flat job numbers. The may numbers were bad, and june was even worst. Even with gas prices dropping it didn't get better. Basically liberals plan was if economy picked up after stimulus we say SEE THE RECOVERY ACT WORKED, if it doesn't you say, WOW BUSH REALLY MADE IT BAD, IMAGINE OW BAD WITHOUT THE STIMULUS! either way you can argue you are right.

If you had a clue, it would be the first time.

Here. Read.

http://coloradopols.com/diary/16020/government-is-killing-the-economy-selffulfilling-prophecy-edition

This is what austerity feels like. In another setback for the economy, the unemployment rate in June rose to 9.2 percent, its highest level since December 2010, the Labor Department reported. A measly 18,000 jobs were added in June, carried by an increase of 57,000 jobs in the private sector but dulled by losses of 39,000 jobs in the public sector. [TEKO emphasis] As government stimulus winds down and states move to close massive budget gaps, public sector cuts should continue to grow, labor market experts say...

"Let's cut public sector jobs!"

"Why are we losing jobs!?!?"

"DURKA DURRRRRRRRRR!"

[barryr]

Until more people have jobs, anything else is just a band-aid in fixing the problems of the economy. I don´t see anything being done about the job situation other than speeches about it.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Until more people have jobs, anything else is just a band-aid in fixing the problems of the economy. I don´t see anything being done about the job situation other than speeches about it.

Unfortunately that's true from both sides.

However, our preoccupation with the debt ceiling is completely absurd during a time of high unemployment like that. It is ridiculous that we're focusing on lowering the deficit right now. We could very easily focus on jobs and job creation (as Republicans promised on the campaign trail) now, with the understanding that the debt ceiling and the deficit need to be taken care of once the economy recovers.

Every single Republican candidate says "Obama broke it," then they say "I have solutions to the job problem," and not one single person is saying what their solutions are. It's absurd.

[That One Guy]

If you had a clue, it would be the first time.

Here. Read.

http://coloradopols.com/diary/16020/government-is-killing-the-economy-selffulfilling-prophecy-edition



"Let's cut public sector jobs!"

"Why are we losing jobs!?!?"

"DURKA DURRRRRRRRRR!"

But the opposite was also true. How many jobs did they (Bush and O) add and then count in the jobs data to not make it look as bad as it was?

Not saying they added them to soften the bad reports, just saying they were included when they were being added and now that we can't really afford them, they're being added when they get cut. Expanding the government and making them work is definitely better than just giving the money away but all those jobs were ultimately unrealistic.

[That One Guy]

Unfortunately that's true from both sides.

However, our preoccupation with the debt ceiling is completely absurd during a time of high unemployment like that. It is ridiculous that we're focusing on lowering the deficit right now. We could very easily focus on jobs and job creation (as Republicans promised on the campaign trail) now, with the understanding that the debt ceiling and the deficit need to be taken care of once the economy recovers.

Every single Republican candidate says "Obama broke it," then they say "I have solutions to the job problem," and not one single person is saying what their solutions are. It's absurd.

You can use debt to solve your problems only if you see a clear fix in the future. At this point, something has to drastically change to fix the jobs situation. I'd rather face it today than push it on down the road and make it entirely the next generation's problem. We have to stop saving one generation with another generation's sweat.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

You can use debt to solve your problems only if you see a clear fix in the future. At this point, something has to drastically change to fix the jobs situation. I'd rather face it today than push it on down the road and make it entirely the next generation's problem. We have to stop saving one generation with another generation's sweat.

I get that, but having an argument about the debt ceiling while unemployment keeps getting worse is a ****ing joke. We've been arguing about it for how long now? Two months, at least? Yeah, while people need work... how is the debt ceiling going to change ANYTHING with regard to employment?

It's not. It is patently absurd that we're still debating this **** when the Repubs merely need to agree to closing some loopholes to get the whole thing worked out and MOVE THE **** ON.

[tnedator]

I get that, but having an argument about the debt ceiling while unemployment keeps getting worse is a ****ing joke. We've been arguing about it for how long now? Two months, at least? Yeah, while people need work... how is the debt ceiling going to change ANYTHING with regard to employment?

It's not. It is patently absurd that we're still debating this **** when the Repubs merely need to agree to closing some loopholes to get the whole thing worked out and MOVE THE **** ON.

Or, the Democrats just need to agree on more spending cuts. Moving back to pre-Obama levels.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Or, the Democrats just need to agree on more spending cuts. Moving back to pre-Obama levels.

Dems have moved on cuts. Repubs refuse to move on loophole closures.

This is a negotiation. Neither side is going to get EVERYTHING they want RIGHT NOW. It's time to be ****ing adults, meet in the middle, and start fixing things that actually matter.

[That One Guy]

I get that, but having an argument about the debt ceiling while unemployment keeps getting worse is a ****ing joke. We've been arguing about it for how long now? Two months, at least? Yeah, while people need work... how is the debt ceiling going to change ANYTHING with regard to employment?

It's not. It is patently absurd that we're still debating this **** when the Repubs merely need to agree to closing some loopholes to get the whole thing worked out and MOVE THE **** ON.

My hope is that the Rs are eventually going to cave on the loopholes but they're going to negotiate even more cuts in trade for it. The administration has dedicated themselves so much to the cuts that they can't really back off that at this point. Hopefully the Rs aren't trying to play chicken with them just to be able to throw it in their faces. If, however, in exchange for the loophole closures (and maybe even some very modest tax increases), they could double the cuts? I'd be ecstatic. The current cuts hardly touch the deficit so they're really deceptive.

As for fixing the job situation, there's only so much I really want them to do. I always say I prefer protectionism (and some very intelligent people have explained why that's a bad idea but I just disagree) but the jobs have to be based on a solid foundation. We don't need tax cuts that we'll have to maintain or risk losing our jobs, nor some wordy legislation that's going to have us back at the corps vs small business debate again in a few years, etc. We need a solid job base or we need the people to start recognizing that there's just not the job opportunities in America anymore that there was once so the gov't and the people can start accepting that and adapting to the changes forthcoming.

[DenverBrit]

America's debt
Shame on them

The Republicans are playing a cynical political game with hugely high economic stakes

IN THREE weeks, if there is no political deal, the American government will go into default. Not, one must pray, on its sovereign debt. But the country will have to stop paying someone: perhaps pensioners, or government suppliers, or soldiers. That would be damaging enough at a time of economic fragility. And the longer such a default went on, the greater the risk of provoking a genuine bond crisis would become.

http://media.economist.com/images/images-magazine/2011/07/09/ld/20110709_ldc933.gif

There is no good economic reason why this should be happening. America’s net indebtedness is a perfectly affordable 65% of GDP, and throughout the past three years of recession and tepid recovery investors have been more than happy to go on lending to the federal government. The current problems, rather, are political. Under America’s elaborate separation of powers, Congress must authorise any extension of the debt ceiling, which now stands at $14.3 trillion. Back in May the government bumped up against that limit, but various accounting dodges have been used to keep funds flowing. It is now reckoned that these wheezes will be exhausted by August 2nd.

The House of Representatives, under Republican control as a result of last November’s mid-term elections, has balked at passing the necessary bill. That is perfectly reasonable: until recently the Republicans had been exercising their clear electoral mandate to hold the government of Barack Obama to account, insisting that they will not permit a higher debt ceiling until agreement is reached on wrenching cuts to public spending. Until they started to play hardball in this way, Mr Obama had been deplorably insouciant about the medium-term picture, repeatedly failing in his budgets and his state-of-the-union speeches to offer any path to a sustainable deficit. Under heavy Republican pressure, he has been forced to rethink.

Now, however, the Republicans are pushing things too far. Talks with the administration ground to a halt last month, despite an offer from the Democrats to cut at least $2 trillion and possibly much more out of the budget over the next ten years. Assuming that the recovery continues, that would be enough to get the deficit back to a prudent level. As The Economist went to press, Mr Obama seemed set to restart the talks.

The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical.

A gamble where you bet your country’s good name

This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

Both parties have in recent months been guilty of fiscal recklessness. Right now, though, the blame falls clearly on the Republicans. Independent voters should take note.http://www.economist.com/node/18928600

[cutthemdown]

Dems have moved on cuts. Repubs refuse to move on loophole closures.

This is a negotiation. Neither side is going to get EVERYTHING they want RIGHT NOW. It's time to be ****ing adults, meet in the middle, and start fixing things that actually matter.

Wow I don't remember liberals saying we should negotiate when they had both houses of Congress. We remember them just saying screw republicans, you lost the election, we will use reconcilliation like never before and ram it home. Now they want compromise. Repubs are not going to do anything that could be construed as tax raising. They promised not to. You can forget about it!.

[elsid13]

Wow I don't remember liberals saying we should negotiate when they had both houses of Congress. We remember them just saying screw republicans, you lost the election, we will use reconcilliation like never before and ram it home. Now they want compromise. Repubs are not going to do anything that could be construed as tax raising. They promised not to. You can forget about it!.

then they are acting liked spoiled children playing with a load gun. Failure to raise the debt limit will crush this country and will impact the entire world economy.

[cutthemdown]

America's debt
Shame on them

http://www.economist.com/node/18928600

give me a break the economist is a bunch of Euros giving opinions. It's not news its an editorial based magazine that supports govt healthcare etc etc. They aren't Americans and can go screw the bloody pooch for all i care.

[cutthemdown]

then they are acting liked spoiled children playing with a load gun. Failure to raise the debt limit will crush this country and will impact the entire world economy.

Really because I think the treasury could just pay the bills. I bet it actually matters little.

[elsid13]

IMF calling for the US to raise the debt limit.

http://news.yahoo.com/imf-chief-calls-us-raise-borrowing-limit-130713114.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — The International Monetary Fund's new chief foresees "real nasty consequences" for the U.S. and global economies if the U.S. fails to raise its borrowing limit.


Christine Lagarde, the first woman to head the lending institution, said in an interview broadcast Sunday that it would cause interest rates to rise and stock markets to fall. That would threaten an important IMF goal, which is preserving stability in the world economy, she said.


The U.S. borrowing limit is $14.3 trillion. Obama administration officials say the U.S. would begin to default without an agreement by Aug. 2.


"If you draw out the entire scenario of default, yes, of course, you have all of that — interest hikes, stock markets taking a huge hit and real nasty consequences, not just for the United States, but for the entire global economy, because the U.S. is such a big player and matters so much for other countries," she said.

[elsid13]

Really because I think the treasury could just pay the bills. I bet it actually matters little.

Dude you not getting it. If the US fails to raise the limit then you need just look at Argentina in 1990s multiply that by 1000. In Argentina, we saw hyperinflation, 25% plus unemployment, their peso collapsed,food prices spike and foreign investment fled.

[cutthemdown]

Dude you not getting it. If the US fails to raise the limit then you need just look at Argentina in 1990s multiply that by 1000. In Argentina, we saw hyperinflation, 25% plus unemployment, their peso collapsed,food prices spike and foreign investment fled.

Why people who study constitution feel Supreme Court would rule that Congress doesn't have the authority to stop the Treasury from paying the bills.

Also if it is so bad then Obama should just deal with the republicans and not try to raise taxes every chance he gets. Either way Dems are wrong.

[elsid13]

Why people who study constitution feel Supreme Court would rule that Congress doesn't have the authority to stop the Treasury from paying the bills.

Also if it is so bad then Obama should just deal with the republicans and not try to raise taxes every chance he gets. Either way Dems are wrong.

By the time in went through the legal system it would to late and economy would be ruined. Already there is lack of buyers for US Treasure bonds because of this.

And Obama has proposal on the table that is what the Speaker of the House had on his own website was touting at the beginning of the year. The only one in the wrong here is bunch ideology idiots refusing to act like adults.

[Boomhauer]

... Failure to raise the debt limit will crush this country and will impact the entire world economy.

OK chicken little. Just like we had to pass Nancy Pelosi's "Money Party" stim-package, flush cash into failed banks with TARP, pay off Health Insurance companies while spiking cost and draining Medicare with Obamacare.

Everything to date - for years under Demo control - has been epic fail, hysteria and lies. You wear the colors well.

[cutthemdown]

If you had a clue, it would be the first time.

Here. Read.

http://coloradopols.com/diary/16020/government-is-killing-the-economy-selffulfilling-prophecy-edition



"Let's cut public sector jobs!"

"Why are we losing jobs!?!?"

"DURKA DURRRRRRRRRR!"

Exactly they wasted the stimulus saving public sector jobs, that are now just failing anyways as money runs out. You actually prove my point and you're too stupid to see it. The money was given to public employees and unions in the hopes that in the meantime economy would get better. But it slowed down growth and now we are right back at square one minus 700 billion dollars that wasn't spent on infrastructure like promised.

[cutthemdown]

Also if Debt Limit so important Obama should take whatever deal he can get from repubs and raise the debt? Certainly hes not willing to let us crash over some loopholes he wants closed right? I mean you all say the loopholes are nothing, why are repubs fighting, then if that is so they aren't worth it for dems to crash economy. Obama has to admit the repubs have power right now, make the cuts to entitlements, raise the debt limit, and move on.

[DenverBrit]

give me a break the economist is a bunch of Euros giving opinions. It's not news its an editorial based magazine that supports govt healthcare etc etc. They aren't Americans and can go screw the bloody pooch for all i care.

LOL

I know, I should only use FOX as a source. Ha!

[cutthemdown]

LOL

I know, I should only use FOX as a source. Ha!

It's not a source of news, they freely admit they are editorial based. It's an opinion piece not written by economists, lol, just a bunch of Euros trying to chime in on American business.

[cutthemdown]

Some magazine whose mantra is big govt not exactly the place to go. Fox news might not be either. Fact is that if its so important then no way Obama would let it not happen by fighting with repubs. he will cave and do what he has to do for the country. That is the job of the President right? to make sure the whole country is ok? while the Congress is there to represent more selfish interests of the people they represent. It's up to Obama to make this deal if it is soooo important, which i dispute. I bet the pay the bills regardless of what happens. Treasury sec will say he is authorized by consititution.

[DenverBrit]

Some magazine whose mantra is big govt not exactly the place to go. Fox news might not be either. Fact is that if its so important then no way Obama would let it not happen by fighting with repubs. he will cave and do what he has to do for the country. That is the job of the President right? to make sure the whole country is ok? while the Congress is there to represent more selfish interests of the people they represent. It's up to Obama to make this deal if it is soooo important, which i dispute. I bet the pay the bills regardless of what happens. Treasury sec will say he is authorized by consititution.

Not sure where you get that from......from the article.....the bold part. Ha!

This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government;

[cutthemdown]

I had never heard of them so I googled them. That is what wikipedia said about them. If it's wrong you would think The Economist would change it as its really easy to edit on Wikipedia. They may not be big govt per se, but it did say they are proponents of govt healthcare, and basically just ran by some big bank. Chances are they have a big stake in this issue and really don't care beyond that. Still its not a newspaper, you keep missing the point they dont even claim to be news. It's strictly an opinion based editorial on issues they find to have a global significance. Nothing IMO that Americans need care about considering they are based out of our country and are not Americans.

[ghwk]

Wow I don't remember liberals saying we should negotiate when they had both houses of Congress. We remember them just saying screw republicans, you lost the election, we will use reconcilliation like never before and ram it home. Now they want compromise. Repubs are not going to do anything that could be construed as tax raising. They promised not to. You can forget about it!.

Party of NO, remember? The only goal was to see Obama fail and in that they stood united. Just because the were the minority by a slim margin didn't render them powerless. Stop being so disingenuous and acting like a victim.

[That One Guy]

I saw yesterday that Boner was going to settle for 2 instead of 4 on cuts and just leave the tax hikes on the table. Looks like they're at least making some compromises but, in the end, they've probably just anchored themselves on the "no new taxes" line.

Now we have Rs willing to take less cuts to be able to declare themselves the winner on the "no new taxes" fight and Ds HAVE to close the loopholes or they will look like the losers. It seems like the stalemate is coming from something that both sides just want to be hard headed about.

Either way, it looks like my vision for cuts is not their vision - either party's. It looks like these cuts are token in nature and not really a major change in any direction.

[ghwk]

OK chicken little. Just like we had to pass Nancy Pelosi's "Money Party" stim-package, flush cash into failed banks with TARP, pay off Health Insurance companies while spiking cost and draining Medicare with Obamacare.

Everything to date - for years under Demo control - has been epic fail, hysteria and lies. You wear the colors well.

You know TARP was a Bush program right? Right?

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

[cutthemdown]

TARP was actually a success to a point. You can argue they didn't deserve it but saving banking is pretty important. The Recovery Act was all Dem and an utter failure.

[cutthemdown]

Party of NO, remember? The only goal was to see Obama fail and in that they stood united. Just because the were the minority by a slim margin didn't render them powerless. Stop being so disingenuous and acting like a victim.

Party of no was dem propaganda to paint the Republicans as crazy while they passed a plan that they needed to pass to see what was in it. A huge auto union bailout, stimulus garbage that didn't go for infrastructure and shovel ready projects like Obama said. They gave it all to public municipalities and they used it for pensions, cops, unemployment and teachers. Now that money is gone and all those people going to be laid off anyways.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Wow I don't remember liberals saying we should negotiate when they had both houses of Congress. We remember them just saying screw republicans, you lost the election, we will use reconcilliation like never before and ram it home. Now they want compromise. Repubs are not going to do anything that could be construed as tax raising. They promised not to. You can forget about it!.

Hey. Dip****.

Do you want to fix the problem, or do you want to keep bitching and moaning about old ****?

Aren't you the one that rails about how Dems merely blame Obama for everything? Now you're blaming the Democratic Congress for the sins of the past?

You are a ****ing HYPOCRITE. And a stupid hypocrite at that.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

OK chicken little. Just like we had to pass Nancy Pelosi's "Money Party" stim-package, flush cash into failed banks with TARP, pay off Health Insurance companies while spiking cost and draining Medicare with Obamacare.

Everything to date - for years under Demo control - has been epic fail, hysteria and lies. You wear the colors well.

you do recall that TARP was started under Bush, yes?

Oh right. Inconvenient facts. Hate those. "Stupid facts have a librul bias!" DURRRRRRR.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Exactly they wasted the stimulus saving public sector jobs, that are now just failing anyways as money runs out. You actually prove my point and you're too stupid to see it. The money was given to public employees and unions in the hopes that in the meantime economy would get better. But it slowed down growth and now we are right back at square one minus 700 billion dollars that wasn't spent on infrastructure like promised.

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. All the way around, wrong. So completely and totally wrong.

I'd start calling you CutFail, but epicFAIL already has a monopoly on the name. So you're out of luck, you flaming pile of retard.

The stimulus was not "saving public sector jobs." The stimulus was getting infrastructure built BY PRIVATE SECTOR COMPANIES to help build the economy (which, by the way, WAS destroyed by Bush and his "**** the poor, reward the rich, everyone have a tax cut" policy whether you're smart enough to wrap your retarded little head around it or not) by getting people back to work. Period. It worked. Temporarily. Now we're fighitng about debt ceilings and MORE tax cuts for the rich?

I have to ask: Are you actually retarded? Your points are retarded, so I figure you must be retarded.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

TARP was actually a success to a point. You can argue they didn't deserve it but saving banking is pretty important. The Recovery Act was all Dem and an utter failure.

WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG.

TARP was enacted to get banks lending again. Period. That was the point. It FAILED to do so. Know why? Those banks who got the handouts DIDN'T start lending at a higher rate. They simply didn't. Lending remained flat. It wasn't until two years later that the economy finally stabilized.

Maybe if you read something instead of just talking all the time, you'd know that.

[cutthemdown]

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. All the way around, wrong. So completely and totally wrong.

I'd start calling you CutFail, but epicFAIL already has a monopoly on the name. So you're out of luck, you flaming pile of retard.

The stimulus was not "saving public sector jobs." The stimulus was getting infrastructure built BY PRIVATE SECTOR COMPANIES to help build the economy (which, by the way, WAS destroyed by Bush and his "**** the poor, reward the rich, everyone have a tax cut" policy whether you're smart enough to wrap your retarded little head around it or not) by getting people back to work. Period. It worked. Temporarily. Now we're fighitng about debt ceilings and MORE tax cuts for the rich?

I have to ask: Are you actually retarded? Your points are retarded, so I figure you must be retarded.

NANANANANANNANANAAAA! out of the 700 billion only about 40-50 billion went to infrastructure, the rest was crapped away. You're just mad because you get shown up in every post.

[cutthemdown]

Had they used the 700 billion on infrastructure it would have worked much much better.

[cutthemdown]

Hey. Dip****.

Do you want to fix the problem, or do you want to keep b****ing and moaning about old ****?

Aren't you the one that rails about how Dems merely blame Obama for everything? Now you're blaming the Democratic Congress for the sins of the past?

You are a ****ing HYPOCRITE. And a stupid hypocrite at that.

dude you are so mad you have lost it. LOL! Read your post again you ****ing moron. The Dems should blame Obama for everything, if that is the case go Democrats! LOL!

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

dude you are so mad you have lost it. LOL! Read your post again you ****ing moron. The Dems should blame Obama for everything, if that is the case go Democrats! LOL!

Hey. Retard.

Do you want to fix the problem? Or keep b****ing about old stuff?

It's a pretty simple question. Try to limit your answer to one post instead of three.

Edit: HOLY ****! You got me in a typo! Neat for you! Good job, failboy!

Now, can you actually answer the question? Or are you going to continue being a dip**** without a solid answer to anything?

[cutthemdown]

Hey. Retard.

Do you want to fix the problem? Or keep b****ing about old stuff?

It's a pretty simple question. Try to limit your answer to one post instead of three.

Edit: HOLY ****! You got me in a typo! Neat for you! Good job, failboy!

Now, can you actually answer the question? Or are you going to continue being a dip**** without a solid answer to anything?

Fix what problem? If the debt ceiling is so important as to crash our economy Obama would have just caved, made the cuts, raised the limit. Instead he is trying to mess with the way corporations can do their accounting. You call it a loophole but the reality is that they would pay more tax. The way to raise revenue is to broaden the tax base, not just keep raising it on the people already paying most of it. You do that by growing the economy not ****ting money away in a stimulus that doesn't build enough infrastructure to make it worth it. If it is so important why doesn't obama just take the repub deal and say its a presidents job to do what is best for the country? Repubs won the recent election, he will have to play ball.

[That One Guy]

Haha, looks like TheElusiveKyleOrton is having a nice, happy evening.

[ghwk]

Fix what problem? If the debt ceiling is so important as to crash our economy Obama would have just caved, made the cuts, raised the limit. Instead he is trying to mess with the way corporations can do their accounting. You call it a loophole but the reality is that they would pay more tax. The way to raise revenue is to broaden the tax base, not just keep raising it on the people already paying most of it. You do that by growing the economy not ****ting money away in a stimulus that doesn't build enough infrastructure to make it worth it. If it is so important why doesn't obama just take the repub deal and say its a presidents job to do what is best for the country? Repubs won the recent election, he will have to play ball.

Ah awesome solution, dems bend over and take it up the a$$ from the repubs who burned down the economy starting with Reagan and the failed trickle down and protection of the corporate masters because daddy knows best? No thanks.

You are as blind and shallow as epic.

[ghwk]

Haha, looks like TheElusiveKyleOrton is having a nice, happy evening.

Hope you didn't spend too much time coming up with that brilliant contribution.

[That One Guy]

Ah awesome solution, dems bend over and take it up the a$$ from the repubs who burned down the economy starting with Reagan and the failed trickle down and protection of the corporate masters because daddy knows best? No thanks.

You are as blind and shallow as epic.

And unfortunately, that's the next hurdle. It's not really about the numbers anymore; it's about who is going to "bend over and take it up the a$$" by both sides declaring that X must happen when the two sides' X were opposite.

[That One Guy]

Hope you didn't spend too much time coming up with that brilliant contribution.

I did actually. I rough drafted it yesterday, slept on it, then looked at it today with a fresh mindset to ensure no mistakes were overlooked.

....?

[ghwk]

I did actually. I rough drafted it yesterday, slept on it, then looked at it today with a fresh mindset to ensure no mistakes were overlooked.

....?

LOL way to much effort for the outcome! :wiggle:

[ghwk]

And unfortunately, that's the next hurdle. It's not really about the numbers anymore; it's about who is going to "bend over and take it up the a$$" by both sides declaring that X must happen when the two sides' X were opposite.

Which from a centrist point of view is fcked. Raise Corp taxes since they offshore the money anyway to hide it and cut social programs both.

[NUB]

Most of TARP has been paid back.

Anyway... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-can-the-gop-still-say-yes/2011/07/05/gHQAfTqpyH_blog.html)

Republicans are going to need to make a very tough decision over the next couple of weeks: Are they a party that's very good at saying "no" in order to get the best deal possible? Or are they a party that's incapable of saying "yes" even once they've gotten there? Consider how far they've come: The Obama administration has agreed to a debt-ceiling deal that's 83% spending cuts and 17% tax increases -- mere inches away from the magic 83:15 ratio (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/republicans-reject-their-own-deficit-reduction-report/2011/05/19/AGTcR2rH_blog.html?wprss=ezra-klein) that the Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee asked for back in March.

The Obama administration has functionally agreed to redefine a "grand bargain" as a deal that trades lots of spending cuts and some entitlement reforms for a small number of tax increases. And as the taxes go up, so will the ambition of the entitlement reforms. In today's New York Times, Robert Pear reports (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/us/05deficit.html?pagewanted=all) that the "Obama administration officials are offering to cut tens of billions of dollars from Medicare and Medicaid in negotiations to reduce the federal budget deficit, but the depth of the cuts depends on whether Republicans are willing to accept any increases in tax revenues."

The Democrats have agreed to limit tax increases to cuts in "tax expenditures" -- a category that no less eminent a Republican economist than Alan Greenspan says should properly be understood as "government spending" rather than "tax cuts" -- rather than the marginal-rate increases that Republican economists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-does-the-gop-hates-taxes-so-much/2011/05/09/AFBBnMzG_blog.html) say are truly harmful to growth. That's given Republicans an out, if they want it: They can say they're cleaning the code rather than raising taxes.

But there's little evidence, at least as of yet, that Republicans are going to take the deal -- or even that they can take the deal. That raises the question of whether they've gotten here by being savvy, tough negotiators, or whether the reason they keep saying "no" is that they've lost the ability to say "yes." As David Brooks writes (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1) today, "If the debt ceiling talks fail, independents voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern. And they will be right."

[cutthemdown]

Ah awesome solution, dems bend over and take it up the a$$ from the repubs who burned down the economy starting with Reagan and the failed trickle down and protection of the corporate masters because daddy knows best? No thanks.

You are as blind and shallow as epic.

What failed? we had a housing crunch and a recession. It was the dems who cried wolf and did a stupid misguided stimulus and healthcare reform that also slowed the recovery. They should have been focused more on job creation. Our country has done really well and will continue to do so. These political fights are not the end all of America. Go ahead and hate corporations but you're being silly.

[Boomhauer]

you do recall that TARP was started under Bush, yes?

The auto bailout was also started under Bush, but both were drastically changed once the Demos took over.
TARP began as emergency loans to mend balance sheets, but became political repayment and market manipulation under little-O. The original auto loans required repayment before they could declare bankruptcy, but that requirement was later withdrawn, companies forced into bankruptcy, massive loans and procurement by the Gov, bankruptcy laws violated during restructuring and little-O fired/appointed leaders to head the companies in the most fascist actions America has ever undertaken. Little-O's two car czars were also a crook, followed by a pure Union stooge similar to the scoundrels he's had as economic advisers. When faced with a challenge, little-O and the Nazi-Left went back to their 1930's playbook to address the economy, unemployment and struggling companies.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

The auto bailout was also started under Bush, but both were drastically changed once the Demos took over.
TARP began as emergency loans to mend balance sheets, but became political repayment and market manipulation under little-O. The original auto loans required repayment before they could declare bankruptcy, but that requirement was later withdrawn, companies forced into bankruptcy, massive loans and procurement by the Gov, bankruptcy laws violated during restructuring and little-O fired/appointed leaders to head the companies in the most fascist actions America has ever undertaken. Little-O's two car czars were also a crook, followed by a pure Union stooge similar to the scoundrels he's had as economic advisers. When faced with a challenge, little-O and the Nazi-Left went back to their 1930's playbook to address the economy, unemployment and struggling companies.

HA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Christ on friday, you are not ****ing smart.

First of all, if you want to be taken seriously, try using a less derogatory term than "little-O." It's not clever. I know you think it's clever -- going back to the fact that you're not smart -- but it isn't.

Second, your post is a joke and so incredibly factually incorrect that it would take me an hour to refute every absurd "point" you've made. You are fail.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

TEKO, Your post needs more ********, sporadic sentences and baseless rebuttals to align with your MO.

little-O! Look mommy! I'm so clever!

[Boomhauer]

little-O! Look mommy! I'm so clever!

Getting better, but I'm still not seeing enough juvenile, hateful and idiotic insanity. Try harder.

[barryr]

Haha, looks like TheElusiveKyleOrton is having a nice, happy evening.

Is he having a nice healthy debate?

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Getting better, but I'm still not seeing enough juvenile, hateful and idiotic insanity. Try harder.

As hard as I try to emulate barryr and epicFAILdramaskillet, I just can't do it. Teach me how, Boom.

[That One Guy]

Is he having a nice healthy debate?

A bit angrier than necessary but that's always been his style.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

From the conservative Economist:

"The Republican<wbr>­s are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economical<wbr>­ly illiterate and disgracefu<wbr>­lly cynical."

http://www<wbr>­.economist<wbr>­.com/node/<wbr>­18928600 (http://www.economist.com/node/18928600)

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

from 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion, from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.
From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year. It has also now begun to decline.

In other words, federal government spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President Obama.

So, who's responsibl<wbr>­e for the explosion in federal spending?

Read answer : http://www<wbr>­.businessi<wbr>­nsider.com<wbr>­/us-budget<wbr>­-deficit-2<wbr>­011-7 (http://www.businessinsider.com/us-budget-deficit-2011-7)

[That One Guy]

from 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion, from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.
From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year. It has also now begun to decline.

In other words, federal government spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President Obama.

So, who's responsibl<wbr>­e for the explosion in federal spending?

Read answer : http://www<wbr>­.businessi<wbr>­nsider.com<wbr>­/us-budget<wbr>­-deficit-2<wbr>­011-7 (http://www.businessinsider.com/us-budget-deficit-2011-7)

Bush was in office 8 years to make those numbers.

Bush fought (right or wrong, not the discussion) 2 wars.

Obama took all that money that Bush was spending and added even more.

Neither side is innocent in this spending party but both sides deserve as much blame as you have the time/energy to throw upon them.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Bush was in office 8 years to make those numbers.

Bush fought (right or wrong, not the discussion) 2 wars.

Obama took all that money that Bush was spending and added even more.

Neither side is innocent in this spending party but both sides deserve as much blame as you have the time/energy to throw upon them.

All true. Yet somehow, when Bush was putting up those numbers, Republicans in Congress just went along with it, even going so far as to say that "deficits don't matter." Now all of a sudden, the deficit is ALL that matters... provided there's a Dem in the White House.

I agree that both sides deserve blame. It's because of this that both sides need to negotiate a solution. That means closing some loopholes and getting revenue up where it belongs. Period.

The Dems are offering $4 TRILLION in cuts. They're asking for a few billion in tax revenues. And the Republicans? The Republicans walk away.

That's not a negotiation.

Obama is the only grown up in the room, apparently.

[ant1999e]

Getting better, but I'm still not seeing enough juvenile, hateful and idiotic insanity. Try harder.

Ha! That what I was thinking.

[That One Guy]

All true. Yet somehow, when Bush was putting up those numbers, Republicans in Congress just went along with it, even going so far as to say that "deficits don't matter." Now all of a sudden, the deficit is ALL that matters... provided there's a Dem in the White House.

I agree that both sides deserve blame. It's because of this that both sides need to negotiate a solution. That means closing some loopholes and getting revenue up where it belongs. Period.

The Dems are offering $4 TRILLION in cuts. They're asking for a few billion in tax revenues. And the Republicans? The Republicans walk away.

That's not a negotiation.

Obama is the only grown up in the room, apparently.

4 trillion in cuts over 10 years. How much further in debt do we go every single year? At 400 billion a year, it doesn't even cover the increase in spending since Obama's been president.

I don't have a problem with taking away tax cuts that are being claimed undeservedly. If there's truly "loopholes" then close them, I have no issue with that. If the "loophole" is simply that corporations aren't having to pay as much in taxes as Ds think they should, that's a different story. In this case, it's hard to know exactly whether the loophole is truly an exploited catch in tax rules or if it's just them using the term for its negative connotations to justify taking more money. Unfortunately, with our government, everything is politics so you wont get a solid answer from either side.

Rather than ask for 4T in cuts, Boner said he'd take 2 if there were no tax increases. Rather than take that 2T concession, Ds keep beating their drum about loopholes. It's just that neither side wants to be looked at as the one who cried uncle. It's silly, retarded, and we should all be ashamed of everyone in Washington right now.

[alkemical]

http://feeds.boingboing.net/~r/boingboing/iBag/~3/vZXsQMT-g_M/half-of-us-social-pr.html

http://government.arts.cornell.edu/assets/faculty/docs/mettler/submergedstat_mettler.pdf


"Reconstituting the Submerged State: The Challenges of Social Policy Reform in the Obama Era," a paper by Cornell's Clinton Rossiter Professor of American Institutions Suzanne Mettler features this remarkable chart showing that about half of American social program beneficiaries believe that they "have not used a government social program." It's the "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" phenomena writ large: a society of people who subsist on mutual aid and redistributive policies who've been conned (and conned themselves) into thinking that they are rugged individualists and that everyone else is a parasite.

[That One Guy]

http://feeds.boingboing.net/~r/boingboing/iBag/~3/vZXsQMT-g_M/half-of-us-social-pr.html

http://government.arts.cornell.edu/assets/faculty/docs/mettler/submergedstat_mettler.pdf


"Reconstituting the Submerged State: The Challenges of Social Policy Reform in the Obama Era," a paper by Cornell's Clinton Rossiter Professor of American Institutions Suzanne Mettler features this remarkable chart showing that about half of American social program beneficiaries believe that they "have not used a government social program." It's the "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" phenomena writ large: a society of people who subsist on mutual aid and redistributive policies who've been conned (and conned themselves) into thinking that they are rugged individualists and that everyone else is a parasite.

That just shows how embedded into our life the social programs are. While we're incapable of balancing a budget, we shouldn't have programs that boosts everyone's standard of living across the board. We should face the realities of the world, live within our means, and live responsibly as a government.

I know life would get tougher if I didn't have all the government money in my life that there is. I'm willing to face that reality though because the current path leads to things that are much, much worse.

[alkemical]

That just shows how embedded into our life the social programs are. While we're incapable of balancing a budget, we shouldn't have programs that boosts everyone's standard of living across the board. We should face the realities of the world, live within our means, and live responsibly as a government.

I know life would get tougher if I didn't have all the government money in my life that there is. I'm willing to face that reality though because the current path leads to things that are much, much worse.

This is where....there's a lot of resistance though. People like to believe their mythology, and not the reality.

I have some people arguing with me, that because I rent - they are helping me get cheap rent. Attacking me - because they don't like the fact they infact DO USE SOCIALISM TO HAVE A BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE.

I'm not saying Socialism = better quality of life (it can, but it depends on the ecology and application), but what i'm illustrating is we all get stuff from the gov't teet.

Most people don't want to admit it though.

Take THEIR welfare, but leave MINE.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

4 trillion in cuts over 10 years. How much further in debt do we go every single year? At 400 billion a year, it doesn't even cover the increase in spending since Obama's been president.

I don't have a problem with taking away tax cuts that are being claimed undeservedly. If there's truly "loopholes" then close them, I have no issue with that. If the "loophole" is simply that corporations aren't having to pay as much in taxes as Ds think they should, that's a different story. In this case, it's hard to know exactly whether the loophole is truly an exploited catch in tax rules or if it's just them using the term for its negative connotations to justify taking more money. Unfortunately, with our government, everything is politics so you wont get a solid answer from either side.

Rather than ask for 4T in cuts, Boner said he'd take 2 if there were no tax increases. Rather than take that 2T concession, Ds keep beating their drum about loopholes. It's just that neither side wants to be looked at as the one who cried uncle. It's silly, retarded, and we should all be ashamed of everyone in Washington right now.

Do you know why that drum is being beaten?

Because it is immoral and just flat-out wrong to ask our seniors, the poorest among us, and our schoolchildren, to be the only groups asked to sacrifice. I thought part of the Tea Party ideal was that EVERYONE had to sacrifice... from grandma and grandpa, to kids in school, to the rich, and the middle class. But it isn't that way.

We've seen in the last decade the largest upward shift in total wealth in the history of our nation... but ask those people to give up their tax breaks for having a private plane? Or making over $1million a year? Can't be done.

It is just flat-out wrong.

[cutthemdown]

Orton I know a few millionaires. They have so much money going out you would not believe it. All the fee's and regulations here in Calif they have to navigate. Fed income tax only one small part of it. You make it seem like they just run off with all their money and buy gold to bath in. My one friend who makes about 180 grand a yr after he pays all his expenses, pays his employees, insurance, and all the other things calif throws at him, but seriously this guy is a workaholic and has been since we were kids. Literally he works 15 hours a day, i am not exaggerating. I really feel he doesn't deserve to pay one penny more. He does so much more then most Americans for jobs and the economy I could not with a straight face say he should give me more. Sure he has a killer yacht and the sweetest ride I have ever been in, but he works 3 times as hard as I do. Not every rich person just had daddy hand them money ya know? I am fine with closing some corp loopholes but I wish those would be explained better. You keep saying Corp Jets but I doubt that is the sticking point, that is just a great talking point. I am firmly against Obamas plan to raise tax on households that make 250 grand a yr. I just have too many hard working friend and people who come see my band to think that is fair. If anything its another assault on the rich states where the people who make money live. Sure I don't make that much, maybe I shouldn't care, but it doesn't seem fair to me to ask the people already paying all the tax to pay more so you can live easier and get more govt services.

[cutthemdown]

Also I know people rag on attorneys but I am around them all the time. I see me on a friday without a care in the world, i have dropped of paperwork for them and my day is done. But they are all stressed out with deadlines on big cases, motions, drawing up plans for depositions and having to drive all over the city every week to make court cases that just get postponed. They have to travel all the time and can't plan vacations because they never know what will happen in a case. If it goes to trial there goes part of your summer or xmas time etc etc. I never feel even once they are making more then they deserve even when they score a huge settlement. All of those guys at the office make close to 250 grand except for the single ones. But the married ones with wives who work would be right in those cross hairs, its just not fair.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

It. Is not. A tax rate hike. Period.

It simply isn't, cut. And while I have no doubt your buddy works very hard for what he has, there are a lot of people out there working very hard for what THEY have as well, and all they have is about 1/8th of what your buddy has earned. Doesn't mean they're not working hard.

Getting everyone to pay their full % of taxes is something that SHOULD be supported by you folks on the right. Isn't it always the folks on the right talking about bootstraps and paying your own way and all the rest? Does that not go for corporations and rich individuals who have spent years and thousands of dollars hiring the best tax accountants to manipulate their reports for them? Because you can afford to be rich, I guess, you can afford the best accountants, which means you get richer by not paying what everyone else pays. That's wrong.

I agree with you on the need for more details. If the Republicans will just sit down at the bargaining table, we might actually get to see the cards BOTH sides are holding.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

And, by the way, even in their version of reality, the one in which cutting taxes for the wealthy means trickle down creating good jobs hasn't been completely discredited by the objective reality of all the years the policy has been in place, closing of corporate loopholes etc wouldn't take effect until 2013 and Obama also proposes extending the payroll tax holiday so there wouldn't be any immediate "job killing" tax increase and most would continue to enjoy a lower tax burden.

How could such a plan possibly be a downward drag on the economy right now, even according to the basic rightie premise?



This goes beyond class warfare. It's scorched earth ideological warfare perpetrated by those who see the misery of total destruction as a fair price to pay for the chance to take over and crush all opposition, including the GOP establishment and traditional pro-business Republicans. The GOP leadership, who created this monster meaning to use it the way they so effectively used the religious right for decades without serious interference, have lost control and may no longer have the ability to stand up to their creation even if they can find the guts to try.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Orton I know a few millionaires. They have so much money going out you would not believe it. All the fee's and regulations here in Calif they have to navigate. Fed income tax only one small part of it. You make it seem like they just run off with all their money and buy gold to bath in. My one friend who makes about 180 grand a yr after he pays all his expenses, pays his employees, insurance, and all the other things calif throws at him, but seriously this guy is a workaholic and has been since we were kids. Literally he works 15 hours a day, i am not exaggerating. I really feel he doesn't deserve to pay one penny more. He does so much more then most Americans for jobs and the economy I could not with a straight face say he should give me more. Sure he has a killer yacht and the sweetest ride I have ever been in, but he works 3 times as hard as I do. Not every rich person just had daddy hand them money ya know? I am fine with closing some corp loopholes but I wish those would be explained better. You keep saying Corp Jets but I doubt that is the sticking point, that is just a great talking point. I am firmly against Obamas plan to raise tax on households that make 250 grand a yr. I just have too many hard working friend and people who come see my band to think that is fair. If anything its another assault on the rich states where the people who make money live. Sure I don't make that much, maybe I shouldn't care, but it doesn't seem fair to me to ask the people already paying all the tax to pay more so you can live easier and get more govt services.

Cut, the point is a good one though in that cutting 3 trillion from social programs will only affect middle and low income families. So, in essence, they are the ones bearing the brunt of the "fix". The wealthy people in this country I'm sure are more than willing to make some sacrifices if they see that Washington is cutting spending. Don't you think? If it means closing some loopholes that were put in place essentially by lobbyists then why wouldn't you support that? Do you agree the burden of this deficit reduction plan should be shared among absolutely everyone? Is that unreasonable?

How else would you propose that EVERYONE share in the road to recovery?

[Popcorn Sutton]

Hell, I'm all for lowering corporate taxes if they make it a flat tax and close ALL loopholes. Make it one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world but make it a flat tax.

[That One Guy]

Do you know why that drum is being beaten?

Because it is immoral and just flat-out wrong to ask our seniors, the poorest among us, and our schoolchildren, to be the only groups asked to sacrifice. I thought part of the Tea Party ideal was that EVERYONE had to sacrifice... from grandma and grandpa, to kids in school, to the rich, and the middle class. But it isn't that way.

We've seen in the last decade the largest upward shift in total wealth in the history of our nation... but ask those people to give up their tax breaks for having a private plane? Or making over $1million a year? Can't be done.

It is just flat-out wrong.

Anyone that would lose government help at this point has already gotten more government help than they would've if we'd never paid for all these social programs with debt in the first place. They should be thankful for what they've already received and deal with the realities that right now, the government may not be able to support them in the same way anymore. I don't necessarily hate the baby boomers to the degree Garcia Bronco does (probably because I'm more ignorant on the matter) but that generation has built up insane debt over the years, spent much of it on social aid programs, and still wants their Medicare/SS/etc. left alone. Well, sorry folks, but you reaped the benefits in the form of government debt for all these years and now you should face some of the consequences for it.

I never give someone money just because they say they need some. If I'm giving up my money, I know what you need it for and I evaluate whether I think it's a worthwhile cause or if it's just someone else's problem to suck up. I wouldn't expect someone else to give up their money for any less substantiation. If people don't want to give up their money for more social programs for the poor/old/etc. then that is absolutely their choice. The money should come from government handouts long before it comes from citizens' pockets.

[That One Guy]

Cut, the point is a good one though in that cutting 3 trillion from social programs will only affect middle and low income families. So, in essence, they are the ones bearing the brunt of the "fix". The wealthy people in this country I'm sure are more than willing to make some sacrifices if they see that Washington is cutting spending. Don't you think? If it means closing some loopholes that were put in place essentially by lobbyists then why wouldn't you support that? Do you agree the burden of this deficit reduction plan should be shared among absolutely everyone? Is that unreasonable?

How else would you propose that EVERYONE share in the road to recovery?

They're only taking the brunt of the hit because they're receiving the most from the government. That's absolutely fair. Social aid is charity and charity is something you're not entitled to. It's great if we have money to help support the poor but if we don't, the poor have to live within their means or make changes just like in every other situation in life.

[That One Guy]

Hell, I'm all for lowering corporate taxes if they make it a flat tax and close ALL loopholes. Make it one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world but make it a flat tax.

I'm pretty ignorant to the details but I think I support this. Right now it sounds like the picture is so convoluted that it's hard to discern what a real tax rate is for anyone.

[alkemical]

I'm pretty ignorant to the details but I think I support this. Right now it sounds like the picture is so convoluted that it's hard to discern what a real tax rate is for anyone.

That's the intention. ;)

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Anyone that would lose government help at this point has already gotten more government help than they would've if we'd never paid for all these social programs with debt in the first place. They should be thankful for what they've already received and deal with the realities that right now, the government may not be able to support them in the same way anymore. I don't necessarily hate the baby boomers to the degree Garcia Bronco does (probably because I'm more ignorant on the matter) but that generation has built up insane debt over the years, spent much of it on social aid programs, and still wants their Medicare/SS/etc. left alone. Well, sorry folks, but you reaped the benefits in the form of government debt for all these years and now you should face some of the consequences for it.

I never give someone money just because they say they need some. If I'm giving up my money, I know what you need it for and I evaluate whether I think it's a worthwhile cause or if it's just someone else's problem to suck up. I wouldn't expect someone else to give up their money for any less substantiation. If people don't want to give up their money for more social programs for the poor/old/etc. then that is absolutely their choice. The money should come from government handouts long before it comes from citizens' pockets.

By that same token, should not the money tax cuts for the rich and corporations -- which end up being charged to you and me -- be evaluated on the same scale?

I'm saying everyone should sacrifice. The Republicans are saying everyone should sacrifice except for the uber-rich and big corporations. That's not right.

[That One Guy]

By that same token, should not the money tax cuts for the rich and corporations -- which end up being charged to you and me -- be evaluated on the same scale?

I'm saying everyone should sacrifice. The Republicans are saying everyone should sacrifice except for the uber-rich and big corporations. That's not right.

And IF we all paid taxes, a tax increase would do exactly that. Cut a little from social aid, those receiving the most probably lost the most. Those receiving the least, lose the least.

If everyone paid taxes and we had a small tax increase, those making the most would lose the most while those making the least would lose the least. As is though, they want to limit how much those getting have to give up while going to a select few and saying "give more".

Get a tax code where a tax increase affects all and you'll have a different attitude towards tax increases from most. Right now it's a mantra of "Down with THEIR handouts" and "They aren't paying THEIR part".

[Popcorn Sutton]

I'm pretty ignorant to the details but I think I support this. Right now it sounds like the picture is so convoluted that it's hard to discern what a real tax rate is for anyone.

Like GE paying no taxes, in fact getting a 3.2 billion dollar tax benefit...

Love em' loopholes. Love that Obama is being advised by GE's CEO.

[Obushma]

This is an economic philosophy problem. We've had an economic car crash and both sides are trying to place a bandaid on an amputated leg. We're going to come to a head at some point, with two choices. Either we let the World Bank and the IMF eat the debt and move to towards globalization, or we liquefy the debt and remain a sovereign nation.

[cutthemdown]

By that same token, should not the money tax cuts for the rich and corporations -- which end up being charged to you and me -- be evaluated on the same scale?

I'm saying everyone should sacrifice. The Republicans are saying everyone should sacrifice except for the uber-rich and big corporations. That's not right.

What don't you understand about the fact the super rich pay almost all the tax right now?

[Popcorn Sutton]

What don't you understand about the fact the super rich pay almost all the tax right now?

Wonder why?

The nation’s top 1% of households own more than half the nation’s stocks, according to the Federal Reserve. They also control more than $16 trillion in wealth — more than the bottom 90%.

[Popcorn Sutton]

If Washington wasn't so easily influenced by money I think the income gap would be much less of a story. The fact that super rich incomes have risen so dramatically in the last 15 years (post K street explosion) is my biggest concern. Yet, the middle class incomes have not even kept up with the rate of economic growth.

It would be interesting to see what happened if a flat tax was created without subsidies and loopholes. What would the lobbyists do? The fact that Republicans won't even consider touching some of these special interest loopholes created by powerful lobbies is concerning.

[That One Guy]

If Washington wasn't so easily influenced by money I think the income gap would be much less of a story. The fact that super rich incomes have risen so dramatically in the last 15 years (post K street explosion) is my biggest concern. Yet, the middle class incomes have not even kept up with the rate of economic growth.

It would be interesting to see what happened if a flat tax was created without subsidies and loopholes. What would the lobbyists do? The fact that Republicans won't even consider touching some of these special interest loopholes created by powerful lobbies is concerning.

But, really, there's no value in being a regular Joe anymore. Everyone in the world can be a regular Joe. Not everyone in the world can be a manager, supervisor, CEO, etc.

I understand the plight of the average Joe worker but, at the same time, they just can't compete in a global world. We want everything as cheap as possible and business is more competitive than ever - those who succeed probably deserve their rewards.

[alkemical]

LOL, you need a 4yr degree to be an avg Joe anymore.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

But, really, there's no value in being a regular Joe anymore. Everyone in the world can be a regular Joe. Not everyone in the world can be a manager, supervisor, CEO, etc.

I understand the plight of the average Joe worker but, at the same time, they just can't compete in a global world. We want everything as cheap as possible and business is more competitive than ever - those who succeed probably deserve their rewards.

Those who succeed also owe a great deal of their success to the opportunities afforded them in "the greatest country in the world," and as such, maybe for a little while they could afford not to get all their tax breaks they've been enjoying for the last 10 years while our deficit grew and grew and grew...

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Boehner-Cantor rivalry affecting debt talks It's not the first sign of friction between the two Republican leaders.
A long-simmering rivalry between the top two Republicans in the House has tumbled into the open, with far-reaching implications for deficit-reduction negotiations with the White House.
Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) are at odds over President Obama's call for a massive deficit-reduction package to address fiscal problems and provide for an increase in the country's $14.3-trillion borrowing limit before an Aug. 2 deadline.
In private talks with the White House, Boehner favored a large package as part of pragmatic political deal-making. But Cantor, speaking for staunch conservatives in Congress, is opposed.
In a briefing Monday, Cantor downplayed the divisions, insisting repeatedly that he and the speaker were "on the same page." But friction between the two has grown obvious, reinforcing months-old questions over who controls House Republicans.
"I don't think Boehner would want to serve in a foxhole anytime with Eric Cantor," said a Republican strategist and former leadership aide who asked not to be identified while commenting on an intraparty rivalry.
Obama praised Boehner in a nationally televised news conference Monday as he warned that a budget accord would only grow more difficult with time. "Do it now," Obama said. "Pull off the Band-Aid. Eat our peas."
But Cantor and the political right seem to be dictating the course of talks. Their pressure forced Boehner over the weekend to abandon his support for doing "something big" on the federal budget, and cast Cantor as the champion of the conservative flank.
"Boehner is facing a similar problem to that Gingrich faced in 1995-1996 - he can't control the rebels in the caucus who helped him gain power," said Princeton University professor Julian Zelizer, referring to then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich. "The debt ceiling has turned into as much of a test for the GOP and its internal leadership as it is for which party is stronger.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cantor-boehner-20110712,0,2176610.story


Cantor seems to be undercutting Boehner at every turn. Boehner could make a deal with Democrats - except that Cantor's there waiting with all of the Republican ideologues at his back, waiting to take away Boehner's chair if he so much as says "Gesundheit" to a Democrat.


Thanks for putting the country first, guys!

[peacepipe]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/the-big-blink-mcconnell-proposes-giving-obama-authority-to-raise-debt-limit-alone.php

Here's how McConnell explained it at his weekly Capitol press conference:

The way it would work is the legislation would authorize him to get to the amount he says he needs based upon the advice of his Secretary of the Treasury in three tranches: The first tranche, $700 billion, the second tranche $900 billion, the third tranche $900 billion.

Once the request is made it would be appropriate in either or both houses for a resolution of disapproval to be taken up on an expedited procedure. If that expedited procedure in both the House and the Senate -- if the resolution of disapproval achieved a majority -- it would go down to him where he could either sign it or veto it. My assumption is he would veto it. And that veto would be sustained by one-third-plus-one in either of the houses.

For a good analogy to the resolution of disapproval, read this.

The legislation would not give Obama unilateral authority to cut spending or reduce deficits. And as such, it represents a big policy cave by Republicans, who've long insisted that they would not raise the debt limit without enacting entitlement cuts long-sought by the conservative movement on a bipartisan basis. But, if Dems buy into this option, it will keep the potent debt issue alive, and central to politics, for much of this election season.
it seems that basicly reps are saying "we give in,just let us do a vote of disapproval so we can save face.

[elsid13]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/the-big-blink-mcconnell-proposes-giving-obama-authority-to-raise-debt-limit-alone.php


it seems that basicly reps are saying "we give in,just let us do a vote of disapproval so we can save face.


I keep thinking it just say we are little children more concern with winning the White House then doing the right thing.

[elsid13]

Eating their own now.

Conservative groups that had been anxiously hoping to use this summer's debt ceiling vote as a rare opportunity to reduce government spending were furious Wednesday when Senate Republicans outlined a plan to raise the limit without ensured spending cuts.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell outlined a complex and procedure-heavy proposal Tuesday (details here (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AvzNSw9rmWTZ53bFmBXXLKubCMZ_;_ylu=X3oDMTBqODR iY3QzBHBvcwMyBHNlYwNCbG9nIEJvZHk-;_ylg=X3oDMTM2NWIwaHBpBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDYTYwZGVhMmEtYTVkNS0zZTZkLWEwNTktNGMxMzZmMz c3YjY5BHBzdGNhdANvcmlnaW5hbHN8dGhldGlja2V0BHB0A3N0 b3J5cGFnZQ--;_ylv=0/SIG=14rgscmut/EXP=1311720643/**http%3A//www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/exclusive-mcconnell-to-obama-eat-your-own-darn-peas/2011/03/29/gIQAqastAI_blog.html)) to give President Obama the ability to raise the debt ceiling in increments without Republican support. McConnell unveiled the plan just before leaving Capitol Hill Tuesday to meet with Obama to continue discussions for a possible deal between the parties.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/fury-mcconnell-outlines-plan-obama-raise-debt-ceiling-204213811.html

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Eating their own now.

Conservative groups that had been anxiously hoping to use this summer's debt ceiling vote as a rare opportunity to reduce government spending were furious Wednesday when Senate Republicans outlined a plan to raise the limit without ensured spending cuts.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell outlined a complex and procedure-heavy proposal Tuesday (details here (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AvzNSw9rmWTZ53bFmBXXLKubCMZ_;_ylu=X3oDMTBqODR iY3QzBHBvcwMyBHNlYwNCbG9nIEJvZHk-;_ylg=X3oDMTM2NWIwaHBpBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDYTYwZGVhMmEtYTVkNS0zZTZkLWEwNTktNGMxMzZmMz c3YjY5BHBzdGNhdANvcmlnaW5hbHN8dGhldGlja2V0BHB0A3N0 b3J5cGFnZQ--;_ylv=0/SIG=14rgscmut/EXP=1311720643/**http%3A//www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/exclusive-mcconnell-to-obama-eat-your-own-darn-peas/2011/03/29/gIQAqastAI_blog.html)) to give President Obama the ability to raise the debt ceiling in increments without Republican support. McConnell unveiled the plan just before leaving Capitol Hill Tuesday to meet with Obama to continue discussions for a possible deal between the parties.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/fury-mcconnell-outlines-plan-obama-raise-debt-ceiling-204213811.html

I read about The McConnell Punt. I sincerely hope that President Obama says "no, we're working this out the way we should have been working it out from the beginning," and wins the day. Because at least part of McConnell's cynical plan revolves around letting a Republican President have the same power he's offering up on a platter to Mr. Obama.

I firmly believe that there's no reason why any President should have the authority to do this, and that goes for the current President or any who succeeds him.

What a joke.

Republicans: "We want $4 Trillion in cuts."
Obama: "I'll give you $4 Trillion in cuts. But you've got to give a fifth of that in revenue increases, WITHOUT RAISING TAX RATES."
Republicans: "No deal. Let's find a smaller solution to the biggest problem in the history of our country."
Obama: "No, children, you said we needed to work this out, so let's work it out NOW."
McConnell: "Can't you just do it? I don't want to be blamed. Also, I look like a blowfish."

The President is running circles around these jokers.

[Mr.Meanie]

Eating their own now.

Conservative groups that had been anxiously hoping to use this summer's debt ceiling vote as a rare opportunity to reduce government spending were furious Wednesday when Senate Republicans outlined a plan to raise the limit without ensured spending cuts.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell outlined a complex and procedure-heavy proposal Tuesday (details here (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AvzNSw9rmWTZ53bFmBXXLKubCMZ_;_ylu=X3oDMTBqODR iY3QzBHBvcwMyBHNlYwNCbG9nIEJvZHk-;_ylg=X3oDMTM2NWIwaHBpBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDYTYwZGVhMmEtYTVkNS0zZTZkLWEwNTktNGMxMzZmMz c3YjY5BHBzdGNhdANvcmlnaW5hbHN8dGhldGlja2V0BHB0A3N0 b3J5cGFnZQ--;_ylv=0/SIG=14rgscmut/EXP=1311720643/**http%3A//www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/exclusive-mcconnell-to-obama-eat-your-own-darn-peas/2011/03/29/gIQAqastAI_blog.html)) to give President Obama the ability to raise the debt ceiling in increments without Republican support. McConnell unveiled the plan just before leaving Capitol Hill Tuesday to meet with Obama to continue discussions for a possible deal between the parties.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/fury-mcconnell-outlines-plan-obama-raise-debt-ceiling-204213811.html

What the hell? These guys are f'ing retarded, they raised the debt 7 times under Bush. Now all of a sudden they can't do their jobs, and want to make a special law granting extra power to one entire branch of government so they don't have to do their job?

This whole cluster**** is their doing because they want to play chicken with the country's credit rating by tying a routine debt ceiling raise to massive sweeping overhauls to major programs at the last minute. And now they want to assign their job to someone else so they can point fingers in the next election? Absolutely disgraceful.

[Boomhauer]

What the hell? These guys are f'ing retarded...

Yep. The GOP Republicans died in 2005, but there's still corpses twitching in the House and Senate. It's easy to identify these terminal Rinos because they goose step at the same rhythm as terminal Dinos, or the Progressive Left, that died in 2009.

Zombie Apocalypse = The last throws of Neanderthals and their burning society..........

[That One Guy]

I read about The McConnell Punt. I sincerely hope that President Obama says "no, we're working this out the way we should have been working it out from the beginning," and wins the day. Because at least part of McConnell's cynical plan revolves around letting a Republican President have the same power he's offering up on a platter to Mr. Obama.

I firmly believe that there's no reason why any President should have the authority to do this, and that goes for the current President or any who succeeds him.

What a joke.

Republicans: "We want $4 Trillion in cuts."
Obama: "I'll give you $4 Trillion in cuts. But you've got to give a fifth of that in revenue increases, WITHOUT RAISING TAX RATES."
Republicans: "No deal. Let's find a smaller solution to the biggest problem in the history of our country."
Obama: "No, children, you said we needed to work this out, so let's work it out NOW."
McConnell: "Can't you just do it? I don't want to be blamed. Also, I look like a blowfish."

The President is running circles around these jokers.

I think I agree with this post.

[peacepipe]

LOL,I predicted earlier in this thread Obama would get what he wants. A vote on the debt ceiling with no strings attached. That's exactly what's going to happen. reps played chicken and lost. the reps have just blinked.

[alkemical]

Eating their own now.

Conservative groups that had been anxiously hoping to use this summer's debt ceiling vote as a rare opportunity to reduce government spending were furious Wednesday when Senate Republicans outlined a plan to raise the limit without ensured spending cuts.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell outlined a complex and procedure-heavy proposal Tuesday (details here (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AvzNSw9rmWTZ53bFmBXXLKubCMZ_;_ylu=X3oDMTBqODR iY3QzBHBvcwMyBHNlYwNCbG9nIEJvZHk-;_ylg=X3oDMTM2NWIwaHBpBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDYTYwZGVhMmEtYTVkNS0zZTZkLWEwNTktNGMxMzZmMz c3YjY5BHBzdGNhdANvcmlnaW5hbHN8dGhldGlja2V0BHB0A3N0 b3J5cGFnZQ--;_ylv=0/SIG=14rgscmut/EXP=1311720643/**http%3A//www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/exclusive-mcconnell-to-obama-eat-your-own-darn-peas/2011/03/29/gIQAqastAI_blog.html)) to give President Obama the ability to raise the debt ceiling in increments without Republican support. McConnell unveiled the plan just before leaving Capitol Hill Tuesday to meet with Obama to continue discussions for a possible deal between the parties.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/fury-mcconnell-outlines-plan-obama-raise-debt-ceiling-204213811.html

road to tyranny?

[Arkie]

$4 Trillion in cuts is not even close to offsetting the recent spending increases. Spending is the problem because there is no limit to what can be spent, but there is a limit on what can be taken in. It's like having a blank checkbook and a regular weekly paycheck. The paycheck has a limit, but the checkbook doesn't. The only way to realistically fix the problem is from the spending side.

[Arkie]

Revenue is not the problem. It's maxed out and stays close to the same percentage of GDP regardless of tax rates. It's the spending that has grown by multiples over the last 10 years.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Revenue is not the problem. It's maxed out and stays close to the same percentage of GDP regardless of tax rates. It's the spending that has grown by multiples over the last 10 years.

Bull. ****ing. ****.

Bull****.

Bull****.

Bull****.

When President Bush took office, we had a SURPLUS. When he started two wars AND LOWERED TAXES we developed a DEFICIT. Now, you just want to cut spending out and expect to keep all revenue the same, and you think this is going to fix something?

You talk about how $4 Trillion is nothing... well $4 Trillion sounded like plenty to Republicans before taxes were on the table. Suddenly it's not enough.

Give me a ****ing break, stop lying to yourself, and start thinking.

[Arkie]

You are right. Bush created the deficit through spending too much. Revenue has stayed the same percentage of GDP.

[peacepipe]

$4 Trillion in cuts is not even close to offsetting the recent spending increases. Spending is the problem because there is no limit to what can be spent, but there is a limit on what can be taken in. It's like having a blank checkbook and a regular weekly paycheck. The paycheck has a limit, but the checkbook doesn't. The only way to realistically fix the problem is from the spending side.that would be incorrect,raising taxes would give you a bigger paycheck.

[cutthemdown]

If Washington wasn't so easily influenced by money I think the income gap would be much less of a story. The fact that super rich incomes have risen so dramatically in the last 15 years (post K street explosion) is my biggest concern. Yet, the middle class incomes have not even kept up with the rate of economic growth.

It would be interesting to see what happened if a flat tax was created without subsidies and loopholes. What would the lobbyists do? The fact that Republicans won't even consider touching some of these special interest loopholes created by powerful lobbies is concerning.

Middle class private sector you mean right?

[Arkie]

that would be incorrect,raising taxes would give you a bigger paycheck.

Revenue fell from 2000-03 with higher taxes. After the 2003 tax cuts, revenue rose from 2003-07. Higher rates don't mean bigger paycheck. The bigger paycheck always comes during economic expansion.

[Mr.Meanie]

Revenue fell from 2000-03 with higher taxes. After the 2003 tax cuts, revenue rose from 2003-07. Higher rates don't mean bigger paycheck. The bigger paycheck always comes during economic expansion.

Revenue falling in 2000 - 2003 was because of the absolute collapse of the tech sector and then the economic damage of 9/11. Revenue rose in 2003 - 2007 primarily because of historic low interest rates, deregulation in the financial sector, and the resulting artificial housing bubble which subsequently burst.

Taxes remained fairly stable all throughout those periods - all at extremely low rates relatively.

[peacepipe]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/08/cherry-picking_season.html
Riedl notes that tax revenue has historically averaged 18 percent of GDP. Yes -- and in only three of the ten years the tax cuts have been in place has revenue exceeded that share. The average from 2000 to 2007 -- I’m being sporting here by lopping off the last two years, and including the year 2000 high point -- was 17.6 percent. By contrast, the average during the 1990's was 18.5 percent.

[TonyR]

Here's a good read on how Obama ran circles around the GOP on this issue. And because of the GOP's epic stupidity we all lose. If they wouldn't have taken such a hard stance at the start of this maybe some type of compromise could have been achieved.


I get the feeling that it's all over but the shouting. We may look back and say that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's convoluted parliamentary "backup plan" marked the effective end of the 2011 debt-ceiling crisis. The winner? President Barack Obama.


Read it here:

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110716/OPINION16/107160324/-Backup-plan-debt-limit-political-gift-Obama?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Opinion|s

[DenverBrit]

Let's hope so.....

Top Republicans take default off table: Geithner

'Despite what you hear, people are moving closer together,' Treasury chief says

WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner expressed confidence that Congress would raise the debt ceiling and said on Monday that top Republicans had taken "default off the table."

"Despite what you hear, people are moving closer together," Geithner told CNBC television. "You have seen the leadership of the Republican party ... take default off the table. That's encouraging," he said.
Story: Fallback plan gains momentum in debt talks

Congress must raise the country's $14.3 trillion borrowing limit before August 2 in order to give the U.S. Treasury the authority to borrow more and keep the government solvent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43793270/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

[Garcia Bronco]

LOL..."keep the government solvent"

The governemnt ain't solvent and hasn't been so since Hoover and FDR.

[DenverBrit]

As long as they can borrow more.

sol·vent
  –adjective
1.
able to pay all just debts.