So we hit the debt limit...

[garbon]

After all, if half of their lies are accepted as a reasonable middle ground, then there is incentive to just keep warping reality as far as imagination will allow, and you're going to be granted half of that.  Sometime the only reasonable and proper thing to say is:  "You guys are totally fucking nuts, you're out of this world, virtually nothing you say has any semblance of facts in it."

Sounds like you'd be better off saying nothing. Rash labeling (even if accurate) really helps no one.

[Jacob]

Sounds like you'd be better off saying nothing. Rash labeling (even if accurate) really helps no one.

Unlike your helpful offer to tutor Tamas in English?

Why do you want to break into the ESL field, anyhow?

[garbon]

Sounds like you'd be better off saying nothing. Rash labeling (even if accurate) really helps no one.

Unlike your helpful offer to tutor Tamas in English?

Why do you want to break into the ESL field, anyhow?

Sure. Tamas clearly has misconceptions about a non-hysterical use of the word "treason".  I'd rather assume that he is confused about how to use the word rather than assume he's deliberately using it in order to mislead and fan the flames (so to speak).

Who said that I want to do ESL professionally?

[Martinus]

You know, sometimes the truth isn't in the middle, sometimes the truth (or at least absence of outright lies) is way off on the side.

Tp quote a Polish philosopher professor Bartoszewski, the truth is not in the middle. The truth is where it is.

[Faeelin]

Here's a question for those who think Obama could have done better. How should he have held the line?

[The Minsky Moment]

Hawk that I am, I would like to see them get stuck with figuring out how to cut a trillion and change from the defense departments budget.

This is the problem.  Put aside the entitlements for a sec (the nature of that problem is well established)

Domestic non-defense discretionary is every red-blooded GOPer's favorite whipping boy but the money just isn't there.  Even if you shut down the courts, let all the federal prisoners out, repdudiated all veterans pensions, etc. there still wouldn't be enough.

Homeland security has some bloat but let's say we cut that 20% and then a couple years later, there is a big sucessful terror attack.  Then the incident will be blamed on the cuts and congress will fall over each other to double that budget.

That leaves defense.  But seems to me that sources of instablility and potential conflict are inceasing, not falling, and the Chinese rise is the most significant security challange the US has faced since Stalin got the H-bomb.  Demands on US defense capabilities are increasing in scope and geographic dispersion.  And while the US doesn't need to mass produce tanks and artillery to station in Germany vs. the Warsaw Pact, the capital intensivity of defense procurement continues to increase because the US has responded to the dual challenges of "asymetric" non-state actors, and rise in Chinese capabilities by emphasizing technological solutions.  Technological sophistication may allow reduction in personnel count (at least at the sharp edge of the stick) but it increases costs everywhere else: procurement, maintenance, training.  Similarly if one replaces a force of size X with one of size 1/2*X, but at the same time the latter force is expected to be more flexible (and with a higher proportion of "special" forces and specialized technical skills) there is no cost savings.

So when people talk about taking several hundred billion out of DoD, they need to understand that has real impacts in terms of capabilities, and that in turn is likely to influence behavior.  One way to put it is pose questions: is the US prepared to countenance  mass finlandization in the Pacific, with Vietnam, South Korea, Phillipines, even Japan etc. all trimming their sails to the PRC wind?  Is the US prepared to tolerate a Taiwan crisis without having a credible threat of intervention?  There is a school of thought that says that the US should disentagle itself from this concerns, let the chips in Pacific fall where they may, pull back to Guam and Hawaii and focus on our own problems.  I personally am not there yet, and I am willing to allow federal taxes to go up 2-3% of GDP first.

[alfred russel]

...but the money just isn't there.

The money isn't anywhere. You could eliminate social security, or medicare, or the department of defense, and you still wouldn't balance the budget.

[Berkut]

You know, sometimes the truth isn't in the middle, sometimes the truth (or at least absence of outright lies) is way off on the side.

Tp quote a Polish philosopher professor Bartoszewski, the truth is not in the middle. The truth is where it is.

The problem is not that the truth is not always in the middle (the accusation that I think that is just more ad hom BS of course - I am only rarely "in the middle" on any particular issue), it is that the triablsits are convicned that the truth ALWAYS lies with THEIR tribe.

And what is more, this is so blindingly obvious, that the only possible explanation for anyone not agreeing with them is that they are stunningly stupid, ignorant, or actively malicious.

So you get what we have right here - the constant refrain that there is nothing in what the non-Dems think or say that should be considered at all. There is no compromise necessary, no understanding desired, not accomodation to be tolerated, because the other tribe is not (indeeed, CAN NOT) possibly be motivated by anything but malice, and one should never compromise with malice.

DG stated it unequivocally. The other side is completely wrong, and hence compromising with them is giving in, and rewards their lies and malice.

Here is the thing though: They honestly and truly believe the exact same thing about you.

Which is the essence of my point. I am not promoting any fallacy of the middle - the "truth" is often NOT in the middle. My position on particular issues is only rarely "in the middle". My position however is that the truth is not the sole province of some particular tribe, and understanding why the various groups think the way they do is the key to understanding how to actually accomplish anything.

"You guys are totally fucking nuts, you're out of this world, virtually nothing you say has any semblance of facts in it." is just partisan/tribal rhetoric. It isn't true, it isn't accurate, and the only way anyone could think that way is to be at least as radical, arrogant, and delusional as anyone on the other side you are ranting about. It is nothing more than standard political demonization tactics, not a single step up from "Obama is a Muslim!" or questioning his birthplace.

[MadImmortalMan]

The deal does have revenues. The Bush tax cuts are expiring. It's just the GOP has the cover of automatic expiration to claim they didn't raise taxes.

[Faeelin]

The deal does have revenues. The Bush tax cuts are expiring. It's just the GOP has the cover of automatic expiration to claim they didn't raise taxes.

They automatically expire, but we went through that before. Does anyone really think Obama will campaign on raising taxes, given his performance the last two years?

[MadImmortalMan]

The deal does have revenues. The Bush tax cuts are expiring. It's just the GOP has the cover of automatic expiration to claim they didn't raise taxes.

They automatically expire, but we went through that before. Does anyone really think Obama will campaign on raising taxes, given his performance the last two years?

No, but it won't matter by then.

[derspiess]

The deal does have revenues. The Bush tax cuts are expiring. It's just the GOP has the cover of automatic expiration to claim they didn't raise taxes.

But do we even have any *real* spending cuts?  Or are the spending 'cuts' in this deal just going to somewhat reduce the rate of increased spending.  IIRC, with congress's baseline budgeting shenanigans a certain increase in spending (6-7%?) over the previous year is taken for granted, and anything that reduces that increase is considered a cut.

[MadImmortalMan]

The deal does have revenues. The Bush tax cuts are expiring. It's just the GOP has the cover of automatic expiration to claim they didn't raise taxes.

But do we even have any *real* spending cuts?  Or are the spending 'cuts' in this deal just going to somewhat reduce the rate of increased spending.  IIRC, with congress's baseline budgeting shenanigans a certain increase in spending (6-7%?) over the previous year is taken for granted, and anything that reduces that increase is considered a cut.

As far as I know, there are no cuts below the baseline in any of this. It's all decreases in the rate of growth. A spending freeze would probably count as a ten trillion dollar cut using these methods.

[Zoupa]

After all, if half of their lies are accepted as a reasonable middle ground, then there is incentive to just keep warping reality as far as imagination will allow, and you're going to be granted half of that.  Sometime the only reasonable and proper thing to say is:  "You guys are totally fucking nuts, you're out of this world, virtually nothing you say has any semblance of facts in it."

Sounds like you'd be better off saying nothing.

Oh, irony. You should think about this post of yours each time your little mouse goes over the "Post" button and you're about to click. Ask yourself, aren't I better off not saying a thing?

Which, by the way, is better english than "saying nothing".

[DGuller]

The deal does have revenues. The Bush tax cuts are expiring. It's just the GOP has the cover of automatic expiration to claim they didn't raise taxes.

But do we even have any *real* spending cuts?  Or are the spending 'cuts' in this deal just going to somewhat reduce the rate of increased spending.  IIRC, with congress's baseline budgeting shenanigans a certain increase in spending (6-7%?) over the previous year is taken for granted, and anything that reduces that increase is considered a cut.

As far as I know, there are no cuts below the baseline in any of this. It's all decreases in the rate of growth. A spending freeze would probably count as a ten trillion dollar cut using these methods.

As it should be.  The baseline should not be the current level of spending, it should be expected future level of spending given the reasonable assumptions.