The plan appears to be to start spending the money in the pension fund for federal workers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/treasury-to-tap-pensions-to-help-fund-government/2011/05/15/AF2fqK4G_story.html
Quote
Treasury to tap pensions to help fund government
By Zachary A. Goldfarb, Published: May 15 | Updated: Monday, May 16, 10:56 AM
The Obama administration will begin to tap federal retiree programs to help fund operations after the government lost its ability Monday to borrow more money from the public, adding urgency to efforts in Washington to fashion a compromise over the debt.
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has warned for months that the government would soon hit the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling — a legal limit on how much it can borrow. With that limit reached Monday, Geithner is undertaking special measures in an effort to postpone the day when he will no longer have enough funds to pay all of the government's bills.
Geithner, who has already suspended a program that helps state and local government manage their finances, will begin to borrow from retirement funds for federal workers. The measure won't have an impact on retirees because the Treasury is legally required to reimburse the program.
The maneuver buys Geithner only a few months of time. If Congress does not vote by Aug. 2 to raise the debt limit, Geithner says the government is likely to default on some of its obligations, which he says would cause enormous economic harm and the suspension of government services, including the disbursal of Social Security funds.
Many congressional Republicans, however, have been skeptical that breaching the Aug. 2 deadline would be as catastrophic as Geithner suggests. What's more, Republican leaders are insisting that Congress cut spending by as much as the Obama administration wants to raise the debt limit, without any new taxes. Obama is proposing spending cuts and tax increases to rein in the debt.
"Everything should be on the table, except raising taxes," House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "Because raising taxes will hurt our economy and hurt our ability to create jobs in our country."
The Obama administration has warned that it is dangerous to make a vote on raising the debt limit contingent on other proposals. But Boehner is demanding that Congress use the debt vote as a way to bring down government spending.
"I'm ready to cut the deal today," Boehner said. "We don't have to wait until the 11th hour. But I am not going to walk away from this moment. We have a moment, a window of opportunity to act, because if we don't act, the markets are going to act for us."
Geithner's plan to tap federal retiree programs as a temporary means to avoid a government default comes as the Obama administration has shown growing interest in altering those programs to curb the debt in the long run.
Administration officials have expressed interest in raising the amount that federal employees contribute to their pensions, sources told The Washington Post.
The Republicans have suggested that the civilian workforce contribute more to its retirement in the future, effectively trimming 5 percent from salaries. The administration has not been willing to go that far in talks being led by Vice President Biden.
Treasury secretaries have tapped special programs to avoid default six times since 1985. The most protracted delay in raising the debt limit came in 1995 after congressional Republicans swept to power during the Clinton administration.
But today, the government needs far more money to cover its obligations than in the past, making the special measures less effective than they used to be. The government needs about $125 billion more a month than it takes in each month.
In a letter released last week to Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Geithner wrote that a default would risk a "double-dip" recession.
"Default would not only increase borrowing costs for the federal government, but also for families, businesses and local governments — reducing investment and job creation throughout the economy," Geithner wrote.
But several prominent congressional Republicans have dismissed the Obama administration's assertion that the country would face dire consequences if Congress does not vote to raise the federal limit on government borrowing by August. Many of the skeptics are affiliated with the tea party.
In the Senate, freshman Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) has said the Obama administration has been exaggerating the effects of hitting the default mark. He says breaching the limit would cause only a partial government shutdown.
Other freshman Republicans have said that Geithner could raise money to avoid defaulting by selling investments in private companies. The Republican Study Committee, which represents more than 150 lawmakers, sent a letter to Geithner last week pressing for more details about the Aug. 2 deadline.
Our credit is backed with nuclear weapons.
"Oh, if this is a victory for the Islamics, I hope they win many more such victories in the future!"
:lol:
I wonder how long you will be able to hold on to that straw, you filthy, filthy Amerikkkans. :moon:
QuoteThe Republicans have suggested that the civilian workforce contribute more to its retirement in the future, effectively trimming 5 percent from salaries.
Wouldn't that trigger a massive recession?
Step one:
Stop subsidizing the oil companies.
Quote from: Josephus on May 17, 2011, 01:42:47 PM
Step one:
Stop subsidizing the oil companies.
Then the price of gas goes up and everything slows down taking more money out of the coffers then it put back in.
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 17, 2011, 01:40:53 PM
QuoteThe Republicans have suggested that the civilian workforce contribute more to its retirement in the future, effectively trimming 5 percent from salaries.
Wouldn't that trigger a massive recession?
Not really. Republicans live by 1920ies laws of economics, so we're in the clear.
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 01:45:31 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 17, 2011, 01:42:47 PM
Step one:
Stop subsidizing the oil companies.
Then the price of gas goes up and everything slows down taking more money out of the coffers then it put back in.
Petrol is really cheap in the US, you can afford to have a slight rise.
Quote from: Tyr on May 17, 2011, 01:48:49 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 01:45:31 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 17, 2011, 01:42:47 PM
Step one:
Stop subsidizing the oil companies.
Then the price of gas goes up and everything slows down taking more money out of the coffers then it put back in.
Petrol is really cheap in the US, you can afford to have a slight rise.
We drive a lot more then you do. and not just due to the cultural aspect (which is part of it) but the whole layout of NA is built upon the use of cars unless you live downtown.
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 17, 2011, 01:48:49 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 01:45:31 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 17, 2011, 01:42:47 PM
Step one:
Stop subsidizing the oil companies.
Then the price of gas goes up and everything slows down taking more money out of the coffers then it put back in.
Petrol is really cheap in the US, you can afford to have a slight rise.
We drive a lot more then you do. and not just due to the cultural aspect (which is part of it) but the whole layout of NA is built upon the use of cars unless you live downtown.
How many miles a week do you drive?
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 17, 2011, 01:48:49 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 01:45:31 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 17, 2011, 01:42:47 PM
Step one:
Stop subsidizing the oil companies.
Then the price of gas goes up and everything slows down taking more money out of the coffers then it put back in.
Petrol is really cheap in the US, you can afford to have a slight rise.
We drive a lot more then you do. and not just due to the cultural aspect (which is part of it) but the whole layout of NA is built upon the use of cars unless you live downtown.
So how did you manage to colonise it before 1908 ?
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 01:52:34 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 17, 2011, 01:48:49 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 01:45:31 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 17, 2011, 01:42:47 PM
Step one:
Stop subsidizing the oil companies.
Then the price of gas goes up and everything slows down taking more money out of the coffers then it put back in.
Petrol is really cheap in the US, you can afford to have a slight rise.
We drive a lot more then you do. and not just due to the cultural aspect (which is part of it) but the whole layout of NA is built upon the use of cars unless you live downtown.
How many miles a week do you drive?
A metric fuckton.
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 01:52:34 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 17, 2011, 01:48:49 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 01:45:31 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 17, 2011, 01:42:47 PM
Step one:
Stop subsidizing the oil companies.
Then the price of gas goes up and everything slows down taking more money out of the coffers then it put back in.
Petrol is really cheap in the US, you can afford to have a slight rise.
We drive a lot more then you do. and not just due to the cultural aspect (which is part of it) but the whole layout of NA is built upon the use of cars unless you live downtown.
How many miles a week do you drive?
Me specifically, not a lot cause i do live downtown lol. And you don't count you're a sales man and can theoretically write off a good chuck of your milage :D
Meh. Oil isn't our fault anyway.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theoildrum.com%2Ffiles%2FOil%2520consumption%2520by%2520area_line.png&hash=a5143728bace576334df5b78240f6239f98486c4)
Blame China and India.
Quote from: mongers on May 17, 2011, 01:52:50 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 17, 2011, 01:48:49 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 01:45:31 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 17, 2011, 01:42:47 PM
Step one:
Stop subsidizing the oil companies.
Then the price of gas goes up and everything slows down taking more money out of the coffers then it put back in.
Petrol is really cheap in the US, you can afford to have a slight rise.
We drive a lot more then you do. and not just due to the cultural aspect (which is part of it) but the whole layout of NA is built upon the use of cars unless you live downtown.
So how did you manage to colonise it before 1908 ?
you realize a lot of infrastructure has been built up since then, yes? I'm not a car nut but the realities here are just different. Can you live without a car here? ya. Is it easy? no.
Quote from: mongers on May 17, 2011, 01:52:50 PM
So how did you manage to colonise it before 1908 ?
We were obsessed with horses back then but we seem to have forgotten how to ride them.
Anyway the cities were designed completely differently prior to WWII.
Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2011, 02:03:16 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 17, 2011, 01:52:50 PM
So how did you manage to colonise it before 1908 ?
We were obsessed with horses back then but we seem to have forgotten how to ride them.
Anyway the cities were designed completely differently prior to WWII.
I bet widespread use of horse transportation in modern times would do a lot more environmental damage than cars do now.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 17, 2011, 02:05:46 PM
I bet widespread use of horse transportation in modern times would do a lot more environmental damage than cars do now.
That is correct.
Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2011, 02:03:16 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 17, 2011, 01:52:50 PM
So how did you manage to colonise it before 1908 ?
We were obsessed with horses back then but we seem to have forgotten how to ride them.
Anyway the cities were designed completely differently prior to WWII.
I think you're both missing the huge roll the railroads had in building the USA.
Quote from: mongers on May 17, 2011, 02:18:46 PM
I think you're both missing the huge roll the railroads had in building the USA.
Cars did not replace railroads. Airplanes did.
Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2011, 02:25:08 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 17, 2011, 02:18:46 PM
I think you're both missing the huge roll the railroads had in building the USA.
Cars did not replace railroads. Airplanes did.
Which was my point, the choice wasn't between cars and going back to horses, there were other signifcant forms of transport and quite possibly the absolute importance of cars in the future may change.
Quote from: mongers on May 17, 2011, 02:27:55 PM
Which was my point, the choice wasn't between cars and going back to horses, there were other signifcant forms of transport and quite possibly the absolute importance of cars in the future may change.
Who was going to take a train from home to their work every day? The whole point of adopting the car was to be able to live someplace decent.
Quote from: mongers on May 17, 2011, 02:27:55 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2011, 02:25:08 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 17, 2011, 02:18:46 PM
I think you're both missing the huge roll the railroads had in building the USA.
Cars did not replace railroads. Airplanes did.
Which was my point, the choice wasn't between cars and going back to horses, there were other signifcant forms of transport and quite possibly the absolute importance of cars in the future may change.
There are different types of transportation. The point Valmy (and Neil) makes is a valid one. A train won't take you to your front door. Or the supermarket. Neither will an aircraft. A horse will.
A horse will take you to heaven and back.
How did the thread derail from government debt to mobility habits?
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 17, 2011, 02:43:56 PM
How did the thread derail from government debt to mobility habits?
And worse. So much worse. :lol:
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 17, 2011, 02:43:56 PM
How did the thread derail from government debt to mobility habits?
The usual. The Americans can't stand it when that particular nerve is prodded and so they change the subject. :hmm:
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 02:47:53 PM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 17, 2011, 02:43:56 PM
How did the thread derail from government debt to mobility habits?
The usual. The Americans can't stand it when that particular nerve is prodded and so they change the subject. :hmm:
Canadian :contract:
Quote from: Neil on May 17, 2011, 02:34:25 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 17, 2011, 02:27:55 PM
Which was my point, the choice wasn't between cars and going back to horses, there were other signifcant forms of transport and quite possibly the absolute importance of cars in the future may change.
Who was going to take a train from home to their work every day? The whole point of adopting the car was to be able to live someplace decent.
Loads of people take a train or a metro or bus to work.
In the future I do see patterns of habitation changing quite drastically to hug the railway routes a lot more.
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 02:52:22 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 02:47:53 PM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 17, 2011, 02:43:56 PM
How did the thread derail from government debt to mobility habits?
The usual. The Americans can't stand it when that particular nerve is prodded and so they change the subject. :hmm:
Canadian :contract:
Eggplant-Canadian.
Quote from: Tyr on May 17, 2011, 02:53:11 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 17, 2011, 02:34:25 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 17, 2011, 02:27:55 PM
Which was my point, the choice wasn't between cars and going back to horses, there were other signifcant forms of transport and quite possibly the absolute importance of cars in the future may change.
Who was going to take a train from home to their work every day? The whole point of adopting the car was to be able to live someplace decent.
Loads of people take a train or a metro or bus to work.
Poors.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 17, 2011, 02:53:24 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 02:52:22 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 02:47:53 PM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 17, 2011, 02:43:56 PM
How did the thread derail from government debt to mobility habits?
The usual. The Americans can't stand it when that particular nerve is prodded and so they change the subject. :hmm:
Canadian :contract:
Eggplant-Canadian.
Porkchop-Canadian!
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 02:53:55 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 17, 2011, 02:53:24 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 02:52:22 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 02:47:53 PM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 17, 2011, 02:43:56 PM
How did the thread derail from government debt to mobility habits?
The usual. The Americans can't stand it when that particular nerve is prodded and so they change the subject. :hmm:
Canadian :contract:
Eggplant-Canadian.
Porkchop-Canadian!
Slightly overcooked-Canadian. Better?
Quote from: Tyr on May 17, 2011, 02:53:11 PM
Loads of people take a train or a metro or bus to work.
Same here... but from average sized cities (by canadian standards) to large cities. and even those in the burbs who commute it in have to drive to the train station first.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 17, 2011, 02:54:32 PM
Slightly overcooked-Canadian. Better?
i'll take it!
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 02:55:21 PM
Same here... but from average sized cities (by canadian standards) to large cities. and even those in the burbs who commute it in the have to drive to the train station first.
Yep.
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 02:55:21 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 17, 2011, 02:53:11 PM
Loads of people take a train or a metro or bus to work.
Same here... but from average sized cities (by canadian standards) to large cities. and even those in the burbs who commute it in have to drive to the train station first.
Eventually, you might have to build denser suburbs that can have a better inner-suburb public transport system.
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 17, 2011, 03:04:57 PM
Eventually, you might have to build denser suburbs that can have a better inner-suburb public transport system.
Heh kinda late for that here.
Houston and its suburbs comprise 26,000 square kilometers.
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 17, 2011, 03:04:57 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 02:55:21 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 17, 2011, 02:53:11 PM
Loads of people take a train or a metro or bus to work.
Same here... but from average sized cities (by canadian standards) to large cities. and even those in the burbs who commute it in have to drive to the train station first.
Eventually, you might have to build denser suburbs that can have a better inner-suburb public transport system.
eventually. but we have a lot of land. it's harder to get people to cramp in. people like yards and the like (see BB's home searching tread)
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 17, 2011, 03:04:57 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 02:55:21 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 17, 2011, 02:53:11 PM
Loads of people take a train or a metro or bus to work.
Same here... but from average sized cities (by canadian standards) to large cities. and even those in the burbs who commute it in have to drive to the train station first.
Eventually, you might have to build denser suburbs that can have a better inner-suburb public transport system.
Don't be ridiculous. The entire American culture is built on over-consumption. You will never be able to sell that to them.
The only thing that will save them is fusion power and electric cars.
Or flying pigs. Whichever comes first.
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 03:07:55 PM
Don't be ridiculous. The entire American culture is built on over-consumption. You will never be able to sell that to them.
I know a real easy way to sell us that: have us go broke.
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 03:07:55 PM
Don't be ridiculous. The entire American culture is built on over-consumption. You will never be able to sell that to them.
partially. but the home thing is in large part due to land. we have space and lots of it. that leads to far spaced living and the need for cars. Canada has the same population as spain. And while most of it is frozen there is still a lot of unfrozen parts.
Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2011, 03:10:03 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 03:07:55 PM
Don't be ridiculous. The entire American culture is built on over-consumption. You will never be able to sell that to them.
I know a real easy way to sell us that: have us go broke.
been tried. didn't work :lol:
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 03:10:58 PM
been tried. didn't work :lol:
Nah our consumption is down. We might even cease to be disgustingly obese if this horrible trend continues.
Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2011, 03:11:54 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 03:10:58 PM
been tried. didn't work :lol:
Nah our consumption is down. We might even cease to be disgustingly obese if this horrible trend continues.
cheap food is bad food. you'll be poorer AND fatter.
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 03:13:26 PM
cheap food is bad food. you'll be poorer AND fatter.
Ah good point. The land of the fat and the home of the poor.
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 03:07:55 PM
You will never be able to sell that to them.
We have stopped listening. You euros nag more than a woman does.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 17, 2011, 03:14:20 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 03:07:55 PM
You will never be able to sell that to them.
We have stopped listening. You euros nag more than a woman does.
If you mother FUCKERS deigned to listen just a little bit a part of the time, we wouldn't be in this fucking mess.
You REFUSED to re-arm the Germans and invade Russia.
You REFUSED to nuke Red China.
You ARMED the muslims.
Jesus FUCKING Christ, you dumb fucking SHITS.
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 17, 2011, 03:14:20 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 03:07:55 PM
You will never be able to sell that to them.
We have stopped listening. You euros nag more than a woman does.
If you mother FUCKERS deigned to listen just a little bit a part of the time, we wouldn't be in this fucking mess.
You REFUSED to re-arm the Germans and invade Russia.
You REFUSED to nuke Red China.
You ARMED the muslims.
Jesus FUCKING Christ, you dumb fucking SHITS.
Best overreaction,,,EVAR.
:lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 17, 2011, 03:21:14 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 17, 2011, 03:14:20 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 03:07:55 PM
You will never be able to sell that to them.
We have stopped listening. You euros nag more than a woman does.
If you mother FUCKERS deigned to listen just a little bit a part of the time, we wouldn't be in this fucking mess.
You REFUSED to re-arm the Germans and invade Russia.
You REFUSED to nuke Red China.
You ARMED the muslims.
Jesus FUCKING Christ, you dumb fucking SHITS.
Best overreaction,,,EVAR.
:lol:
Sweden only sells strategic resources to allies. You will enrich and arm anyone who can fork over a barrel of oil in return [and bitch when they turn the weapons against you], you filthy fucking WHORES. :mad:
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 03:35:50 PM
Sweden only sells strategic resources to allies. You will enrich and arm anyone who can fork over a barrel of oil in return [and bitch when they turn the weapons against you], you filthy fucking WHORES. :mad:
Insert joke about ball bearings here.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 17, 2011, 03:44:41 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 03:35:50 PM
Sweden only sells strategic resources to allies. You will enrich and arm anyone who can fork over a barrel of oil in return [and bitch when they turn the weapons against you], you filthy fucking WHORES. :mad:
Insert joke about ball bearings here.
I thought I made my position clear. :P
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 03:35:50 PM
Sweden only sells strategic resources to allies. You will enrich and arm anyone who can fork over a barrel of oil in return [and bitch when they turn the weapons against you], you filthy fucking WHORES. :mad:
Hey we are American the Beautiful. When you look this good it is hard not to make some money off it.
Quote from: Tyr on May 17, 2011, 02:53:11 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 17, 2011, 02:34:25 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 17, 2011, 02:27:55 PM
Which was my point, the choice wasn't between cars and going back to horses, there were other signifcant forms of transport and quite possibly the absolute importance of cars in the future may change.
Who was going to take a train from home to their work every day? The whole point of adopting the car was to be able to live someplace decent.
Loads of people take a train or a metro or bus to work.
In the future I do see patterns of habitation changing quite drastically to hug the railway routes a lot more.
If you have access to a metro, then you're in a major downtown area, and so you're best positioned to survive without a car. You are also either extremely well-off or living in abject poverty. People taking the bus are generally unemployed or unemployable, and so have no business being at large.
The problem with living along railway routes is that it allows the criminals to come to you. The whole point of the suburbs is to keep the questionable elements out.
Quote from: Neil on May 17, 2011, 04:17:06 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 17, 2011, 02:53:11 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 17, 2011, 02:34:25 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 17, 2011, 02:27:55 PM
Which was my point, the choice wasn't between cars and going back to horses, there were other signifcant forms of transport and quite possibly the absolute importance of cars in the future may change.
Who was going to take a train from home to their work every day? The whole point of adopting the car was to be able to live someplace decent.
Loads of people take a train or a metro or bus to work.
In the future I do see patterns of habitation changing quite drastically to hug the railway routes a lot more.
If you have access to a metro, then you're in a major downtown area, and so you're best positioned to survive without a car. You are also either extremely well-off or living in abject poverty. People taking the bus are generally unemployed or unemployable, and so have no business being at large.
The problem with living along railway routes is that it allows the criminals to come to you. The whole point of the suburbs is to keep the questionable elements out.
I would contend that a much better way to keep the peace is to nurture a society where you don't have to worry about being bothered by questionable elements (aside from suffering their proximity) whether you live in on a mountain top or in the middle of working class tenements.
Of course, you lot threw that option out the window when you decided on the melting-pot fallacy.
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 04:43:18 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 17, 2011, 04:17:06 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 17, 2011, 02:53:11 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 17, 2011, 02:34:25 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 17, 2011, 02:27:55 PM
Which was my point, the choice wasn't between cars and going back to horses, there were other signifcant forms of transport and quite possibly the absolute importance of cars in the future may change.
Who was going to take a train from home to their work every day? The whole point of adopting the car was to be able to live someplace decent.
Loads of people take a train or a metro or bus to work.
In the future I do see patterns of habitation changing quite drastically to hug the railway routes a lot more.
If you have access to a metro, then you're in a major downtown area, and so you're best positioned to survive without a car. You are also either extremely well-off or living in abject poverty. People taking the bus are generally unemployed or unemployable, and so have no business being at large.
The problem with living along railway routes is that it allows the criminals to come to you. The whole point of the suburbs is to keep the questionable elements out.
I would contend that a much better way to keep the peace is to nurture a society where you don't have to worry about being bothered by questionable elements (aside from suffering their proximity) whether you live in on a mountain top or in the middle of working class tenements.
Of course, you lot threw that option out the window when you decided on the melting-pot fallacy.
I'm a Canadian. No melting pot here (although that seems to have worked well in the US when applied to whites). Instead, we have a 'mosaic', which has the effect of turning areas of major cities into ghettos where decent citizens who aren't of the appropriate ethnic group had better watch their step.
Besides, the working class
is the questionable element.
I think it's largely human nature to put some space between yourself and your fellow beings if you have the resources to do it. A minority might choose to live jammed on top of other people, but most do it because they have to.
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 03:20:13 PM
You REFUSED to re-arm the Germans and invade Russia.
You REFUSED to nuke Red China.
You ARMED the muslims.
We beat the Russians in the Cold War, turned the Chinese into capitalists, and now the Arabs are taking out their dictators on their own and Osama is fish food.
USA 3, Whiny Swede Nazis 0
Quote from: Neil on May 17, 2011, 04:17:06 PM
If you have access to a metro, then you're in a major downtown area, and so you're best positioned to survive without a car. You are also either extremely well-off or living in abject poverty. People taking the bus are generally unemployed or unemployable, and so have no business being at large.
The problem with living along railway routes is that it allows the criminals to come to you. The whole point of the suburbs is to keep the questionable elements out.
Most metros I've known have went to pretty normal working and middle class areas.
And of course busses aren't for the unemployed. I've known loads of people who take the bus to work.
Trains and criminals coming to you- their get away route is a bit crapp though.
North American culture is really pretty alien in some ways...
You don't approve of cycling over there either right? Like muslims?
Quote from: Tyr on May 17, 2011, 05:49:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 17, 2011, 04:17:06 PM
If you have access to a metro, then you're in a major downtown area, and so you're best positioned to survive without a car. You are also either extremely well-off or living in abject poverty. People taking the bus are generally unemployed or unemployable, and so have no business being at large.
The problem with living along railway routes is that it allows the criminals to come to you. The whole point of the suburbs is to keep the questionable elements out.
Most metros I've known have went to pretty normal working and middle class areas.
And of course busses aren't for the unemployed. I've known loads of people who take the bus to work.
Trains and criminals coming to you- their get away route is a bit crapp though.
North American culture is really pretty alien in some ways...
You don't approve of cycling over there either right? Like muslims?
See, we're talking about North America here. Public transit really isn't an option.
As for cycling, it is only done by inconsiderate assholes, usually rather poor, although you also see a few working types who had their licenses suspended due to DUIs. And in this city, you can only get 4-5 months of it before the cold and snow makes it impossible.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 17, 2011, 05:38:11 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 03:20:13 PM
You REFUSED to re-arm the Germans and invade Russia.
You REFUSED to nuke Red China.
You ARMED the muslims.
We beat the Russians in the Cold War, turned the Chinese into capitalists, and now the Arabs are taking out their dictators on their own and Osama is fish food.
USA 3, Whiny Swede Nazis 0
:lol:
You'll see.
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 17, 2011, 01:40:53 PM
QuoteThe Republicans have suggested that the civilian workforce contribute more to its retirement in the future, effectively trimming 5 percent from salaries.
Wouldn't that trigger a massive recession?
Just federal employees.
:nelson: ?
There's a limit. who knew.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 17, 2011, 08:30:35 PM
:nelson: ?
There's a limit. who knew.
Everybody except that bike courier in 28 Days Later.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 17, 2011, 07:48:14 PM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 17, 2011, 01:40:53 PM
QuoteThe Republicans have suggested that the civilian workforce contribute more to its retirement in the future, effectively trimming 5 percent from salaries.
Wouldn't that trigger a massive recession?
Just federal employees.
Poor Seigy.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 17, 2011, 09:28:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 17, 2011, 07:48:14 PM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 17, 2011, 01:40:53 PM
QuoteThe Republicans have suggested that the civilian workforce contribute more to its retirement in the future, effectively trimming 5 percent from salaries.
Wouldn't that trigger a massive recession?
Just federal employees.
Poor Seigy.
Just civilian employees.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 17, 2011, 02:02:09 PM
Meh. Oil isn't our fault anyway.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theoildrum.com%2Ffiles%2FOil%2520consumption%2520by%2520area_line.png&hash=a5143728bace576334df5b78240f6239f98486c4)
Blame China and India.
That's one bullshit chart. The "remainder" has four times the population of the US, EU, Australia, and Japan. China and India alone have twice the population.
The blame rests on Westerners because that's where it rightly lies.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 17, 2011, 10:08:26 PM
The blame rests on Westerners because that's where it rightly lies.
Blame for using oil?
But we have to use it up before it is economical to use alternatives. A conundrum :hmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 17, 2011, 10:08:26 PM
That's one bullshit chart. The "remainder" has four times the population of the US, EU, Australia, and Japan. China and India alone have twice the population.
The blame rests on Westerners because that's where it rightly lies.
What makes you think that they're entitled to an equal share?
Quote from: Neil on May 17, 2011, 10:10:37 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 17, 2011, 10:08:26 PM
That's one bullshit chart. The "remainder" has four times the population of the US, EU, Australia, and Japan. China and India alone have twice the population.
The blame rests on Westerners because that's where it rightly lies.
What makes you think that they're entitled to an equal share?
India is, because they are a westernizing democracy; PRChina isn't, because they are an evil slave state.
Indeed, neither needs to use a great deal more. The West needs to reduce its consumption levels. I like warm weather and all but I'd prefer the thermohaline conveyer to still work by the time me and Steven Seagal are made immortal.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 17, 2011, 10:13:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 17, 2011, 10:10:37 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 17, 2011, 10:08:26 PM
That's one bullshit chart. The "remainder" has four times the population of the US, EU, Australia, and Japan. China and India alone have twice the population.
The blame rests on Westerners because that's where it rightly lies.
What makes you think that they're entitled to an equal share?
India does, China doesn't.
India does entitled to an equal share? :hmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 17, 2011, 10:13:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 17, 2011, 10:10:37 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 17, 2011, 10:08:26 PM
That's one bullshit chart. The "remainder" has four times the population of the US, EU, Australia, and Japan. China and India alone have twice the population.
The blame rests on Westerners because that's where it rightly lies.
What makes you think that they're entitled to an equal share?
India is, because they are a westernizing democracy; PRChina isn't, because they are an evil slave state.
Indeed, neither needs to use a great deal more. The West needs to reduce its consumption levels. I like warm weather and all but I'd prefer the thermohaline conveyer to still work by the time me and Steven Seagal are made immortal.
Neither one of them are part of 'us'.
Quote from: Habbaku on May 17, 2011, 10:18:27 PM
India does entitled to an equal share? :hmm:
India can into space! :P
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 02:55:21 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 17, 2011, 02:53:11 PM
Loads of people take a train or a metro or bus to work.
Same here... but from average sized cities (by canadian standards) to large cities. and even those in the burbs who commute it in have to drive to the train station first.
:blush:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 17, 2011, 07:48:14 PM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 17, 2011, 01:40:53 PM
QuoteThe Republicans have suggested that the civilian workforce contribute more to its retirement in the future, effectively trimming 5 percent from salaries.
Wouldn't that trigger a massive recession?
Just federal employees.
Yeah, but God forbid that government employees have their benefits cut. Why next thing you know, someone will suggest that they actually do something useful to earn their pay.
Quote from: dps on May 18, 2011, 03:11:33 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 17, 2011, 07:48:14 PM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 17, 2011, 01:40:53 PM
QuoteThe Republicans have suggested that the civilian workforce contribute more to its retirement in the future, effectively trimming 5 percent from salaries.
Wouldn't that trigger a massive recession?
Just federal employees.
Yeah, but God forbid that government employees have their benefits cut. Why next thing you know, someone will suggest that they actually do something useful to earn their pay.
Many states are looking at their employee benefits, streamlining, asking them to contribute or raising contributions, to try and help state budgets. Would be no surprise if the Feds did similar. Though I think the Feds run things more efficiently regarding Federal employees, benefits, etc.
Quote from: Neil on May 17, 2011, 05:58:19 PM
See, we're talking about North America here. Public transit really isn't an option.
Depends where you live. In Boston, it is for a lot of people (and indeed I took the train into the city myself).
In the South, public transit =
black poor people.
Speaking of public transport, the Dayton RTA wanted to put a bus stop at a mall in the next county. The city council said NO. The subtext? Keep your darkies at home.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 18, 2011, 08:09:11 AM
Speaking of public transport, the Dayton RTA wanted to put a bus stop at a mall in the next county. The city council said NO. The subtext? Keep your darkies at home.
:thumbsup:
When I was a kid there was a pretty cool mall near my house we used to like to go to. Then SEPTA decided to put in a bus line from Northeast Philadelphia that stopped there. Suddenly there was all manner of pickpocketing, muggings, and fights occurring there. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on May 18, 2011, 08:12:30 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 18, 2011, 08:09:11 AM
Speaking of public transport, the Dayton RTA wanted to put a bus stop at a mall in the next county. The city council said NO. The subtext? Keep your darkies at home.
:thumbsup:
When I was a kid there was a pretty cool mall near my house we used to like to go to. Then SEPTA decided to put in a bus line from Northeast Philadelphia that stopped there. Suddenly there was all manner of pickpocketing, muggings, and fights occurring there. :hmm:
Speaking of more racism, when I did my time as a security guard, buses from Wilberforce University were referred to as the arrival of the forty thieves.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 17, 2011, 10:08:26 PM
That's one bullshit chart. The "remainder" has four times the population of the US, EU, Australia, and Japan. China and India alone have twice the population.
The blame rests on Westerners because that's where it rightly lies.
That's kinda the point. Oil prices are being driven by the modernization of the Chinese and Indian economies. The US and Europe are not increasing their usage significantly compared to the "remainder". If there is a factor to "blame", it's that.
The GOP walked out of the budget talks with Biden, and now this:
Quote
Leader Cantor: House to Consider Balanced Budget Amendment
WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) today issued the following statement regarding House consideration of a balanced budget amendment, H.J. Res. 1, sponsored by Congressman Bob Goodlatte:
"We are being asked by the Obama Administration to approve a debt limit increase. While President Obama inherited a bad economy, his overspending and failure to enact pro-growth policies have made it worse and now our national debt is currently more than $14 trillion. House Republicans have made clear that we will not agree to raise the debt limit without real spending cuts and binding budget process reforms to ensure that we don't continue to max out the credit card. One option to ensure that we begin to get our fiscal house in order is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and I expect to schedule such a measure for the House to consider during the week of July 25th. I have no doubt that my Republican colleagues will overwhelmingly support this common sense measure and I urge Democrats to as well in order to get our fiscal house in order."
Is the ghost of Newt Gingrich past inhabiting the House? These guys are going all-in.
That's not all in, that's sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Going all in would be letting the deadline pass and daring the administration to stop writing Social Security checks.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 23, 2011, 07:06:31 PM
The GOP walked out of the budget talks with Biden, and now this:
Quote[snip]
Is the ghost of Newt Gingrich past inhabiting the House? These guys are going all-in.
Empty threat. Not gonna happen; states have so much more politicking involved in balancing their own budgets that, red or blue, they'd mostly refuse to set a precedent that could cripple their own operation down the line.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2011, 07:09:07 PM
That's not all in, that's sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Going all in would be letting the deadline pass and daring the administration to stop writing Social Security checks.
"We are going to force a default now, because we have get spending under control to keep us from defaulting later." This is so stupid, Obama should quit negoitating and tell them to fuck off.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2011, 07:22:00 PM
"We are going to force a default now, because we have get spending under control to keep us from defaulting later." This is so stupid, Obama should quit negoitating and tell them to fuck off.
That's not a very objective appraisal of the negotiating dynamic. If two guys are playing chicken and they end up crashing you can't claim only one of them forced the crash.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2011, 07:28:18 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2011, 07:22:00 PM
"We are going to force a default now, because we have get spending under control to keep us from defaulting later." This is so stupid, Obama should quit negoitating and tell them to fuck off.
That's not a very objective appraisal of the negotiating dynamic. If two guys are playing chicken and they end up crashing you can't claim only one of them forced the crash.
Here is an idea: don't play chicken! If the other guy gets an attitude about that and runs you down while you are crossing the street, you are still screwed, but he is a lunatic. You weren't going to beat that guy in chicken anyway.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2011, 07:28:18 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2011, 07:22:00 PM
"We are going to force a default now, because we have get spending under control to keep us from defaulting later." This is so stupid, Obama should quit negoitating and tell them to fuck off.
That's not a very objective appraisal of the negotiating dynamic. If two guys are playing chicken and they end up crashing you can't claim only one of them forced the crash.
Worked for Clinton. He was able to sell the public on the idea that the shutdown was the fault of Gingrich and the Congressional Republicans.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2011, 07:31:40 PM
Here is an idea: don't play chicken! If the other guy gets an attitude about that and runs you down while you are crossing the street, you are still screwed, but he is a lunatic. You weren't going to beat that guy in chicken anyway.
Not playing chicken would be to pass the GOP budget.
Quote from: dps on June 23, 2011, 07:33:10 PM
Worked for Clinton. He was able to sell the public on the idea that the shutdown was the fault of Gingrich and the Congressional Republicans.
Gingrich and Clinton scratched the paint on the National Parks for two days. They're playing for higher stakes now.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 17, 2011, 05:38:11 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 03:20:13 PM
You REFUSED to re-arm the Germans and invade Russia.
You REFUSED to nuke Red China.
You ARMED the muslims.
We beat the Russians in the Cold War, turned the Chinese into capitalists, and now the Arabs are taking out their dictators on their own and Osama is fish food.
USA 3, Whiny Swede Nazis 0
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi195.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz133%2Fsbr32%2Fsmilies%2Fsmilie_flag_USA.gif&hash=276fba38219618596de74216ad9cc1604dfd2923)
Quote from: dps on June 23, 2011, 07:33:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2011, 07:28:18 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2011, 07:22:00 PM
"We are going to force a default now, because we have get spending under control to keep us from defaulting later." This is so stupid, Obama should quit negoitating and tell them to fuck off.
That's not a very objective appraisal of the negotiating dynamic. If two guys are playing chicken and they end up crashing you can't claim only one of them forced the crash.
Worked for Clinton. He was able to sell the public on the idea that the shutdown was the fault of Gingrich and the Congressional Republicans.
It helped that several Republicans publicly voiced their approval of said shutdown.
Personally I can't wait to see the US crumble under the weight of its own internal contradictions.
You guys may think you're 'too big to fail' but there inevitably comes a point where people cut their losses. In this case that would be the money lenders that have been shoring up the US Treasury's balance for such a long time.
Besides, History teaches us that no power is so great as to escape decadence.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on June 23, 2011, 07:46:14 PM
You guys may think you're 'too big to fail' but there inevitably comes a point where people cut their losses. In this case that would be the money lenders that have been shoring up the US Treasury's balance for such a long time.
Actually that would be our own central bank.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2011, 07:33:46 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2011, 07:31:40 PM
Here is an idea: don't play chicken! If the other guy gets an attitude about that and runs you down while you are crossing the street, you are still screwed, but he is a lunatic. You weren't going to beat that guy in chicken anyway.
Not playing chicken would be to pass the GOP budget.
I'm speaking about the part of the negotiation involving the debt limit. Everyone agrees the debt limit needs to go up, and a default would be a disaster. A reasonable negotiation would be: you want $3 trillion in spending cuts, I want $1 trillion and some tax increases, lets either meet in the middle or one of us completely cave.
A negotiation of: we want you to do xyz, and if you don't we won't pass the debt limit increase which will nuke the world economy--that isn't reasonable imo. That is taking the economy hostage. Obama should refuse to negotiate the debt limit imo, and tell the Republicans to pass it, or don't pass it, it is up to them.
Quote from: Grallon on June 23, 2011, 07:46:14 PM
Personally I can't wait to see the US crumble under the weight of its own internal contradictions.
G.
Why won't you be able to wait? Are you dying or something? I strongly suspect you'll have to wait quite a while.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2011, 07:50:13 PM
I'm speaking about the part of the negotiation involving the debt limit. Everyone agrees the debt limit needs to go up, and a default would be a disaster. A reasonable negotiation would be: you want $3 trillion in spending cuts, I want $1 trillion and some tax increases, lets either meet in the middle or one of us completely cave.
A negotiation of: we want you to do xyz, and if you don't we won't pass the debt limit increase which will nuke the world economy--that isn't reasonable imo. That is taking the economy hostage. Obama should refuse to negotiate the debt limit imo, and tell the Republicans to pass it, or don't pass it, it is up to them.
The GOP knows Obama. Despite their rhetoric about it him, they know he's a responsible human being. They know if they are unreasonable enough he'll eventually have to give in.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2011, 07:50:13 PM
I'm speaking about the part of the negotiation involving the debt limit. Everyone agrees the debt limit needs to go up, and a default would be a disaster. A reasonable negotiation would be: you want $3 trillion in spending cuts, I want $1 trillion and some tax increases, lets either meet in the middle or one of us completely cave.
A negotiation of: we want you to do xyz, and if you don't we won't pass the debt limit increase which will nuke the world economy--that isn't reasonable imo. That is taking the economy hostage. Obama should refuse to negotiate the debt limit imo, and tell the Republicans to pass it, or don't pass it, it is up to them.
Then you're back to playing chicken, with a different speech before the flag drops.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2011, 07:57:15 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2011, 07:50:13 PM
I'm speaking about the part of the negotiation involving the debt limit. Everyone agrees the debt limit needs to go up, and a default would be a disaster. A reasonable negotiation would be: you want $3 trillion in spending cuts, I want $1 trillion and some tax increases, lets either meet in the middle or one of us completely cave.
A negotiation of: we want you to do xyz, and if you don't we won't pass the debt limit increase which will nuke the world economy--that isn't reasonable imo. That is taking the economy hostage. Obama should refuse to negotiate the debt limit imo, and tell the Republicans to pass it, or don't pass it, it is up to them.
Then you're back to playing chicken, with a different speech before the flag drops.
I don't follow what you are saying...If we are playing chicken with a government shutdown due to a difference in budgeting priorities; I have no problem with that. A government shutdown isn't the same as a default.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 17, 2011, 09:38:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 17, 2011, 09:28:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 17, 2011, 07:48:14 PM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 17, 2011, 01:40:53 PM
QuoteThe Republicans have suggested that the civilian workforce contribute more to its retirement in the future, effectively trimming 5 percent from salaries.
Wouldn't that trigger a massive recession?
Just federal employees.
Poor Seigy.
Just civilian employees.
There has been talk of going after the (really, quite generous) military retirement system.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2011, 08:04:55 PM
I don't follow what you are saying...If we are playing chicken with a government shutdown due to a difference in budgeting priorities; I have no problem with that. A government shutdown isn't the same as a default.
What I'm saying is that your previous post just puts a different gloss on the status quo ante. Obama says if we don't increase the debt limit it will be Armaggedon. GOP says if you want to raise the debt limit you have to pass our budget in the Senate. Reid and Obama say no. The only thing that has changed is that the no has taken on a different cast. Nothing substantive has changed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2011, 08:10:26 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2011, 08:04:55 PM
I don't follow what you are saying...If we are playing chicken with a government shutdown due to a difference in budgeting priorities; I have no problem with that. A government shutdown isn't the same as a default.
What I'm saying is that your previous post just puts a different gloss on the status quo ante. Obama says if we don't increase the debt limit it will be Armaggedon. GOP says if you want to raise the debt limit you have to pass our budget in the Senate. Reid and Obama say no. The only thing that has changed is that the no has taken on a different cast. Nothing substantive has changed.
Well no...it isn't status quo ante. First, the debt limit has been negotiated. Obviously not raising the limit is a default, and obviously that is Armaggedon. That is a terrible precedent, and I'm not sure where it ends. That rubican has been crossed.
Second, just the threat of a default--even if it is just missing a couple payments which are made up at a later date--is going to affect interest rates. I'd say even at this point, but certainly the longer this goes on, people are going to begin looking at government debt as potentially unstable during parts of the calendar. It isn't the kind of thing that helps keep a currency as the world's reserve currency (admittedly our major rival is doing its best to exit the competition atm).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2011, 07:36:00 PM
Quote from: dps on June 23, 2011, 07:33:10 PM
Worked for Clinton. He was able to sell the public on the idea that the shutdown was the fault of Gingrich and the Congressional Republicans.
Gingrich and Clinton scratched the paint on the National Parks for two days. They're playing for higher stakes now.
Well, the stakes may be higher, but the fact is, the public blamed Congress, and Gingrich caved. IMO that doesn't have anything to do with Clinton or Gingrich; in all but the most unusual circumstances, I think the public is more likely to blame Congress.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2011, 08:30:56 PMObviously not raising the limit is a default, and obviously that is Armaggedon.
Neither of those are obvious to me. As long as they keep paying the interest payments with current revenues, there's no default.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 23, 2011, 08:45:43 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2011, 08:30:56 PMObviously not raising the limit is a default, and obviously that is Armaggedon.
Neither of those are obvious to me. As long as they keep paying the interest payments with current revenues, there's no default.
How do they pay the people who are using the revenue that would normally go for pay as interest payments? :hmm:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 23, 2011, 08:45:43 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2011, 08:30:56 PMObviously not raising the limit is a default, and obviously that is Armaggedon.
Neither of those are obvious to me. As long as they keep paying the interest payments with current revenues, there's no default.
You think we may have a balanced budget in a few months?
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2011, 08:52:14 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 23, 2011, 08:45:43 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2011, 08:30:56 PMObviously not raising the limit is a default, and obviously that is Armaggedon.
Neither of those are obvious to me. As long as they keep paying the interest payments with current revenues, there's no default.
How do they pay the people who are using the revenue that would normally go for pay as interest payments? :hmm:
I guess instead of paying people their social security, or medicare, or fund our military, we will make our interest payments.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 23, 2011, 08:45:43 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2011, 08:30:56 PMObviously not raising the limit is a default, and obviously that is Armaggedon.
Neither of those are obvious to me. As long as they keep paying the interest payments with current revenues, there's no default.
That's like saying that as long as you keep making your credit card payments from your rent money, you're not in default. You are, just to a different party.
Stopping paying for non-obligations isn't default, even if it hurts. Not paying the rent is not a good comparison. It's more like putting off repairing the roof and eating only ramen. It hurts, but it's not an obligation. You guys don't seriously think the government revenues are so small that during a shutdown they couldn't keep paying SSA, MC, military salaries and debt service. The deficit is huge, but they're still collecting something like 20% of GDP in receipts. I could be wrong, of course.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 23, 2011, 09:30:19 PM
Stopping paying for non-obligations isn't default, even if it hurts. Not paying the rent is not a good comparison. It's more like putting off repairing the roof and eating only ramen. It hurts, but it's not an obligation. You guys don't seriously think the government revenues are so small that during a shutdown they couldn't keep paying SSA, MC, military salaries and debt service. The deficit is huge, but they're still collecting something like 20% of GDP in receipts. I could be wrong, of course.
When that last shutdown was being threatened, we weren't going to be paid. And even that last-minute deal that averted it did not prevent the admin/paperwork with our pay, that was anticipating a shutdown) from making a noticeable hiccup.
Hmm. Likely the same thing would happen again. Did the administrative hiccup happen with SSA? I think it didn't, but I dunno. I remember preparing to float my brother some cash while he was at sea on a rescue operation for Japan. Still. You don't think Republicans would hold military pay hostage. That's gotta be some kind of sacrilege for them.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 23, 2011, 09:30:19 PM
Stopping paying for non-obligations isn't default, even if it hurts. Not paying the rent is not a good comparison. It's more like putting off repairing the roof and eating only ramen. It hurts, but it's not an obligation. You guys don't seriously think the government revenues are so small that during a shutdown they couldn't keep paying SSA, MC, military salaries and debt service. The deficit is huge, but they're still collecting something like 20% of GDP in receipts. I could be wrong, of course.
Our budget may be worse than you think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget
The highlights:
Estimated Revenue: $2.17 trillion
Estimated Expenditures: $3.82 trillion
Deficit: $1.65 trillion
Wow...
Well no I didn't think it was that bad.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 23, 2011, 10:08:02 PM
Wow...
Well no I didn't think it was that bad.
Me too. I was shocked after reading those numbers. I keep hearing about big deficits in the US, but this is the first time I read some concrete numbers.
But to be fair, the deficits are way up from where they were before the financial crisis, and are projected to go back down in the coming years.
The US is simply Greece writ large, and the Americans are a failed race.
Quote from: Neil on June 23, 2011, 10:46:29 PM
The US is simply Greece writ large, and the Americans are a failed race.
Difference of course is that Greeks are much smarter.
They're spending their money on pensions and recreation, while the Americans are getting nothing but guns and ammo for their money, which they waste on tasks which do not actually destroy their enemies very effectively.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2011, 08:30:56 PM
Well no...it isn't status quo ante. First, the debt limit has been negotiated. Obviously not raising the limit is a default, and obviously that is Armaggedon. That is a terrible precedent, and I'm not sure where it ends. That rubican has been crossed.
Second, just the threat of a default--even if it is just missing a couple payments which are made up at a later date--is going to affect interest rates. I'd say even at this point, but certainly the longer this goes on, people are going to begin looking at government debt as potentially unstable during parts of the calendar. It isn't the kind of thing that helps keep a currency as the world's reserve currency (admittedly our major rival is doing its best to exit the competition atm).
You utterly and totally lost me Fredo. I thought we were talking about whether Obama could end the game of chicken by telling the GOP to do whatever they wanted with the debt limit.
How did the US come to be so badly mismanaged?
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 24, 2011, 07:28:06 AM
How did the US come to be so badly mismanaged?
It became a democracy. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2011, 07:10:00 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2011, 08:30:56 PM
Well no...it isn't status quo ante. First, the debt limit has been negotiated. Obviously not raising the limit is a default, and obviously that is Armaggedon. That is a terrible precedent, and I'm not sure where it ends. That rubican has been crossed.
Second, just the threat of a default--even if it is just missing a couple payments which are made up at a later date--is going to affect interest rates. I'd say even at this point, but certainly the longer this goes on, people are going to begin looking at government debt as potentially unstable during parts of the calendar. It isn't the kind of thing that helps keep a currency as the world's reserve currency (admittedly our major rival is doing its best to exit the competition atm).
You utterly and totally lost me Fredo. I thought we were talking about whether Obama could end the game of chicken by telling the GOP to do whatever they wanted with the debt limit.
I'm been more focused on why trying to play chicken with the debt limit is not legitimate, is dangerous, and should be ignored by Obama.
Yi, if you think what the Repbublicans are doing is legit, are there any limits? What would you say if Cantor added, "Either nominate Scalia clones to the bench, or we won't increase the debt limit," or "lets get a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, or we won't increase the debt limit."
Quote from: Caliga on June 24, 2011, 07:39:39 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 24, 2011, 07:28:06 AM
How did the US come to be so badly mismanaged?
It became a democracy. :(
That was definitely a mistake. Democracy coupled with a welfare state leads inevitably to disaster.
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2011, 08:00:14 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 24, 2011, 07:39:39 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 24, 2011, 07:28:06 AM
How did the US come to be so badly mismanaged?
It became a democracy. :(
That was definitely a mistake. Democracy coupled with a welfare state leads inevitably to disaster.
Now cue that de Tocqueville quote in 3,2,1...
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2011, 09:55:37 PM
Our budget may be worse than you think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget
The highlights:
Estimated Revenue: $2.17 trillion
Estimated Expenditures: $3.82 trillion
Deficit: $1.65 trillion
Holy crap! And still top ratings. :lmfao:
Quote from: Grallon on June 23, 2011, 07:46:14 PM
Personally I can't wait to see the US crumble under the weight of its own internal contradictions.
Which are?
QuoteBesides, History teaches us that no power is so great as to escape decadence.
Surely you are not suggesting decadence is bad thing?
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2011, 08:52:14 PM
How do they pay the people who are using the revenue that would normally go for pay as interest payments? :hmm:
What would probably happen is the issue of some kind of scrip or IOUs like California did.
Of course, practically what that would mean is a significant expansion of the money supply through Treasury issuance of what is effectively fiat currency. Which is the kind of thing I would think most of the characters who are also debt limit deadenders would hate.
Seems like cutting off the nose to spite one's face but clear logical thinking has often been scarce on the ground in DC
I'm just curious, Yi; why are you so eager to bend the rules of logic to cast the GOP in a more positive light over this one? After all, the GOP's "playing chicken," too. In fact, they're the ones tacking on demands. As a matter of principle, I can understand why Obama and Reid would be reluctant to rubber-stamp a bill arising from that kind of childish behavior.
DEVIL'S ADVOCATE DISCLAIMER: Just pointing out that we're each putting our own spin on it. I'm kinda fed up with both sides over this. While I understand the "principle" argument, I think that's a piss-poor reason for taking a huge gamble on something of this magnitude. Insert "needs of the many" or other applicable cliches here.
The whole notion of a congressionally mandated debt ceiling is screwed up to begin with. If Congress authorizes the expenditure of money, and refuses to impose taxes sufficient to pay for those expenditure, then it should provide the Executive Branch with the appropriate authority to issue whatever debt necessary to make up the difference. It is ludicrous that the Congress can raise X in taxes, then turnaround and spend X+Y, while at the same time refusing the Executive Branch the authority to issue debt equal to more than a fraction in Y.
I don't really care how childish they are as long as they can close that gap. If it takes playing chicken by both sides, then so be it. The problem with raising the debt limit is that even though it's necessary it isn't a solution to the problem--it's more of the problem. So, I guess I can't really fault the GOP for wanting to make some kind of progress in exchange for it. Obama should be focusing on making sure the spending cuts are not just in things the GOP doesn't like.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 24, 2011, 11:55:44 AM
I don't really care how childish they are as long as they can close that gap. If it takes playing chicken by both sides, then so be it. The problem with raising the debt limit is that even though it's necessary it isn't a solution to the problem--it's more of the problem. So, I guess I can't really fault the GOP for wanting to make some kind of progress in exchange for it. Obama should be focusing on making sure the spending cuts are not just in things the GOP doesn't like.
The problem that I see is that the Republicans have basically issued a set of demands that amount to no increased revenue, no matter how much sense it makes. Democrats are defending a lot of bad ideas as well, but are not as dogmatic about it. Negotiations about solving a problem are not going t be very fruitful if one side isn't interested in negotiating.
And I say this despite the fact that I agree with about 75% of the Republican position and about 25% of the Democrats'. The difference is that I think we need to raise revenue. Our troops can eat their belts, but our tanks gotta have gas.
Doubt Siegy can. Probably not Kosher.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 24, 2011, 11:55:44 AM
So, I guess I can't really fault the GOP for wanting to make some kind of progress in exchange for it.
I can.
It's like threatening to cut the throttle on an aircraft in midflight unless airline management agrees on a new proposal to reduce fuel expenses.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 24, 2011, 12:30:20 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 24, 2011, 11:55:44 AM
So, I guess I can't really fault the GOP for wanting to make some kind of progress in exchange for it.
I can.
It's like threatening to cut the throttle on an aircraft in midflight unless airline management agrees on a new proposal to reduce fuel expenses.
Even worse, you have a meeting on a new fuel expense agreement just around the corner. If the Republicans in the House want cuts in the budget, just don't pass the spending in the next budget. Legislatively, Republicans hold the better cards--they can block anything they don't like, and both the spending and tax changes they don't want require legislation to pass.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2011, 07:48:53 AM
I'm been more focused on why trying to play chicken with the debt limit is not legitimate, is dangerous, and should be ignored by Obama.
Yi, if you think what the Repbublicans are doing is legit, are there any limits? What would you say if Cantor added, "Either nominate Scalia clones to the bench, or we won't increase the debt limit," or "lets get a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, or we won't increase the debt limit."
First of all, I like Scalia so that's probably not the best example.
Second of all, I'm a little ambivalent about threatening to nuke the credit rating to win legislative passage. If someone doesn't blink then bad things are going to happen. On the other hand, why have a legislated debt limit unless increasing is NOT automatic? And of all the legislation in the world that could potentially be barrell-rolled with the debt limit, debt-reduction budget talks seem the most legitimate. And you can't exactly say that Democrats have dived head first into talks about deficit reduction, and this maneuver has certainly focused their attention.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 24, 2011, 10:43:28 AM
I'm just curious, Yi; why are you so eager to bend the rules of logic to cast the GOP in a more positive light over this one? After all, the GOP's "playing chicken," too. In fact, they're the ones tacking on demands. As a matter of principle, I can understand why Obama and Reid would be reluctant to rubber-stamp a bill arising from that kind of childish behavior.
:huh:
In a more positive light than what? I never claimed the GOP wasn't playing chicken too.
Mostly I think the legislated limit has to be there to ensure constitutional legislative powers aren't moved to the executive.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2011, 12:43:21 PM
Even worse, you have a meeting on a new fuel expense agreement just around the corner. If the Republicans in the House want cuts in the budget, just don't pass the spending in the next budget. Legislatively, Republicans hold the better cards--they can block anything they don't like, and both the spending and tax changes they don't want require legislation to pass.
Except they've already gone down the government shut down path about 4 times this year, and came away with about 30 million dollars for their efforts.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2011, 05:18:01 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2011, 12:43:21 PM
Even worse, you have a meeting on a new fuel expense agreement just around the corner. If the Republicans in the House want cuts in the budget, just don't pass the spending in the next budget. Legislatively, Republicans hold the better cards--they can block anything they don't like, and both the spending and tax changes they don't want require legislation to pass.
Except they've already gone down the government shut down path about 4 times this year, and came away with about 30 million dollars for their efforts.
That's not much of a return on the investment of the political capital involved, considering the size of the budget.
It occurs to me that Boehner and Ryan may not have a choice in playing chicken. It may be that they simply can't muster the votes to pass a compromise that has tax increases in it of any kind.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 27, 2011, 07:08:39 PM
It occurs to me that Boehner and Ryan may not have a choice in playing chicken. It may be that they simply can't muster the votes to pass a compromise that has tax increases in it of any kind.
Luckily, they wouldn't have to. All they have to do is create a compromise that enough Republicans
and Democrats can vote for, and the law gets passed. Individual congressmen and senators don't have vetoes, even if they were in the majority.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2011, 05:18:01 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2011, 12:43:21 PM
Even worse, you have a meeting on a new fuel expense agreement just around the corner. If the Republicans in the House want cuts in the budget, just don't pass the spending in the next budget. Legislatively, Republicans hold the better cards--they can block anything they don't like, and both the spending and tax changes they don't want require legislation to pass.
Except they've already gone down the government shut down path about 4 times this year, and came away with about 30 million dollars for their efforts.
This makes no sense to me. They can pass a budget that excludes all the spending they don't like, at the risk of a government shutdown (a short term problem that has happened in the past and has few long term consequences). Or you can threaten to force a default, which would be far more disruptive and create long term financing issues, if the president doesn't agree to cut spending that has already passed.
If they don't have the balls to force a government shutdown, but they are making credible threats regarding the debt ceiling, then I can only assume they are crazy.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2011, 09:17:18 AM
This makes no sense to me. They can pass a budget that excludes all the spending they don't like, at the risk of a government shutdown (a short term problem that has happened in the past and has few long term consequences). Or you can threaten to force a default, which would be far more disruptive and create long term financing issues, if the president doesn't agree to cut spending that has already passed.
If they don't have the balls to force a government shutdown, but they are making credible threats regarding the debt ceiling, then I can only assume they are crazy.
That's because you're equating the threat of a default with actual default.
Gingritch learned the lesson that if you threaten a shutdown and you get called on your bluff, the public will blame you for it and you won't get what you want. Threatening a default is different precisely because you don't expect to get called on it. Clinton was able to call Gingritch's hand because the results were irritating but manageable. Boehner and co. are calculating that Obama won't call their hand because the results would be devestating.
Interesting enough Obama in his news conference today appeared to be softening his prediction of the magnitude of the effects. He also said the results would be unpredictable, which I think is true. This is a reasonable negotiating ploy. The administration's earlier dire warnings played right into the GOP's hands. If a default truly is Apocalyptic, then surely it's more reasonable to cave into the GOP's outrageous, radical demands rather than experience much worse with a default. If it's maybe more in the range of pretty bad, then that changes the cost/benefit on caving in.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2011, 06:13:01 PM
That's because you're equating the threat of a default with actual default.
Gingritch learned the lesson that if you threaten a shutdown and you get called on your bluff, the public will blame you for it and you won't get what you want. Threatening a default is different precisely because you don't expect to get called on it. Clinton was able to call Gingritch's hand because the results were irritating but manageable. Boehner and co. are calculating that Obama won't call their hand because the results would be devestating.
Interesting enough Obama in his news conference today appeared to be softening his prediction of the magnitude of the effects. He also said the results would be unpredictable, which I think is true. This is a reasonable negotiating ploy. The administration's earlier dire warnings played right into the GOP's hands. If a default truly is Apocalyptic, then surely it's more reasonable to cave into the GOP's outrageous, radical demands rather than experience much worse with a default. If it's maybe more in the range of pretty bad, then that changes the cost/benefit on caving in.
I think you are equating economic consequences with political consequences. The same act can have horrific economic consequences, but great political benefits (banking deregulation, for example), and politicians can endure a lot of other peoples' pain if the political benefits for themselves are sufficiently enticing. The question in Washington that counts is "what are the political consequences of a default?" That's the question that will determine whether bluffs will be called or not, and it doesn't seem top me that it is thus automatically politically "reasonable" to bow to the Republicans' "outrageous, radical demands" merely to avoid an apocalyptic default.
You are incorrect.
Question for Yi: Do you see both sides as morally equivalent in this situation? GOP members threatening to tank the economy unless they get their way and the President's refusal to give in to those demands. Are these things equal in your mind, or is one worse then the other?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2011, 08:00:13 PM
Question for Yi: Do you see both sides as morally equivalent in this situation? GOP members threatening to tank the economy unless they get their way and the President's refusal to give in to those demands. Are these things equal in your mind, or is one worse then the other?
I see it about 60/40, with the GOP on the bad side. Maybe 65/35. If the GOP puts taxes back on the table that swings dramatically.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2011, 06:13:01 PM
That's because you're equating the threat of a default with actual default.
Gingritch learned the lesson that if you threaten a shutdown and you get called on your bluff, the public will blame you for it and you won't get what you want. Threatening a default is different precisely because you don't expect to get called on it. Clinton was able to call Gingritch's hand because the results were irritating but manageable. Boehner and co. are calculating that Obama won't call their hand because the results would be devestating.
Yi, I have been arguing that Obama should just tell them to fuck off and not negotiate with them. If they are bluffing, they will look like fools, if they aren't bluffing, they are mad and there isn't much sense in negotiating with crazed terrorists anyway.
Don't you see the danger in this? The threat of a shutdown comes up frequently because a budget needs to be passed every year. Debt ceiling increases also need to be negotiated frequently. If holding the president hostage to do x,y, and z through the threat of default becomes accepted, it isn't going to be long before negotiations break down and payments are missed.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2011, 08:10:17 PM
Yi, I have been arguing that Obama should just tell them to fuck off and not negotiate with them. If they are bluffing, they will look like fools, if they aren't bluffing, they are mad and there isn't much sense in negotiating with crazed terrorists anyway.
I understand that. The problem with that approach is it treats the debt limit issue as one of assigning political blame, rather than a legislative/economic one. Or conversely if the Republicans blink, it's political genius.
QuoteDon't you see the danger in this? The threat of a shutdown comes up frequently because a budget needs to be passed every year. Debt ceiling increases also need to be negotiated frequently. If holding the president hostage to do x,y, and z through the threat of default becomes accepted, it isn't going to be long before negotiations break down and payments are missed.
Yes I see the danger in that. Absolutely.
Do you see the danger of punting 10% of GDP deficits and unfunded entitlements down the road year after year after year?
Seems similar to the danger of radioactive waste compared to the danger of someone threatening to set off a nuclear bomb.
Does anyone see the danger of not raising taxes?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2011, 08:15:20 PM
Do you see the danger of punting 10% of GDP deficits and unfunded entitlements down the road year after year after year?
Absolutely. But the way to address that is through the normal budget process. Where as we've discussed the Republicans can completely have their way if they are willing to stick to their guns as any spending requires their sign off.
The problem isn't just whether there is a default--if this is seen as a sign of future long term uncertainty in debt payments, that is going to have a huge negative impact on our budget. With a debt of around $10 trillion (depending on how you want to measure it) fast going to $20 trillion and above, you are talking about an extra $100 - $200 billion a year in interest cost with a 1% interest rate rise. That is financing the Iraq War during the surge type of money, for nothing.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2011, 08:21:23 PM
Seems similar to the danger of radioactive waste compared to the danger of someone threatening to set off a nuclear bomb.
That sounds about right. Radioactive waste that grows stronger all the time.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2011, 08:24:52 PM
Where as we've discussed the Republicans can completely have their way if they are willing to stick to their guns as any spending requires their sign off.
Puh-lease. If the GOP were to try the same with a shutdown that went a month, three months, six months, we'd be having the exact same conversation we are now.
Well, except the part of the conversation where you say the Republicans can completely have their way.
Quote from: Neil on June 29, 2011, 08:22:25 PM
Does anyone see the danger of not raising taxes?
I see the danger of not seriously dealing with the deficit and the national debt. I'm open to tax increases, but not that alone.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2011, 08:28:40 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2011, 08:24:52 PM
Where as we've discussed the Republicans can completely have their way if they are willing to stick to their guns as any spending requires their sign off.
Puh-lease. If the GOP were to try the same with a shutdown that went a month, three months, six months, we'd be having the exact same conversation we are now.
Well, except the part of the conversation where you say the Republicans can completely have their way.
It would depend on how the negotiations were going, but I'd probably conclude that they were assholes. But not the insane lunatics they appear to be now.
The thing is they probably don't have some master scheme behind all of this, relative to whether or not a government shutdown threat or a debt ceiling threat would be more effective during negotiation. We are probably giving them too much credit. What I really think this is about is the no-nothing portion of their base doesn't understand the debt ceiling and is against increasing it, and the House leadership is under a lot of pressure to appear hardcore on spending issues. So they take this stupid stance, and hope Obama tosses them a few bones to bail them out of the nonsense.
If I wanted to to be a bit more cynical, I'd say they picked this battle rather than the normal shutdown route because they could actually balance the budget if they wanted in a shutdown (and hung together), but they know the public at large has no appetite for that. This way they can hope Obama negotiates a deal that is palatable to the general public, but they still can seem hardcore to the tea party idiots.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2011, 08:26:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2011, 08:21:23 PM
Seems similar to the danger of radioactive waste compared to the danger of someone threatening to set off a nuclear bomb.
That sounds about right. Radioactive waste that grows stronger all the time.
Indeed. The correct response to the cancellation of the Yucca Mountain is to threaten to set off a nuclear weapon in New York.
I wonder, would the GOP be so keen on balancing the budget if they had the presidency and control of both houses of Congress.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2011, 08:53:35 PM
I wonder, would the GOP be so keen on balancing the budget if they had the presidency and control of both houses of Congress.
Experience tells me: No.
Quote from: Neil on June 29, 2011, 09:00:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2011, 08:53:35 PM
I wonder, would the GOP be so keen on balancing the budget if they had the presidency and control of both houses of Congress.
Experience tells me: No.
Experience tells us that there would be promises of budget-balancing right after the conclusion of a splendid little war in the president's first term that would have the troops home by Christmas.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2011, 08:00:13 PM
Question for Yi: Do you see both sides as morally equivalent in this situation? GOP members threatening to tank the economy unless they get their way and the President's refusal to give in to those demands. Are these things equal in your mind, or is one worse then the other?
I sincerely hope you aren't looking for morality in politics. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2011, 08:53:35 PM
I wonder, would the GOP be so keen on balancing the budget if they had the presidency and control of both houses of Congress.
Assuming you're right, so what? Now we can ignore the deficit?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2011, 06:26:13 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2011, 08:53:35 PM
I wonder, would the GOP be so keen on balancing the budget if they had the presidency and control of both houses of Congress.
Assuming you're right, so what? Now we can ignore the deficit?
We shouldn't take the GOP's advice, they'll use the issue to get reelected and then run up the deficit as soon as they get elected.
-"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," - Dick Cheney
Quote from: Neil on June 29, 2011, 08:22:25 PM
Does anyone see the danger of not raising taxes?
I would agree that a tax increase at some point in time is going to have to be a part of a serious long-term solution. But short term, the focus has to be on making large cuts in spending-- I think the GOP should keep tax increases off the table until the Democrats show they are serious about spending cuts.
My only big disappointment with the GOP at this point is that few are recognizing or admitting that even defense spending is going to have to take a hit.
Quote from: derspiess on June 30, 2011, 11:27:52 AM
... I think the GOP should keep tax increases off the table until the Democrats show they are serious about spending cuts.
I don't think that the old "if you surrender, we will do as you ask" routine has worked since Tamerlane. I don't think the Republicans can craft a long-term plan that even they can believe in without some revenue increases, and pretending that they can see the emperor's new clothes until "the Democrats show they are serious" is the worst kind of dishonest: blatantly obvious dishonesty.
The Republican pretnse that the problem can be solved without revenue increases just allows the Democrats to evade their responsibility to come up with a counter-proposal. Until everything is on the table, nothing honest can be done.
Quote from: derspiess on June 30, 2011, 11:27:52 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 29, 2011, 08:22:25 PM
Does anyone see the danger of not raising taxes?
I would agree that a tax increase at some point in time is going to have to be a part of a serious long-term solution. But short term, the focus has to be on making large cuts in spending-- I think the GOP should keep tax increases off the table until the Democrats show they are serious about spending cuts.
My only big disappointment with the GOP at this point is that few are recognizing or admitting that even defense spending is going to have to take a hit.
Why are tax increases in the short term not a good idea? Why not raise taxes while cutting spending, right now?
Cult of the tax cut. There are still people who believe that cutting taxes actually increases revenue.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2011, 11:44:14 AM
Cult of the tax cut. There are still people who believe that cutting taxes actually increases revenue.
Yeah, voodoo economics still dominates the thinking of a large section of the Republican Party, but derspiess obviously doesn't fall into that category, as he has conceded that tax increases are inevitable and vital.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2011, 08:47:03 AM
-"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," - Dick Cheney
Seems to be the same thing some of these guys are saying too, like AR. I think that's a very dangerous stance, personally. I'm uncomfortable with deficits of any kind, even "sustainable" ones.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 30, 2011, 12:05:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2011, 08:47:03 AM
-"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," - Dick Cheney
Seems to be the same thing some of these guys are saying too, like AR.
Am I AR? I don't think I'm saying that. :huh:
Quote from: Neil on June 30, 2011, 11:40:40 AM
Why are tax increases in the short term not a good idea? Why not raise taxes while cutting spending, right now?
Spending is a much bigger problem than revenue (yeah grumbler, I know-- theoretically if revenue potential were unlimited it would be an equal part of the problem/solution). I don't see much evidence from the Dems that they recognize that. Until they're willing to agree to cut more, I'd rather not hear any talk of tax increases. I suspect that if the Dems had their way, they'd hike taxes and *increase* spending.
Plus, any tax increases would likely be levied against the more productive sectors of our economy. If we want any chance of a substantial economic recovery in the near future, I don't see this as being a wise choice.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2011, 12:27:37 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 30, 2011, 12:05:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2011, 08:47:03 AM
-"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," - Dick Cheney
Seems to be the same thing some of these guys are saying too, like AR.
Am I AR? I don't think I'm saying that. :huh:
Didn't you say a 2 or 3 percent deficit was sustainable?
I guess that's technically true, but it feels wrong to me. The kind of thing that you could get away with but it's still not a good idea.
Edit: It was in the Bachmann thread, not this one.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 30, 2011, 12:50:32 PM
Didn't you say a 2 or 3 percent deficit was sustainable?
I guess that's technically true, but it feels wrong to me. The kind of thing that you could get away with but it's still not a good idea.
Edit: It was in the Bachmann thread, not this one.
It is also academic--the deficits we have right now aren't 2-3% and are not sustainable.
But what I was getting at is your debt as a percent of GDP is most important. Say we want to sustain debt at 100% of GDP, and we are at 100% currently (to keep numbers simple). If we have no economic growth, and inflation of 3%, we can run a deficit of 3% and hold our real debt level constant. Add growth and we can sustain an even larger deficit.
Quote from: derspiess on June 30, 2011, 12:50:10 PM
Spending is a much bigger problem than revenue (yeah grumbler, I know-- theoretically if revenue potential were unlimited it would be an equal part of the problem/solution). I don't see much evidence from the Dems that they recognize that. Until they're willing to agree to cut more, I'd rather not hear any talk of tax increases. I suspect that if the Dems had their way, they'd hike taxes and *increase* spending.
The problem with "I want my side to be stupid until I am convinced that their side has stopped being stupid" is that both sides have decided to double down on stupid until the other side unstupids, which, naturally, won't happen because each insists, like you do, that the other side unstupid first. It is this kind of stupidity that got the US into this mess. It won't get the US out of it.
Geithner's gonna leave after this is settled.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/geithner-said-to-weigh-leaving-treasury-after-debt-ceiling-debate-resolved.html
Obama is officially a dick.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58098.html
We're going to need tax hikes along with heavy budget cuts. The tax cuts to the wealthy seems a good place to start. I'd say they shouldn't have passed that in the first place, just a more limited portion of the Bush tax cuts should have gone through. Seems both sides are doubling down, catering to certain segments of their voting block, locked in a bash-athon, to score political points. So we have an impasse. This issue is going to require some tough medicine - tax hikes, and serious budget cuts. The parties need to come to some tough agreements together so that neither party gets bashed over the tough measures that are needed. Get serious, work together, they need to get the Fed budget to a better place so that important issues, like national infrastructure, can be taken on more easily later on.
Quote from: KRonn on July 01, 2011, 09:52:12 AM
We're going to need tax hikes along with heavy budget cuts. The tax cuts to the wealthy seems a good place to start. I'd say they shouldn't have passed that in the first place, just a more limited portion of the Bush tax cuts should have gone through. Seems both sides are doubling down, catering to certain segments of their voting block, locked in a bash-athon, to score political points.
Quotebit more information has trickled out over the last few days detailing the exact state of the budget negotiations when they collapsed. Both sides, as they often said, were shooting for about $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. They'd already agreed on around $1 trillion in spending cuts and were making good progress on the rest of it. But Democrats insisted that $400 billion -- so, 17 percent -- of the package be tax increases. And that's when Republicans walked.
Specifically, the Obama administration was looking at a rule that lets businesses value their inventory at less than they bought it for in order to lower their tax burden, a loophole that lets hedge-fund managers count their income as capital gains and pay a 15 percent marginal tax rate, the tax treatment of private jets, oil and gas subsidies, and a limit on itemized deductions for the wealthy.
It's almost not worth going into the details on those particular tax changes because the Republican position has held that the details don't matter: well-designed tax increases won't be looked at any more favorably than poorly designed tax increases. The point, Republicans say, is that there can't be any tax increases, full stop.
For now, Democrats are holding their ground. "Do we perpetuate a system that allows for subsidies in revenues for oil and gas, for example, or owners of corporate private jets, and then call for cuts in things like food safety or weather services?" Press Secretary Jay Carney asked. But at some point, this will cease to be a clean choice between two budget plans and begin to be a question over whether we can raise the debt ceiling. And that, Republicans are betting, is when the Democrats will stop holding their ground.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57890.html
So in other words, the Democrats proposed that 1/5 of the deficit reduction come from tax increases is a sign that they are committed to scoring points?
Quote
$2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years
Not impressed.
So in other words, the Democrats proposed that 1/5 of the deficit reduction come from tax increases is a sign that they are committed to scoring points?
Both parties have made a habit of trying to score points, at least as much as solve the issues. It would be laughable for you or anyone to say that the parties aren't trying more to milk as much political favor out things as they could by bashing the other side at any opportunity. You should be tired of that same old game by now, just as I am. Just look at talk of reforming Medicare or Social Security, or Defense spending. The party or politician who makes a proposal gets hammered, political ads showing how they're bad on Defense or hate the troops, or want to toss old ladies off of cliffs. If you read my post, I suggest the parties do more working together, since the decisions that need to be made are so tough, so neither party can be played the cretin by the other, preferably with leadership by the President. I wasn't pointing to any particular plans by either side some of which might be good ideas, or not.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 01, 2011, 12:13:01 PM
So in other words, the Democrats proposed that 1/5 of the deficit reduction come from tax increases is a sign that they are committed to scoring points?
1/6, actually ($400B out of $2400B). Just reinforces your point, of course.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 01, 2011, 12:15:21 PM
Quote
$2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years
Not impressed.
Me neither.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 01, 2011, 12:13:01 PM
Quote from: KRonn on July 01, 2011, 09:52:12 AM
We're going to need tax hikes along with heavy budget cuts. The tax cuts to the wealthy seems a good place to start. I'd say they shouldn't have passed that in the first place, just a more limited portion of the Bush tax cuts should have gone through. Seems both sides are doubling down, catering to certain segments of their voting block, locked in a bash-athon, to score political points.
Quotebit more information has trickled out over the last few days detailing the exact state of the budget negotiations when they collapsed. Both sides, as they often said, were shooting for about $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. They'd already agreed on around $1 trillion in spending cuts and were making good progress on the rest of it. But Democrats insisted that $400 billion -- so, 17 percent -- of the package be tax increases. And that's when Republicans walked.
Specifically, the Obama administration was looking at a rule that lets businesses value their inventory at less than they bought it for in order to lower their tax burden, a loophole that lets hedge-fund managers count their income as capital gains and pay a 15 percent marginal tax rate, the tax treatment of private jets, oil and gas subsidies, and a limit on itemized deductions for the wealthy.
It's almost not worth going into the details on those particular tax changes because the Republican position has held that the details don't matter: well-designed tax increases won't be looked at any more favorably than poorly designed tax increases. The point, Republicans say, is that there can't be any tax increases, full stop.
For now, Democrats are holding their ground. "Do we perpetuate a system that allows for subsidies in revenues for oil and gas, for example, or owners of corporate private jets, and then call for cuts in things like food safety or weather services?" Press Secretary Jay Carney asked. But at some point, this will cease to be a clean choice between two budget plans and begin to be a question over whether we can raise the debt ceiling. And that, Republicans are betting, is when the Democrats will stop holding their ground.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57890.html
So in other words, the Democrats proposed that 1/5 of the deficit reduction come from tax increases is a sign that they are committed to scoring points?
I think it is. It is a trivial amount to raise a stink over regarding the debt limit. I imagine they came with this proposal to at least appear to be fighting, and to embarrass the republicans. At least if they were pushing for a $2 trillion tax increase you could say they were fighting fire with fire.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 01, 2011, 04:52:55 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 01, 2011, 12:15:21 PM
Quote
$2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years
Not impressed.
Me neither.
How does the Ryan plan compare over the next 10 years?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 01, 2011, 07:26:55 PM
How does the Ryan plan compare over the next 10 years?
4 and change IIRC.
Quote from: grumbler on July 01, 2011, 01:15:53 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on July 01, 2011, 12:13:01 PM
So in other words, the Democrats proposed that 1/5 of the deficit reduction come from tax increases is a sign that they are committed to scoring points?
1/6, actually ($400B out of $2400B). Just reinforces your point, of course.
What's funny is that the GOP rejected a ratio of cuts and increases that they themselves proposed:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/republicans-reject-their-own-deficit-reduction-report/2011/05/19/AGTcR2rH_blog.html
Chuck Shumer's right, you know.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 01, 2011, 08:13:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 01, 2011, 07:26:55 PM
How does the Ryan plan compare over the next 10 years?
4 and change IIRC.
Increase or decrease? From what I saw it increases debt over the next 10 years by about 4 trillion. It manages to balance the budget some time in 2050's or something like that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 02, 2011, 11:04:45 AM
Chuck Shumer's right, you know.
No he's not. About anything.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 02, 2011, 11:15:27 AM
Increase or decrease? From what I saw it increases debt over the next 10 years by about 4 trillion. It manages to balance the budget some time in 2050's or something like that.
I would be interested to know what the components of that increase are.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2011, 05:34:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 02, 2011, 11:15:27 AM
Increase or decrease? From what I saw it increases debt over the next 10 years by about 4 trillion. It manages to balance the budget some time in 2050's or something like that.
I would be interested to know what the components of that increase are.
Probably the tax cuts.
Quote from: Habbaku on July 02, 2011, 12:08:03 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 02, 2011, 11:04:45 AM
Chuck Shumer's right, you know.
No he's not. About anything.
Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh, yes he is.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 02, 2011, 08:29:08 PM
Probably the tax cuts.
His plan includes specified cuts to marginal rates and elimination of deductions sufficient to offset those cuts. It's a little hard to see how that adds up to 4 billion in lost revenue.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2011, 08:37:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 02, 2011, 08:29:08 PM
Probably the tax cuts.
His plan includes specified cuts to marginal rates and elimination of deductions sufficient to offset those cuts. It's a little hard to see how that adds up to 4 billion in lost revenue.
Maybe they are bigger then you were led to believe.
http://factcheck.org/2011/05/ryans-budget-spin/
According to fact check the debt will increase by around six trillion under Ryan's plan. Still, I don't know why limits on how much a bad doctors can be sued is in his plan.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 02, 2011, 10:38:41 PM
Maybe they are bigger then you were led to believe.
http://factcheck.org/2011/05/ryans-budget-spin/
According to fact check the debt will increase by around six trillion under Ryan's plan. Still, I don't know why limits on how much a bad doctors can be sued is in his plan.
Ah, got it. Fact Check is pointing out that Ryan's plan does not immediately reduce the deficit to zero, so they're spinning that as his plan increases the deficit. Which is pretty spintastic.
I thought Fact Check had a pretty good reputation. That's pretty weak stuff.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2011, 10:54:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 02, 2011, 10:38:41 PM
Maybe they are bigger then you were led to believe.
http://factcheck.org/2011/05/ryans-budget-spin/
According to fact check the debt will increase by around six trillion under Ryan's plan. Still, I don't know why limits on how much a bad doctors can be sued is in his plan.
Ah, got it. Fact Check is pointing out that Ryan's plan does not immediately reduce the deficit to zero, so they're spinning that as his plan increases the deficit. Which is pretty spintastic.
I thought Fact Check had a pretty good reputation. That's pretty weak stuff.
Not sure what kool-aid you've been drinking. Fact Check talks about the debt increasing (which is true) and the deficit decreasing slightly (which is true). Your spintastic substitution of "deficit" for "debt" is pretty spintastic, but not very honest, particularly when you use the substitution to then attack FactCheck.org's reputation.
Quote from: grumbler on July 02, 2011, 11:03:46 PM
Not sure what kool-aid you've been drinking. Fact Check talks about the debt increasing (which is true) and the deficit decreasing slightly (which is true). Your spintastic substitution of "deficit" for "debt" is pretty spintastic, but not very honest, particularly when you use the substitution to then attack FactCheck.org's reputation.
Damn good point.
I admit, I don't fully know the difference between debt and deficiet. My understanding was that debt was how much you owe total and deficit is how much in the red you are on a yearly budget.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 02, 2011, 11:31:50 PM
I admit, I don't fully know the difference between debt and deficiet. My understanding was that debt was how much you owe total and deficit is how much in the red you are on a yearly budget.
That's correct.
Oh good. That was the definition I went with on Pdox, when the issue came up.
Don't you love it when that happens?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 03, 2011, 12:22:41 AM
Don't you love it when that happens?
It's weird, and kind of frightens me. Fortunately it doesn't happen very often. :)
A reporter on NPR insinuated that the smaller 2.4 billion number is associated with a stop-gap deal on the debt limit. I.e., the limit gets nudged up now and needs to be revisited soonish.
On a very related note saw a political ad on TV from the American Hospital Association or somesuch asking viewers to prevent Congress from passing $100 billion in cuts to hospitals under Medicare and Medicaid.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html
Quote
In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts
By Lori Montgomery, Published: July 6
President Obama is pressing congressional leaders to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue.
At a meeting with top House and Senate leaders set for Thursday morning, Obama plans to argue that a rare consensus has emerged about the size and scope of the nation's budget problems and that policymakers should seize the moment to take dramatic action.
As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal. The move marks a major shift for the White House and could present a direct challenge to Democratic lawmakers who have vowed to protect health and retirement benefits from the assault on government spending.
"Obviously, there will be some Democrats who don't believe we need to do entitlement reform. But there seems to be some hunger to do something of some significance," said a Democratic official familiar with the administration's thinking. "These moments come along at most once a decade. And it would be a real mistake if we let it pass us by."
Rather than roughly $2 trillion in savings, the White House is now seeking a plan that would slash more than $4 trillion from annual budget deficits over the next decade, stabilize borrowing, and defuse the biggest budgetary time bombs that are set to explode as the cost of health care rises and the nation's population ages.
That would represent a major legislative achievement, but it would also put Obama and GOP leaders at odds with major factions of their own parties. While Democrats would be asked to cut social-safety-net programs, Republicans would be asked to raise taxes, perhaps by letting tax breaks for the nation's wealthiest households expire on schedule at the end of next year.
The administration argues that lawmakers would also get an important victory to sell to voters in 2012. "The fiscal good has to outweigh the pain," said a Democratic official familiar with the discussions.
It is not clear whether that argument can prevail on Capitol Hill. Thursday's meeting at the White House — an attempt by Obama to break the impasse that halted debt-reduction talks two weeks ago — will provide a critical opportunity for leaders in both parties to say how far they're willing to go to restrain government borrowing as the clock ticks toward an Aug. 2 deadline for raising the debt limit.
Privately, some congressional Democrats were alarmed by the president's proposal, which could include adjusting the measure of inflation used to determine Social Security payouts. But others described it as primarily a bargaining strategy intended to demonstrate Obama's willingness to compromise and highlight the Republican refusal to raise taxes.
Obama has already spoken to House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) about the possibility of building support for a more ambitious debt-reduction plan, according to people with knowledge of those talks, who, like others quoted in this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity to shed light on private negotiations. The two discussed various options for overhauling the tax code and cutting entitlement spending, but they reached no agreement.
Chicken-playing beginning to break down.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 07, 2011, 01:57:18 PM
Chicken-playing beginning to break down.
More
Quote from: NYT
WASHINGTON — Heading into a crucial negotiating session on a budget deal on Thursday, President Obama has raised his sights and wants to strike a far-reaching agreement on cutting the federal deficit as Speaker John A. Boehner has signaled new willingness to bargain on revenues.
Mr. Obama, who is to meet at the White House with the bipartisan leadership of Congress in an effort to work out an agreement to raise the federal debt limit, wants to move well beyond the $2 trillion in savings sought in earlier negotiations and seek perhaps twice as much over the next decade, Democratic officials briefed on the negotiations said Wednesday.
The president's renewed efforts follow what knowledgeable officials said was an overture from Mr. Boehner, who met secretly with Mr. Obama last weekend, to consider as much as $1 trillion in unspecified new revenues as part of an overhaul of tax laws in exchange for an agreement that made substantial spending cuts, including in such social programs as Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security — programs that had been off the table.
The intensifying negotiations between the president and the speaker have Congressional Democrats growing anxious, worried they will be asked to accept a deal that is too heavily tilted toward Republican efforts and produces too little new revenue relative to the magnitude of the cuts.
Congressional Democrats said they were caught off guard by the weekend White House visit of Mr. Boehner — a meeting the administration still refused to acknowledge on Wednesday — and Senate Democrats raised concerns at a private party luncheon on Wednesday.
House Democrats have their own fears about the negotiations, which they expressed in an hourlong meeting Wednesday night with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.
"Depending on what they decide to recommend, they may not have Democrats," Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, said in an interview. "I think it is a risky thing for the White House to basically take the bet that we can be presented with something at the last minute and we will go for it."
Officials said Mr. Boehner suggested that he was open to the possibility of $1 trillion or more in new revenue that would be generated by addressing tax issues already raised in the talks, like killing breaks for the oil and gas industry, eliminating ethanol subsidies and ending preferential treatment for corporate jets.
But those changes would fall far short of the revenue goal, and the source of the rest of the money would, under what they described as Mr. Boehner's proposal, be decided by Congress through a review of tax law changes. One official said some revenue could be generated by allowing Bush-era tax cuts for affluent Americans to expire at the end of 2012, which would produce hundreds of billions of dollars, though those savings would be offset by the costs of retaining lower rates for those below the income threshold.
Aides to Mr. Boehner said that no tax increases were on the table and that he had not agreed to the expiration of any tax cuts.
One source familiar with the talks said the speaker had put forward options on how to proceed, including making a commitment to a tax code overhaul that would lower rates while closing loopholes, ending deductions and instituting other changes to generate substantial new revenue. Mr. Boehner has in the past pushed tax simplification as a way to help the economy.
Democrats were distrustful of Mr. Boehner's idea, saying such an approach raises the prospect that future tax and revenue changes could be blocked by Republicans after Democrats had already agreed to the detailed cuts. They sought assurances that all the elements of any budget deal would be enacted simultaneously.
"We want as robust a deficit reduction deal as possible," said David Krone, chief of staff to Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, who would serve as point man for moving any agreement through the Senate. "But it has to be balanced between spending and revenues, in terms of timing, specificity and dollars."
Democrats are not just worried about the substantial policy issues at stake; they are also concerned about the political implications of any deal as they try to hold control of the Senate next year and win back the House.
To the degree that any deal wins bipartisan support on slowing the growth of Medicare, for example, it would deprive Democrats of what has been one of their most potent arguments heading into 2012: their assertion that Republicans would gut the traditional Medicare system and leave older Americans vulnerable to rapidly rising health care costs.
Faced with the prospect that the federal government would default on its credit obligations, Democrats might indeed be cajoled into backing an agreement they did not strongly support. But at the moment, there is substantial private and public grumbling about what looms ahead.
Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont, urged the president not to yield to Republican demands to reduce the deficit by cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare, Medicaid and other domestic spending. He said that "the president has got to demand that at least 50 percent of deficit reduction come from revenues," including higher taxes on the wealthy and large corporations.
At the same time, Representative Eric Cantor, the Virginia Republican and majority leader, said Wednesday that he would not accept any net increase in federal revenues, and that any money raised from eliminating tax breaks or loopholes must be offset by cuts elsewhere in the tax code.
"If the president wants to talk loopholes, we'll be glad to talk loopholes," Mr. Cantor said. "We have said all along that preferences in the code are not something that helps economic growth over all. But, listen, we are not for any proposal that increases taxes. Any type of discussion should be coupled with offsetting tax cuts somewhere else."
White House officials acknowledge the unrest among Democrats. But they argue that Democrats will be in stronger shape politically heading into November 2012 if they help enact a credible deficit reduction deal, allowing them to mount the argument that they protected Medicare from a much more drastic overhaul by Republicans.
In contrast, they say, failure to produce an agreement could bring unpredictable and unfavorable economic and political consequences.
The officials are convinced that a larger package — one that would demand deeper cuts and more taxes but put the nation on a sounder fiscal footing for a decade or longer — is more politically palatable than the $2 trillion-plus package that was being cobbled together in talks presided over by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
And not all Democrats see the push for a major package as a negative.
"We don't need a minideal," Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat, said Wednesday on the Senate floor. "We need something that speaks authoritatively to the world that the United States understands its deficit challenge and is prepared to make the hard choices to address it."
Is there any movement in the US to make your budgetary process work better.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2011, 02:01:30 PM
Is there any movement in the US to make your budgetary process work better.
That's what we need the most. I don't know though. The tax simplification ideas in the NYT article do sound promising to me, but the way the budgets are built in the first place is one of the biggest problems IMO. I don't see it being addressed directly.
Edit: Oh, and Sanders is crazy to expect 50% of the deficit reduction to come from increasing revenues. Might as well write him off right now.
Quote from: The Atlantic
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, informed fellow House Republicans on Thursday that the chances of congressional leaders and President Obama reaching a tentative debt-ceiling deal within 48 hours are "maybe 50-50."
That prognosis from Boehner was relayed by several House Republicans as they left a morning briefing with the speaker -- and later confirmed by a GOP leadership aide. Boehner and other Republican and Democratic congressional leaders are set to continue negotiations at the White House on Thursday on a deal to raise the nation's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.
"I get the impression that it's better than 50-50," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. "It will be agreed upon in the next 48 hours; if not, it won't be for a long time."
In a separate interview, freshman Rep. Billy Long, R-Mo., also said that he came away from the meeting believing a deal in the next 48 hours is "50-50."
But if not, he said, there was a sense that negotiations could come unglued. "It will get done quickly, or not for a long time," said Long.
They and other Republicans, such as Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., and Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said few specifics were unveiled to them during the conference meeting, although they said Boehner did reiterate that Republicans "aren't interested in raising taxes."
Franks, who is one of the most conservative members of the House, said that he understands the squeeze in which Boehner finds himself, having to negotiate such a deal with the president and Democratic leaders while also having to contend with the demands inside his conference.
But Franks said it is his understanding there are clear indications a proposed deal was in the works, and that "I got the sense that, this July 18 work period [recess], that members should carefully consider their scheduling for signs of flexibility."
I guess those Tea Party types will be well served by buying all that gold after all.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 07, 2011, 02:04:15 PM
Edit: Oh, and Sanders is crazy to expect 50% of the deficit reduction to come from increasing revenues. Might as well write him off right now.
Why is he crazy? Revenues as percentage of GDP are at the lowest level in 40 years. That might have at least something to do with the deficits, you would think. However, it seems like everybody bought the Republican line hook and sinker that it's the spending that's totally out of control.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2011, 02:01:30 PM
Is there any movement in the US to make your budgetary process work better.
I am not sure what this means. What in the budgetary process seems broken to you?
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2011, 02:18:54 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 07, 2011, 02:04:15 PM
Edit: Oh, and Sanders is crazy to expect 50% of the deficit reduction to come from increasing revenues. Might as well write him off right now.
Why is he crazy? Revenues as percentage of GDP are at the lowest level in 40 years. That might have at least something to do with the deficits, you would think. However, it seems like everybody bought the Republican line hook and sinker that it's the spending that's totally out of control.
It's nothing to do with whether it's a good idea and everything to do with what could actually pass the Congress.
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2011, 02:23:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2011, 02:01:30 PM
Is there any movement in the US to make your budgetary process work better.
I am not sure what this means. What in the budgetary process seems broken to you?
More to the point, what isnt broken.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2011, 02:18:54 PM
Why is he crazy? Revenues as percentage of GDP are at the lowest level in 40 years. That might have at least something to do with the deficits, you would think. However, it seems like everybody bought the Republican line hook and sinker that it's the spending that's totally out of control.
But unemployment is at or near its 40-year high as well. The Republicans fear that, if they allow revenue to revert to its historical levels, unemployment rates will follow.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2011, 02:25:41 PM
More to the point, what isnt broken.
I was pretty sure you had no point, but thanks for confirming it. :bowler:
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2011, 02:27:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2011, 02:18:54 PM
Why is he crazy? Revenues as percentage of GDP are at the lowest level in 40 years. That might have at least something to do with the deficits, you would think. However, it seems like everybody bought the Republican line hook and sinker that it's the spending that's totally out of control.
But unemployment is at or near its 40-year high as well. The Republicans fear that, if they allow revenue to revert to its historical levels, unemployment rates will follow.
:XD:
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2011, 02:28:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2011, 02:25:41 PM
More to the point, what isnt broken.
I was pretty sure you had no point, but thanks for confirming it. :bowler:
Only someone living under a rock would conclude your system is perfectly fine. How is it that the worlds most wealthy country cant even figure out how to avoid the possibility that it might not be able to pay its debts? Until now everyone believed that the chance of the US ever defaulting on their loans was 0 but thanks to your messed up system that can no longer be said with as much certainty.
So rather than playing games, answer the question. Is there any chance your system will be improved. If your politicians take the same view as you then I take it the answer is no you think you are perfectly fine as you are.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 07, 2011, 02:24:52 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2011, 02:18:54 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 07, 2011, 02:04:15 PM
Edit: Oh, and Sanders is crazy to expect 50% of the deficit reduction to come from increasing revenues. Might as well write him off right now.
Why is he crazy? Revenues as percentage of GDP are at the lowest level in 40 years. That might have at least something to do with the deficits, you would think. However, it seems like everybody bought the Republican line hook and sinker that it's the spending that's totally out of control.
It's nothing to do with whether it's a good idea and everything to do with what could actually pass the Congress.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/why-the-g-o-p-cannot-compromise/
You know, this would be fucking hilarious if it weren't so serious. Or at least if it weren't about to happen to us. I can't believe we have people who are willing to tank the US economy if they don't get their way on a budget. I'm not exactly sure even why they are actually doing it. I don't buy the concern about the debt. They didn't care about it the debt and deficit 10 years ago, what suddenly made them see things differently? I suspect that as soon as Republican President is a elected, they'll forget all about this debt and deficit talk. I mean, they've done that twice in the last thirty years. What indicator is there that they won't do it again?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 07, 2011, 02:54:10 PM
You know, this would be fucking hilarious if it weren't so serious. Or at least if it weren't about to happen to us. I can't believe we have people who are willing to tank the US economy if they don't get their way on a budget. I'm not exactly sure even why they are actually doing it. I don't buy the concern about the debt. They didn't care about it the debt and deficit 10 years ago, what suddenly made them see things differently. I suspect that as soon as Republican President is a elected, they'll forget all about this debt and deficit talk. I mean, they've done that twice in the last thirty years. What indicator is there that they won't do it again?
Easy. We keep electing Democrats for President. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2011, 02:01:30 PM
Is there any movement in the US to make your budgetary process work better.
The budgetary process isn't really the problem; the problem is that the political system as a whole is designed to require political compromise. That is fine in concept but breaks down if there are enough individual officeholders for whom compromise is anathema.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2011, 02:34:11 PM
Only someone living under a rock would conclude your system is perfectly fine. How is it that the worlds most wealthy country cant even figure out how to avoid the possibility that it might not be able to pay its debts?
I am not sure what "your system" means in this context. I asked you what you thought was broken in the budgetary process, and your answer seems to be "stuff." There can be no debate when you won't even make a point except "some stuff doesn't work" without making it at all clear what it is in the budgetary process (which is the issue you raised) that you think does not work.
QuoteUntil now everyone believed that the chance of the US ever defaulting on their loans was 0 but thanks to your messed up system that can no longer be said with as much certainty.
That isn't the fault of the budgetary process. It is the fault of the two-party system with parties that cannot compromise.
QuoteSo rather than playing games, answer the question.
You cannot have
my line! :lol: What in the budgetary process do you think is broken?
Quote
Is there any chance your system will be improved.
The budgetary process? Not much. I thnk earmarks may be permanently trimmed back or eliminated, but I think that is about it. The President will continue to submit budget requests, the authorization and appropriations committees will continue to work pretty much exactly as they do, and the floor proceedings and conference committees don't seem to be at all controversial, except for the earmarks issue.
QuoteIf your politicians take the same view as you then I take it the answer is no you think you are perfectly fine as you are.
I am pretty sure that my politicians see things the way I do. If your politicians are as unable to answer questions are you are, my politicians won't be able to understand what the fuck your politicians' point is, either.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 07, 2011, 02:54:10 PM
You know, this would be fucking hilarious if it weren't so serious. Or at least if it weren't about to happen to us. I can't believe we have people who are willing to tank the US economy if they don't get their way on a budget. I'm not exactly sure even why they are actually doing it. I don't buy the concern about the debt. They didn't care about it the debt and deficit 10 years ago, what suddenly made them see things differently? I suspect that as soon as Republican President is a elected, they'll forget all about this debt and deficit talk. I mean, they've done that twice in the last thirty years. What indicator is there that they won't do it again?
Total US debt tripled under Reagan and doubled under Dubya. The miraculous restoration of the fiscal virginity of the Republicans is not convincing.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 07, 2011, 03:07:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2011, 02:01:30 PM
Is there any movement in the US to make your budgetary process work better.
The budgetary process isn't really the problem; the problem is that the political system as a whole is designed to require political compromise. That is fine in concept but breaks down if there are enough individual officeholders for whom compromise is anathema.
But isnt that a weakness then in your budgetary process - that it requires reasonable people on all sides? In our system the opposition can flail away as much as they want for dramatic effect and hope they can make hay at election time. But they cant hold the country to ransom.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2011, 04:28:36 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 07, 2011, 03:07:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2011, 02:01:30 PM
Is there any movement in the US to make your budgetary process work better.
The budgetary process isn't really the problem; the problem is that the political system as a whole is designed to require political compromise. That is fine in concept but breaks down if there are enough individual officeholders for whom compromise is anathema.
But isnt that a weakness then in your budgetary process - that it requires reasonable people on all sides? In our system the opposition can flail away as much as they want for dramatic effect and hope they can make hay at election time. But they cant hold the country to ransom.
It's a weakness of the entire constitutional architecture, nothing specific to the budgetary process. The budget, because it involves the lawmaking process, has to conform to the general rules that apply for all legislation
It seems to me your system works pretty well outside of budgetary matters. For example you have sub-committees that seem to work in a number of areas. As an outsider looking in it seems that the sub-committee system isnt really used for budget creation. Instead you get people taking hard positions and then only meeting at the last minute.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2011, 04:28:36 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 07, 2011, 03:07:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2011, 02:01:30 PM
Is there any movement in the US to make your budgetary process work better.
The budgetary process isn't really the problem; the problem is that the political system as a whole is designed to require political compromise. That is fine in concept but breaks down if there are enough individual officeholders for whom compromise is anathema.
But isnt that a weakness then in your budgetary process - that it requires reasonable people on all sides? In our system the opposition can flail away as much as they want for dramatic effect and hope they can make hay at election time. But they cant hold the country to ransom.
Did you suddenly forget about the last 6 years of minority rule?
I'd like very much to know the details about the proposed cuts to Medicare. One huge problem with proposing cuts to Medicare is that there is in effect no Medicare budget, only a target. And if that target is breeched then next year's payment schedule is supposed to be reduced, unless Congress votes to not reduce the schedule. Which Congress has done every year except one. So if Obama's proposal is more of the same then I'm not that impressed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2011, 11:33:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 02, 2011, 11:31:50 PM
I admit, I don't fully know the difference between debt and deficiet. My understanding was that debt was how much you owe total and deficit is how much in the red you are on a yearly budget.
That's correct.
Does the deficit figure already include the cost of servicing the debt or is it counted on top of the deficit?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 07, 2011, 04:33:26 PM
It's a weakness of the entire constitutional architecture, nothing specific to the budgetary process. The budget, because it involves the lawmaking process, has to conform to the general rules that apply for all legislation
I think some of our northern neighbors just don't get the system of checks and balances (having nothing like it except by tradition), and think it is a major flaw in the US constitutional arrangement. I don't really blame them; they are conditioned to think of the government of the majority as all-powerful. The US system of government was set up to avoid the flaws of the British system, and ended up with some flaws of its own, but I still think it works far better than a Parliamentary system in most areas. In budgeting, maybe not so much.
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2011, 05:13:43 PM
Does the deficit figure already include the cost of servicing the debt or is it counted on top of the deficit?
It does not include the interest portion of debt servicing.
Also, this may be a dumb question, but if you can't find enough ways to reduce the expenses, how about, you know, doing it the way all normal countries do, and raise taxes? :unsure:
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2011, 05:13:43 PM
Does the deficit figure already include the cost of servicing the debt or is it counted on top of the deficit?
Debt service is a budget line item (or series of them, actually) and so included in any operating deficit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2011, 05:14:58 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2011, 05:13:43 PM
Does the deficit figure already include the cost of servicing the debt or is it counted on top of the deficit?
It does not include the interest portion of debt servicing.
What other portion is there?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 07, 2011, 04:33:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2011, 04:28:36 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 07, 2011, 03:07:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2011, 02:01:30 PM
Is there any movement in the US to make your budgetary process work better.
The budgetary process isn't really the problem; the problem is that the political system as a whole is designed to require political compromise. That is fine in concept but breaks down if there are enough individual officeholders for whom compromise is anathema.
But isnt that a weakness then in your budgetary process - that it requires reasonable people on all sides? In our system the opposition can flail away as much as they want for dramatic effect and hope they can make hay at election time. But they cant hold the country to ransom.
It's a weakness of the entire constitutional architecture, nothing specific to the budgetary process. The budget, because it involves the lawmaking process, has to conform to the general rules that apply for all legislation
I think what CC means is that in many countries (for example, Poland) you have special constitutional rules for the budget. Stuff like fast track voting, limited ability of the Parliament to add items to the budget proposed by the cabinet, or a right of the Head of State to dissolve the Parliament if the budget is not approved by a certain date.
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2011, 05:15:29 PM
Also, this may be a dumb question, but if you can't find enough ways to reduce the expenses, how about, you know, doing it the way all normal countries do, and raise taxes? :unsure:
It
is a dumb question. There are two possible ways to reduce deficits: reduce spending, and increase revenue. There are ways to reduce spending until the deficit is manageable, there are ways to increase revenue until the deficit is manageable, and there are ways of combining spending reductions with revenue increases until the deficit is manageable. "All normal countries" don't attack deficits by raising taxes. Taxes will certainly be increased in the US as part of the deficit reduction strategy. The question of how much of the deficit reduction will come from revenue increases and how much from spending reductions is what the US political system is now working out.
Quote from: Barrister on July 07, 2011, 04:54:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2011, 04:28:36 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 07, 2011, 03:07:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2011, 02:01:30 PM
Is there any movement in the US to make your budgetary process work better.
The budgetary process isn't really the problem; the problem is that the political system as a whole is designed to require political compromise. That is fine in concept but breaks down if there are enough individual officeholders for whom compromise is anathema.
But isnt that a weakness then in your budgetary process - that it requires reasonable people on all sides? In our system the opposition can flail away as much as they want for dramatic effect and hope they can make hay at election time. But they cant hold the country to ransom.
Did you suddenly forget about the last 6 years of minority rule?
No, I had that in mind as a good point of comparison. At no point could the opposition hold the Country to ransom. They only thing they could do was force an election if they dared to do so. And when they did look where that got them. :D
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2011, 05:22:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2011, 05:15:29 PM
Also, this may be a dumb question, but if you can't find enough ways to reduce the expenses, how about, you know, doing it the way all normal countries do, and raise taxes? :unsure:
It is a dumb question. There are two possible ways ...
Marty still won't get it.
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2011, 05:19:01 PM
I think what CC means is that in many countries (for example, Poland) you have special constitutional rules for the budget. Stuff like fast track voting, limited ability of the Parliament to add items to the budget proposed by the cabinet, or a right of the Head of State to dissolve the Parliament if the budget is not approved by a certain date.
Such rules would be not only unnecessary, but pernicious, in a non-Parliamentary system which uses separation of powers as part of a system of checks and balances
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2011, 05:14:36 PM
I think some of our northern neighbors just don't get the system of checks and balances (having nothing like it except by tradition), and think it is a major flaw in the US constitutional arrangement. I don't really blame them; they are conditioned to think of the government of the majority as all-powerful. The US system of government was set up to avoid the flaws of the British system, and ended up with some flaws of its own, but I still think it works far better than a Parliamentary system in most areas. In budgeting, maybe not so much.
I think some US citizens think too highly of themselves and their system.
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2011, 05:30:31 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2011, 05:19:01 PM
I think what CC means is that in many countries (for example, Poland) you have special constitutional rules for the budget. Stuff like fast track voting, limited ability of the Parliament to add items to the budget proposed by the cabinet, or a right of the Head of State to dissolve the Parliament if the budget is not approved by a certain date.
Such rules would be not only unnecessary, but pernicious, in a non-Parliamentary system which uses separation of powers as part of a system of checks and balances
Yep, the best evidence shows your system works perfectly. How many days from default are you?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2011, 05:30:46 PM
I think some US citizens think too highly of themselves and their system.
Some do, just as some Canadians do. That's one of those "duh" observations I wouldn't have thought needed to be articulated.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2011, 05:31:27 PM
Yep, the best evidence shows your system works perfectly.
Disagree.
QuoteHow many days from default are you?
About seventeen years, if I lost my job tomorrow and didn't cut expenses.
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2011, 05:19:30 PM
I assumed this is just rolled over.
Debt service is a flow, not a stock (like national debt). So whenever principle comes due, you need money to pay it off. Whether that comes from revenue or borrowing is irrelevant.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2011, 04:35:52 PM
It seems to me your system works pretty well outside of budgetary matters. For example you have sub-committees that seem to work in a number of areas. As an outsider looking in it seems that the sub-committee system isnt really used for budget creation. Instead you get people taking hard positions and then only meeting at the last minute.
Sure the committee system is used for the budget. There is an appropriations committee and a bunch of subcommittees covering each major department. But at the end of the committee processes there has to be an agreement that can survive conferencing and get signed. This budget isn't being held up because of procedural delays in reporting bills in the like. It is being held up because of the difficulties in surmounting the final stage of assembling a majority on a bill that the President will sign.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 07, 2011, 05:55:18 PM
Sure the committee system is used for the budget. There is an appropriations committee and a bunch of subcommittees covering each major department. But at the end of the committee processes there has to be an agreement that can survive conferencing and get signed. This budget isn't being held up because of procedural delays in reporting bills in the like. It is being held up because of the difficulties in surmounting the final stage of assembling a majority on a bill that the President will sign.
More than that: you have authorization committees and subcommittees that have to authorize before appropriators can appropriate. The various budgets are committeed to a fare-thee-well; far more so than any other legislation I can think of.
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2011, 05:14:36 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 07, 2011, 04:33:26 PM
It's a weakness of the entire constitutional architecture, nothing specific to the budgetary process. The budget, because it involves the lawmaking process, has to conform to the general rules that apply for all legislation
I think some of our northern neighbors just don't get the system of checks and balances (having nothing like it except by tradition), and think it is a major flaw in the US constitutional arrangement. I don't really blame them; they are conditioned to think of the government of the majority as all-powerful. The US system of government was set up to avoid the flaws of the British system, and ended up with some flaws of its own, but I still think it works far better than a Parliamentary system in most areas. In budgeting, maybe not so much.
Maybe some do, but CC seems to understand 'em just fine: in fact, you both agree - your system, while it may be admirable overall,
does not work so very well in the area of budgeting, and so perhaps it would be best in this specific context to introduce modifications (without thereby in any way conceding that the US system is not superior, of course - I cannot blame folks in the US for justifiable pride in their system overall, obvious though its disfunction in this particular case may be to the entire world).
Quote from: Malthus on July 07, 2011, 06:17:48 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2011, 05:14:36 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 07, 2011, 04:33:26 PM
It's a weakness of the entire constitutional architecture, nothing specific to the budgetary process. The budget, because it involves the lawmaking process, has to conform to the general rules that apply for all legislation
I think some of our northern neighbors just don't get the system of checks and balances (having nothing like it except by tradition), and think it is a major flaw in the US constitutional arrangement. I don't really blame them; they are conditioned to think of the government of the majority as all-powerful. The US system of government was set up to avoid the flaws of the British system, and ended up with some flaws of its own, but I still think it works far better than a Parliamentary system in most areas. In budgeting, maybe not so much.
Maybe some do, but CC seems to understand 'em just fine: in fact, you both agree - your system, while it may be admirable overall, does not work so very well in the area of budgeting, and so perhaps it would be best in this specific context to introduce modifications (without thereby in any way conceding that the US system is not superior, of course - I cannot blame folks in the US for justifiable pride in their system overall, obvious though its disfunction in this particular case may be to the entire world).
The major flaw in our system is that the republicans have gone full retard on us. Bush was handed significant power--all three branches for a while--and look what happened. After 2010 the republicans win half of the legislative branch, and in half a year they have us staring down economic doom. It is quite an achievement really.
Our system can have responsible budgeting--see the Clinton era--and parliamentary systems can have irresponsible budgeting--see all sorts of examples.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 07, 2011, 06:26:28 PM
Our system can have responsible budgeting--see the Clinton era--and parliamentary systems can have irresponsible budgeting--see all sorts of examples.
Such as, to my personal disgust and shame, the United Kingdom for most of the first decade of this century. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Malthus on July 07, 2011, 06:17:48 PM
Maybe some do, but CC seems to understand 'em just fine: in fact, you both agree - your system, while it may be admirable overall, does not work so very well in the area of budgeting, and so perhaps it would be best in this specific context to introduce modifications (without thereby in any way conceding that the US system is not superior, of course - I cannot blame folks in the US for justifiable pride in their system overall, obvious though its disfunction in this particular case may be to the entire world).
Yes, but simply saying "it doesn't work, will you fix it?" doesn't get us very far; for instance, the person who raised the issue initially was under the impressions that "the sub-committee system isnt really used for budget creation" when it is very extensively used (35 committees involved in authorization and 24 in appropriations, plus the two Budget committees, the Finance Committee, and the Ways and Means Committee). I would point to 200 years of success in using essentially the current process for budgeting as the counter to the "does not work so very well in the area of budgeting" argument (though conceding that a system involving the tyranny of the majority gets budgets done more quickly and seems to produce results that are on a par with the checks-and-balances system).
Now, you can certainly argue that the two-party system is inefficient at the moment, because it involves a lot of win-lose politics right now, but this is a phase the US has gone through before, and likely will again. Look up Andrew Jackson if you want to see the two-party system
really create trouble! :lol:
So, I find the vague "why don't the Americans just 'fix' their system?" questions amusing but far too simplistic to take seriously. The combination of a checks-and-balances system and partisan politics sometimes looks ugly, but that's the price to pay for a system that has the long-term stability of the US constitutional system.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 07, 2011, 06:26:28 PM
Our system can have responsible budgeting--see the Clinton era--and parliamentary systems can have irresponsible budgeting--see all sorts of examples.
Its not really a question of which system is better, despite Grumber going into full blown patriatic mode, but how can a system work better to avoid these kinds of situations. Maybe the answer is your system can't be structured to work better. Maybe this sort of thing is unavoidable in some circumstances.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 08, 2011, 10:24:04 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 07, 2011, 06:26:28 PM
Our system can have responsible budgeting--see the Clinton era--and parliamentary systems can have irresponsible budgeting--see all sorts of examples.
Its not really a question of which system is better, despite Grumber going into full blown patriatic mode, but how can a system work better to avoid these kinds of situations. Maybe the answer is your system can't be structured to work better. Maybe this sort of thing is unavoidable in some circumstances.
I think parts could work better--for example putting bills on the internet for public vetting before they are finalized would be a good start. But I think fundamentally in a system that requires comprimise, if one side decides to hold the country hostage there isn't much that can be done other than hope they are bluffing or give in.
Other than this odd circumstance of a debt ceiling needing to be raised what are the consequences under your system if agreement cannot be obtained - under a Parliamentary model the people get to decide in another election. Is there a mechanism that allows your government to continue to function or does the government simply go unfunded until some agreement can be reached?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 08, 2011, 10:46:55 AM
Other than this odd circumstance of a debt ceiling needing to be raised what are the consequences under your system if agreement cannot be obtained - under a Parliamentary model the people get to decide in another election. Is there a mechanism that allows your government to continue to function or does the government simply go unfunded until some agreement can be reached?
The normal procedure is for disputes like this to be resolved through the budget process. And sometimes that leads to government shutdowns when there is an impasse (due to an absence of funding), but not default.
I like the roadblocks getting in the way and the need for compromise. That's a feature, not a bug. What I don't like are the assumptions upon which the budgets are generally built, the method by which they arrive at the numbers they use and the type of accounting used, which would be illegal if it were not the government doing it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 08, 2011, 10:24:04 AM
Its not really a question of which system is better, despite Grumber going into full blown patriatic mode, but how can a system work better to avoid these kinds of situations. Maybe the answer is your system can't be structured to work better. Maybe this sort of thing is unavoidable in some circumstances.
You don't do reading comprehension, do you? :lol: I am not "patriotic" so much as I am logical; when someone whines about "will you
ever improve X?" but cannot actually even state what the problem with X is, then I note that their whining seems unjustified.
The US political system is built around checks and balances, meaning that it requires a degree of cooperation between the branches and the chambers of the legislature. Sometimes you have partisan interests that make such cooperation difficult. That is a flaw in the system, but a flaw that cannot be overcome without losing most of the virtues of the system.
Adding more subcommittees isn't the answer.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 08, 2011, 11:10:09 AM
I like the roadblocks getting in the way and the need for compromise. That's a feature, not a bug. What I don't like are the assumptions upon which the budgets are generally built, the method by which they arrive at the numbers they use and the type of accounting used, which would be illegal if it were not the government doing it.
Are you talking about actual budgeting (i.e. CBO conclusions) or the political rhetoric that accompanies political stalking horses like Ryan's "proposed budget?" If the former, I am interested in more specifics. If the latter, I will simply agree and move on.
Quote from: grumbler on July 08, 2011, 11:23:27 AM
I am not "patriotic"
Ok, I was going for the more kind explanation for this kind of statement, "they are conditioned to think of the government of the majority as all-powerful". If it was not made out of an a momentary outburst of irrational patriotism then we are left with a more of a passive aggresive (sometimes not so passive) nature based on a basic misunderstanding of other forms of government and how people within other countries view their government and how it functions.
Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia wants to lower the debt ceiling.
:P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 08, 2011, 12:15:30 PM
Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia wants to lower the debt ceiling.
:P
:frusty:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 08, 2011, 12:15:30 PM
Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia wants to lower the debt ceiling.
:P
If it is done in conjunction with spending cuts and tax increases that can create the necessary room what is wrong with that approach?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 08, 2011, 12:15:30 PM
Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia wants to lower the debt ceiling.
:P
Great, now they are trying to out stupid each other.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2011, 04:28:36 PM
But isnt that a weakness then in your budgetary process - that it requires reasonable people on all sides? In our system the opposition can flail away as much as they want for dramatic effect and hope they can make hay at election time. But they cant hold the country to ransom.
Oh yes they can - and do - in minority governments. That's why the NDP had to be bought in each budget.
But here if neither side compromise, we either go to election or, in theory, we switch governments. In the US they are stuck with the Congress and the Executive they've elected, willy-nilly.
Quote from: Drakken on July 08, 2011, 01:19:20 PM
Oh yes they can - and do - in minority governments. That's why the NDP had to be bought in each budget.
But here if neither side compromise, we either go to election or we switch government. In the US they are stuck with the Congress and the Executive they've elected, willy-nilly.
But the government doesnt have to face the choice of make an agreement with the devil or go bankrupt. If the demands made by the opposition are reasonable then a deal can be made if not then the opposition can explain to the electorate why they were being so unreasonable.
Quote from: Malthus on July 07, 2011, 06:17:48 PM
Maybe some do, but CC seems to understand 'em just fine: in fact, you both agree - your system, while it may be admirable overall, does not work so very well in the area of budgeting,
Well no - actually my view is closer to the opposite.
That is, I am not sure that the system is "admirable overall". The system works great as long as those responsible understand it and act accordingly. But if they don't, the system doesn't work very well, and because you can't guarantee that you will get the right sort of people in government, that is a pretty significant systemic weakness. Hence the arguments one sees from time-to-time that a Westminster-style parliamentary system would be better. An argument that IMO has some merits although ultimately I think it amounts to exchanging one set of institutional advantages and disadvantages for another.
But I don't agree with the basic premise that the system, while OK, doensn't work well for budgeting. When the system works it works as well for budgeting as for everything else. Most of the time, the budgets get passes without a huge crisis. And on the flip side, when the system get tangled up by ideological posturing, it effects a much broader range of endeavors then the budget (example - the rather disappointing legislative response to the failures that led to the credit crisis). The reason why the budget seems to stand out is just because the budget happens to be very important, relatively and absolutely.
Quote from: Drakken on July 08, 2011, 01:19:20 PM
But here if neither side compromise, we either go to election or, in theory, we switch governments. In the US they are stuck with the Congress and the Executive they've elected, willy-nilly.
Yes, the US system doesn't have such an immediate remedy for political impasse - though the fact of the matter is that the voters in the US system get to have their say in, at most, some 20 months rather than 4-6 months anyway, so the time difference isn't as great as it might appear.
The big difference I see is the ability of the minority in the US system to influence policies and budgets. Given that the minority is almost always sizable, this is not entirely bad... bad as it may look right now.
I figured as much. Boehner has hardly any options. I hope the flexibility of Obama in this piece is real and not just friendly press.
Quote from: NYT
For Boehner, Lofty Budget Goals Checked by Reality
By CARL HULSE
Published: July 10, 2011
WASHINGTON — At a private meeting about deficit reduction at the White House last week, Speaker John A. Boehner told his fellow Congressional leaders and President Obama that he did not spend 20 years working his way up to the top job on Capitol Hill just for the cachet of the title — he wanted to accomplish something big.
So he and the president pursued an ambitious plan that would have reduced spending by as much as $4 trillion over 10 years. It was a transformative proposal, with the potential to improve the ugly deficit picture by shrinking the size of government, overhauling the tax code and instituting consensus changes to shore up Medicare and even Social Security. It was a once-in-a-decade opening.
But the speaker's lofty ambitions quickly crashed into the political reality of a divided, highly partisan Congress. His decision on Saturday night to abandon the comprehensive deficit-reduction package, citing the White House's insistence on tax increases, was a sharp reversal. It highlighted the challenge he faces in persuading his party to tolerate any compromise on government spending and exposed the fissures within his own leadership team over how to proceed.
Had Mr. Boehner forged ahead with a plan that fell flat with his rank and file, it could conceivably have led to a challenge of his leadership position, and it would certainly have undermined confidence among conservatives in his ability to lead the Republicans. Even opening the door to increased revenues as part of a deal with Mr. Obama and the Democrats struck many Republicans as a profound misreading of what conservatives, in Congress and at the grass-roots level, would tolerate.
Yet in his push for a sweeping deal, Mr. Boehner may also have underestimated the willingness of Mr. Obama to make concessions on traditional Democratic priorities and to challenge Congressional Democrats to give ground on programs like Medicare and Social Security, an approach that put pressure on Mr. Boehner to cede territory as well.
By pulling the plug on those negotiations, Mr. Boehner no doubt reduced the prospect of a messy fight within his party. But he also disappointed those — including some Republicans — who had hoped lawmakers and Mr. Obama could defy the odds and deliver a budget deal of historic consequence.
As a negotiator, Mr. Boehner operates in a laid-back style that belies canny instincts honed during a previous run in leadership after the Republican takeover in 1995 and his time as chairman of the Education and Labor Committee.
He has cut deals with Democrats in the past, including the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, and he and Mr. Obama hammered out the 2011 spending deal in a showdown in April. Given the rapport he appears to be developing with the president, it seemed they might have a chance to reach a broad agreement despite the tremendous difficulties.
Mr. Boehner had good reason to pursue such a so-called grand bargain beyond the matter of his own legacy. A big deal could have resolved some of the most stubborn fiscal issues, freeing his ambitious majority to take on new matters while giving a lift to the economy and demonstrating the power of conservative Republican ideals.
From one political angle, it had special appeal. By persuading Democrats to endorse Medicare cuts, the speaker could have neutralized an issue that Democrats have been bludgeoning Republicans with since the House budget this spring called for converting that government insurance program into one subsidizing older Americans in private health plans.
But his motivations to back away were evidently stronger. The deal, which required roughly $1 trillion in new revenue, represented a serious political risk for Mr. Boehner, who found himself caught between the push for a legislative achievement and the Tea Party sentiments of his new majority and ambivalence of his top lieutenants.
By all accounts, the agreement taking shape called for closing corporate tax loopholes. And it was linked to a broad tax overhaul that could have left uncertain the fate of tax breaks for the nation's affluent, which are due to expire after 2012. That was going to cause serious trouble with Republicans who are wedded to those Bush-era tax cuts and who consider allowing them to expire equivalent to a tax hike.
Mr. Boehner and the White House were engaged in delicate talks on the timing of the tax changes and how to package the plan so that it could be seen as not raising taxes to gain new revenue. The speaker argued that the tax rewrite would produce new revenues through economic growth and an expansion of the tax base. And he was pushing a legislative trigger to make certain that the tax changes occurred.
But fellow Republicans were not on board. At the White House meeting where Mr. Boehner said he wanted to go big, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 House Republican, threw cold water on the idea, saying the negotiations should focus on a midrange deal like the $2 trillion one that Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. had been leading. Those earlier negotiations broke down over potential tax increases as well.
"As Eric has said for weeks, tax increases that the Democrats are insisting upon cannot pass the House and are the last thing Congress should be doing with so many people out of work," said Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for Mr. Cantor. "Eric has always believed the Biden group identified between $2 trillion and $2.5 trillion in spending cuts that could represent the framework for an agreement."
Other Republicans saw the Boehner idea as a political disaster in the making. Not only would it potentially hand Democrats a major victory by conclusively extending the Bush tax cuts for only the middle class, they said, it could cost House Republicans the majority in 2012 by throwing doubt on the tax breaks for wealthy Americans and angering voters who expected them to keep their pledge not to raise taxes.
Mr. Cantor and the speaker had been dancing around each other on the debt talks for a few weeks, and Mr. Cantor's call at the White House for a more modest plan seemed an attempt to put some distance between himself and the speaker should Mr. Boehner get too far ahead of House Republicans. Mr. Cantor does not appear eager to directly challenge Mr. Boehner's leadership, but he wants to be in the right spot if things veer off track for the speaker.
Democrats say that because of Mr. Boehner's retreat, they will now be able to portray Republicans as refusing major Democratic concessions on spending in order to protect tax breaks for big businesses and rich Americans. Whether that works depends on how the debt fight plays out.
But one lesson has emerged: going for the rewards offered by a big deal requires the willingness to take big risks — and such political nerve seems to be lacking in Washington at the moment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/us/politics/11boehner.html
Ezra Klein's take:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-three-reasons-the-debt-deal-collapsed/2011/07/11/gIQAfQDb8H_blog.html
Quote
Last week's sudden and inexplicable burst of debt-deal optimism is over. But don't ask why the $4 trillion deal collapsed. That's like asking why John Boehner didn't sprout wings and fly. Ask why anyone ever thought it'd take off in the first place.
Nothing changed between Thursday, when the grand bargain was apparently alive, and Sunday, when the papers solemnly recorded its time of death. But the real tell was that nothing had changed between the week before last, when a $2 trillion deal was too tough for the negotiators, and last week, when a $4 trillion deal was suddenly posited as possible. So asking "what went wrong?" isn't so much about what we've learned in the last few days as it is about what we already knew, but perhaps did not want to admit.
It does not matter if John Boehner is a reasonable man. The White House likes John Boehner. They feel -- or at least felt -- he's someone they can do business with. But they're learning that they're not actually doing business with Boehner. They're doing business with the Republican Party. And Boehner isn't the Republican Party. In fact, of the four major figures in the GOP leadership -- Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, and Jon Kyl -- Boehner is perhaps least representative of the modern Republican Party. The main reason people thought we might have a deal last week was because Boehner said he wanted one. The deal's collapse is, first and foremost, a reminder that what Boehner wants really doesn't matter.
For Republicans, this isn't about deficits. It's about spending and taxes. If this were really about deficits, a win-win would be possible. Easy, even. Republicans want spending cuts, and those cut the deficit. Democrats want revenues, and those cut the deficit. See where I'm going with this? But where Democrats really are arguing over deficits -- note their willingness to give more in spending cuts if Republicans will give more in revenues -- Republicans want less deficit reduction because it'll mean Democrats have less leverage with which to demand tax increases.
For a deal to be possible, something will need to change. We've reached an equilibrium where Republicans can't accept any revenues and Democrats can't accept a deal without any revenues. And I use the word "revenues" advisedly. There was a brief, shining moment when it seemed the deal would be changes to the tax code that did raise revenues but didn't increase rates and so Republicans wouldn't count as tax increases. But Cantor and others have made clear that they will oppose any net increase in revenues. So there's no deal until something breaks the equilibrium. Right now, the most likely candidates, in order, are public fury arising out of a government shutdown or a market panic arising out of near-default.
I'll end on a more speculative note: Republicans might come to regret rejecting Boehner's deal. Few noticed that his framework for new revenues was comprehensive tax reform -- which would preempt the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. In other words, he was finishing the tax debate during the debt-ceiling debate, when Republicans have most of the leverage, rather than letting it drift linger into 2012, when the Bush tax cuts are set to expire and Democrats will have most of the leverage. If Republicans could've agreed with Democrats this year, taxes would have gone up by $1 trillion. If they can't agree with Democrats next year, they'll go up by $4 trillion. And Republicans had a better hand this year than they will next year. I expect they'll come to wish they'd played it.
Interesting bit at the end there. He doesn't take into account the likelihood of the Democrats supporting the compromise though.
Bummer.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 07, 2011, 02:54:10 PM
You know, this would be fucking hilarious if it weren't so serious. Or at least if it weren't about to happen to us. I can't believe we have people who are willing to tank the US economy if they don't get their way on a budget. I'm not exactly sure even why they are actually doing it.
There's a black man in the White House, and he just gotta go.
Even when the Economist, longtime friends of traditional conservativism, calls you "economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical", then there's a problem.
QuoteAmerica's debt
Shame on them
The Republicans are playing a cynical political game with hugely high economic stakes
Jul 7th 2011 | from the print edition
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.
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.
It's the natural progression of Reagan/Bush II economics. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and Bush I (at least Bush I's private sensibilities) are sad at what's happened to their party.
Quote from: Neil on July 11, 2011, 05:24:55 PM
Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and Bush I (at least Bush I's private sensibilities) are sad at what's happened to their party.
It is very sad. I can't believe I'm even technically considering the possibility of a US default. :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2011, 05:36:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 11, 2011, 04:55:06 PM
Are you going to be paying increased taxes?
Huh?
Sorry, I thought your comment "bummer" was directed at the observation that more tax revenue was about to come into the government.
Quote from: Legbiter on July 11, 2011, 05:45:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 11, 2011, 05:24:55 PM
Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and Bush I (at least Bush I's private sensibilities) are sad at what's happened to their party.
It is very sad. I can't believe I'm even technically considering the possibility of a US default. :huh:
Why not; the Republicans are banking on it. And they're banking on you blaming the President on it, along with their mouthbreathing Dumbfuckistanian voters.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 11, 2011, 05:49:38 PM
Why not; the Republicans are banking on it. And they're banking on you blaming the President on it, along with their mouthbreathing Dumbfuckistanian voters.
I basically thought, democracy, aircraft carriers, you'll kick ass no matter what. :blush:
Anyone feel like making a little book on whether or not the debt limit will be raised by August 2nd?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2011, 05:58:22 PM
Anyone feel like making a little book on whether or not the debt limit will be raised by August 2nd?
Sure. Which side are you on?
Quote from: DGuller on July 11, 2011, 06:00:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2011, 05:58:22 PM
Anyone feel like making a little book on whether or not the debt limit will be raised by August 2nd?
Sure. Which side are you on?
Long.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2011, 06:02:13 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 11, 2011, 06:00:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2011, 05:58:22 PM
Anyone feel like making a little book on whether or not the debt limit will be raised by August 2nd?
Sure. Which side are you on?
Long.
You bet it would be raised by 8/2?
Quote from: DGuller on July 11, 2011, 06:02:53 PM
You bet it would be raised by 8/2?
By 8/2 or whenever the US starts welching on obligations, whichever comes later. Just in case Geithner was padding the deadline.
I agree with your assessment, but I would be willing to lay 4:1 that Republicans really are as utterly nuts as they seem. Meaning that if they raise the debt ceiling before default, I pay you $20, but if we default, you pay me $80.
4:1 I'll have to think about.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2011, 05:58:22 PM
Anyone feel like making a little book on whether or not the debt limit will be raised by August 2nd?
Nah, you still owe me a foot massage.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2011, 06:15:09 PM
Nah, you still owe me a foot massage.
That's a libel. I don't owe you a foot massage until we're face to face.
gross
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2011, 06:16:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2011, 06:15:09 PM
Nah, you still owe me a foot massage.
That's a libel. I don't owe you a foot massage until we're face to face.
That sounds like an awkward setup for a foot massage, unless Raz is more agile than we're led to believe.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2011, 06:13:48 PM
4:1 I'll have to think about.
I'd go with those odds if I were you, as the conventional wisdom makes it look like the Republicans are intent on flying beyond their Fail-Safe points for the sake of kicking out the President at all costs at a solid 3:1.
What odds would you give me it happens on exactly 8/2?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 11, 2011, 06:21:34 PM
I'd go with those odds if I were you, as the conventional wisdom makes it look like the Republicans are intent on flying beyond their Fail-Safe points for the sake of kicking out the President at all costs at a solid 3:1.
There are fragments of this post which make sense individually, but taken as a whole the meaning is rather elusive.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 11, 2011, 06:23:05 PM
What odds would you give me it happens on exactly 8/2?
100:1.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 11, 2011, 06:21:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2011, 06:13:48 PM
4:1 I'll have to think about.
I'd go with those odds if I were you, as the conventional wisdom makes it look like the Republicans are intent on flying beyond their Fail-Safe points for the sake of kicking out the President at all costs at a solid 3:1.
It sounds like you're saying the opposite. If there is more than 20% that Republicans force a default, then Yi shouldn't take my bet.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 11, 2011, 05:49:38 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on July 11, 2011, 05:45:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 11, 2011, 05:24:55 PM
Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and Bush I (at least Bush I's private sensibilities) are sad at what's happened to their party.
It is very sad. I can't believe I'm even technically considering the possibility of a US default. :huh:
Why not; the Republicans are banking on it. And they're banking on you blaming the President on it, along with their mouthbreathing Dumbfuckistanian voters.
Polls show a majority of Americans are in favor of the "tax increases" (actually it's ending the Bush tax cuts on people making more than nearly anyone posting here, ending gas & oil subsidies, and ending corporate jet tax breaks). Maybe people will see through the Republican's charade?
Hmmm I thought all these tax breaks for the super rich were 'channeling Voodoo Economics' beneficial? Was I misled??
G.
Quote from: Grallon on July 11, 2011, 07:32:36 PM
Hmmm I thought all these tax breaks for the super rich were 'channeling Voodoo Economics' beneficial? Was I misled??
G.
If the rich had a 39.5% tax rate instead of a 35% tax rate then we'd be taking in even less revenue than we are today.
Quote from: Fate on July 11, 2011, 07:40:09 PM
If the rich had a 39.5% tax rate instead of a 35% tax rate then we'd be taking in even less revenue than we are today.
*shrug* It's your country going down the 'shitcan'. And though it will likely have adverse effects on us - it should be fun to watch nonetheless.
The 'Boni' are indeed hard at work!
G.
It's a little odd that a guy who thinks Quebec should separate is concerned about a country going down the shitcan. After all, a Quebec without Anglo money is basically a northern Haiti.
Quote from: Neil on July 11, 2011, 08:13:48 PM
It's a little odd that a guy who thinks Quebec should separate is concerned about a country going down the shitcan. After all, a Quebec without Anglo money is basically a northern Haiti.
Is Quebec as corrupt as Louisiana?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2011, 08:43:14 PM
Is Quebec as corrupt as Louisiana?
Close behind. :Embarrass:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 11, 2011, 07:13:16 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 11, 2011, 05:49:38 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on July 11, 2011, 05:45:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 11, 2011, 05:24:55 PM
Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and Bush I (at least Bush I's private sensibilities) are sad at what's happened to their party.
It is very sad. I can't believe I'm even technically considering the possibility of a US default. :huh:
Why not; the Republicans are banking on it. And they're banking on you blaming the President on it, along with their mouthbreathing Dumbfuckistanian voters.
Polls show a majority of Americans are in favor of the "tax increases" (actually it's ending the Bush tax cuts on people making more than nearly anyone posting here, ending gas & oil subsidies, and ending corporate jet tax breaks). Maybe people will see through the Republican's charade?
Don't count on it. They're already ramping up Family Values. Along with the Union Busting, it's a winner. All we need is flag burning and Willie Horton, and it'll be a total GOP lock.
Quote from: DGuller on July 11, 2011, 06:26:19 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 11, 2011, 06:21:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2011, 06:13:48 PM
4:1 I'll have to think about.
I'd go with those odds if I were you, as the conventional wisdom makes it look like the Republicans are intent on flying beyond their Fail-Safe points for the sake of kicking out the President at all costs at a solid 3:1.
It sounds like you're saying the opposite. If there is more than 20% that Republicans force a default, then Yi shouldn't take my bet.
I just don't give a shit anymore. This place is broken. Enjoy the first four years of Batshit Bachmann.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 11, 2011, 10:33:41 PM
:console: If things go tits up you can get a gun and hunt Tea Party types like game.
I just don't give a shit anymore. This place is broken. Enjoy the first four years of Batshit Bachmann.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2011, 10:47:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 11, 2011, 10:33:41 PM
:console: If things go tits up you can get a gun and hunt Tea Party types like game.
I just don't give a shit anymore. This place is broken. Enjoy the first four years of Batshit Bachmann.
Goddamn it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2011, 06:16:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2011, 06:15:09 PM
Nah, you still owe me a foot massage.
That's a libel. I don't owe you a foot massage until we're face to face.
Can't you get him a gift certificate to one of those Chinese reflexology places?
I'd actually like to me Yi sometime. I wouldn't even make him touch my feet. Yi seems like a good enough type.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2011, 12:37:50 AM
I'd actually like to me Yi sometime.
I'd like to see you me Yi.
Yi
is a great guy. The DC cabal has collapsed in his absence.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 11, 2011, 10:33:41 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 11, 2011, 06:26:19 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 11, 2011, 06:21:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2011, 06:13:48 PM
4:1 I'll have to think about.
I'd go with those odds if I were you, as the conventional wisdom makes it look like the Republicans are intent on flying beyond their Fail-Safe points for the sake of kicking out the President at all costs at a solid 3:1.
It sounds like you're saying the opposite. If there is more than 20% that Republicans force a default, then Yi shouldn't take my bet.
I just don't give a shit anymore. This place is broken. Enjoy the first four years of Batshit Bachmann.
I'm going to give you so much shit when I'm enjoying the the pleasures of a centrist, stable Canada, while you guys are melting down and you've elected a president that is not only a woman, but a mental defective.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2011, 06:13:48 PM
4:1 I'll have to think about.
My quote is good until the end of today, given the volatility of the situation. :contract:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 11, 2011, 10:33:41 PM
I just don't give a shit anymore. This place is broken. Enjoy the first four years of Batshit Bachmann.
:)
Even you wouldn't want someone is insane.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2011, 09:00:57 AM
Even you wouldn't want someone is insane.
No, but I bet he hopes more people like Money decide that they don't give a shit any more. The more Democrats stay home, the more Republicans get elected. I'm thinking Spicey doesn't rate Bachman's chances as worth considering.
Quote from: grumbler on July 12, 2011, 10:54:30 AM
I'm thinking Spicey doesn't rate Bachman's chances as worth considering.
Dangerous. Romney has established before his abilities for fumbling away primaries. Oral Roberts Law's most notorious grad could easily draw big protest/statement votes in the earlier primaries and start piling up delegates as Romney implodes. It's not obvious to me that there is anyone in the field with the muscle to push her aside if Romney stalls.
Bachmann is running first in Iowa and has the best net approval ratings in the field at 65%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/07/11/bachmann_moves_into_the_lead_in_iowa.html
So uh...Not insignificant.
Quote from: grumbler on July 12, 2011, 10:54:30 AM
No, but I bet he hopes more people like Money decide that they don't give a shit any more.
Correct.
QuoteThe more Democrats stay home, the more Republicans get elected.
Yessir.
QuoteI'm thinking Spicey doesn't rate Bachman's chances as worth considering.
Yep. She's got momentum right now but I don't see her maintaining it. And as I mentioned before, I don't want her as the GOP candidate.
Having said that, it'd be some great entertainment value seeing Seedy's reaction if she did well in some primaries or won the nom or even won the general election. And it goes without saying that I'd rather have her than Obama as Prez.
Quote from: derspiess on July 12, 2011, 11:40:32 AM
[ And it goes without saying that I'd rather have her than Obama as Prez.
Wow. :huh:
That's kinda scary. You seem so normal most of the time. Obama's not a brilliant president, but he's certainly the best president we've had since first-term Reagan, and Bachman would make Dubya look like Lincoln. Why it "goes without saying" that you want an even more dysfunctional country than we now have mystifies me. I guess some people are simply willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces.
I haven't decided if I would rather than a President Romney than a President Obama, but I definitely have decided about "President Bachman!" :lol:
Not that surprising. Wanting to destroy the country to save it has been a mainstream Republican position for some time now.
Quote from: grumbler on July 12, 2011, 12:05:20 PM
Wow. :huh:
That's kinda scary. You seem so normal most of the time.
Oh, come on. You guys know how far to the right I am.
QuoteObama's not a brilliant president, but he's certainly the best president we've had since first-term Reagan,
I think he's the worst we've had since Carter. I never thought we'd have a president that would make me miss Clinton this much.
Quoteand Bachman would make Dubya look like Lincoln. Why it "goes without saying" that you want an even more dysfunctional country than we now have mystifies me.
It should mystify you-- because I didn't say it. I don't fear a Bachmann presidency like you guys do. She's not my first choice, nor is she my second, third, etc. But I agree with her politically a lot more than I do Obama.
QuoteI guess some people are simply willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces.
I haven't decided if I would rather than a President Romney than a President Obama, but I definitely have decided about "President Bachman!" :lol:
Romney's my guy for now. I'd prefer someone else, maybe Pawlenty, but you gotta play the percentages for the general election.
Yeah. I'm also shocked at the idea that Obama was better than Clinton or Bush I.
Quote from: mongers on July 12, 2011, 03:20:19 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 12, 2011, 12:05:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 12, 2011, 11:40:32 AM
[ And it goes without saying that I'd rather have her than Obama as Prez.
Wow. :huh:
That's kinda scary. You seem so normal most of the time. Obama's not a brilliant president, but he's certainly the best president we've had since first-term Reagan, and Bachman would make Dubya look like Lincoln. Why it "goes without saying" that you want an even more dysfunctional country than we now have mystifies me. I guess some people are simply willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces.
.....
This bears repeating.
Wow, just Wow.
It will all make sense when you realize that modern day Republicans are all about being anti-rational. On pretty much any issue, there is a rational way to look at things, and then there is an opposite way to look at it, which would be the Republican way.
It's not like Republicans simply do not consider things rationally, that would mean that by luck they would be rational some of the time. What they're doing is rebelling against rationality, like teenagers rebelling against parents.
Quote from: derspiess on July 12, 2011, 03:17:09 PM
Oh, come on. You guys know how far to the right I am.
:ph34r:
Seems to me like your position is the equivalent of a lefty preferring Kucinich to McCain or Romney in the last election. It's not just of question of Left or Right. There are certain people who as a categorical matter should not be placed in a position of such power because they have demonstrated their incapability of acting responsibly. In that sense Kucinich and Bachman are more alike than Pawlenty and Bachman, and Obama and Pawlenty are more alike than either Kucinich and Bachman.
Right and Left are all fine and dandy; I'll admit to as much partisanship as the next guy. But America still comes first.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 12, 2011, 03:26:47 PM
But America still comes first.
Yeah, but pro-American America comes even firster.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/170987-mcconnell-fall-back-plan-that-leaves-debt-ceiling-hike-to-obama
QuoteMcConnell fall-back plan would leave debt-ceiling hikes to Obama
By Alexander Bolton - 07/12/11 03:07 PM ET
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday laid out a plan that puts the responsibility for increasing the debt limit squarely on President Obama.
McConnell has called for Congress to pass legislation authorizing Obama to make successive requests to increase the debt limit.
Under the legislation, Congress could only block those requests by passing resolutions of disapproval, which would have to be supported by two-thirds of both the Senate and House to overcome an expected presidential veto.
McConnell described his proposal as a "last choice option" to avoid a national default if Congress fails to otherwise agree to a compromise to raise the debt limit by Aug. 2, when the Treasury Department has warned it will run out of money to pay U.S. debts.
It would send a clear signal to the markets and the public that the nation will not default on its debt, which would boost interest rates and make mortgages, auto loans, credit cards and student loans more expensive.
It also would benefit Republicans politically by placing the responsibility for raising the debt limit almost entirely on Obama. The plan would allow Republicans in the Senate and House to vote en masse against raising the debt limit without causing a national economic catastrophe.
When asked if House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) had OK'd the Senate GOP's fall-back plan, McConnell told reporters Tuesday that he had had conversations with "others" about the subject.
Administration officials estimated they'd need to raise the debt limit by $2.4 trillion to take them into the late winter or spring of 2013, when Republicans may control both chambers of Congress and perhaps the White House if Obama loses re-election.
The legislation McConnell has proposed would require the president to make three requests to raise the debt limit by approximately $700 billion to $900 billion in three separate tranches between now and Election Day 2012.
The legislation also would require Obama to suggest spending cuts to accompany those increases in the debt limit, but would not require such cuts. The legislation would prohibit the president from recommending tax increases along with the requests to increase the debt limit.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday he was willing to examine and consider the new proposal.
"I am not about to trash his proposal," Reid said at a press conference held shortly after McConnell presented his plan. "It's something that I will look at. I will look at it intently, and I think [I am willing to look at any new ideas."
Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said he had "no idea" whether the proposal could pass the House.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters he had talked to McConnell but had not seen specific details of the plan.
McConnell presented his proposal to colleagues at a lunch meeting Tuesday afternoon.
Members of the Senate Tea Party Caucus left the meeting early and declined to comment on McConnell's plan.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said he preferred to focus on what he supports, namely the "cut, cap and balance" plan that would require Congress to pass a balanced-budget amendment before approving an increase in the debt limit.
Doesn't that plan defeat the whole purpose to limit big government, which is the bulk of the Tea Party's whole economic "ideology"? Yeah, give the Executive more power to increase the debt limit arbitrarily, especially when the Prez has has a Majority in Congress, that would mean less government and less federal involvement. :lmfao:
It's encouraging to see that some Republicans are finally starting to realize that they're playing a game of chicken with two locomotives and one track, and that an exit strategy that saves face is necessary.
Would you rather save your face or your ass?
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2011, 04:13:17 PM
It's encouraging to see that some Republicans are finally starting to realize that they're playing a game of chicken with two locomotives and one track, and that an exit strategy that saves face is necessary.
That's the problem with the chicken game: the first that budges loses face anyway, regardless of exit strategies.
Quote from: grumbler on July 12, 2011, 10:54:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2011, 09:00:57 AM
Even you wouldn't want someone is insane.
No, but I bet he hopes more people like Money decide that they don't give a shit any more. The more Democrats stay home, the more Republicans get elected.
I said I didn't give a shit anymore. I didn't say anything about no voting.
The way I see it, my vote cancels out Hansmeister's, and that's a extra-special pleasure all in itself.
Quote from: derspiess on July 12, 2011, 11:40:32 AM
And it goes without saying that I'd rather have her than Obama as Prez.
Strike my last post; my vote cancels out dergoof's.
Quote from: Drakken on July 12, 2011, 04:05:30 PM
McConnell fall-back plan would leave debt-ceiling hikes to Obama
Doesn't that plan defeat the whole purpose to limit big government, which is the bulk of the Tea Party's whole economic "ideology"? Yeah, give the Executive more power to increase the debt limit arbitrarily, especially when the Prez has has a Majority in Congress, that would mean less government and less federal involvement. :lmfao:
Their pinning their hopes that the American people believe that raising the debt ceiling is as big a deal as the GOP's making it out to be, like it's some sort of catastrophic paradigm-changer, and they can then blame the President for doing...something.
Either way, they think the key to 2012 is blaming the President. For jobs. For the deficit reduction. For raising the debt ceiling. Anything. Anything at all.
OK DGuller, I'm in. My 80 your 20.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2011, 04:50:07 PM
OK DGuller, I'm in. My 80 your 20.
D'oh, you dirty market timer. I was about to withdraw my offer, in light of the new developments.
Oh, well, I'll be the man of my word, the bet is on. I can't go too wrong betting on the insanity of Republicans.
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2011, 04:52:06 PM
D'oh, you dirty market timer. I was about to withdraw my offer, in light of the new developments.
Oh, well, I'll be the man of my word, the bet is on. I can't go too wrong betting on the insanity of Republicans.
What new developments are you talking about? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2011, 04:53:45 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2011, 04:52:06 PM
D'oh, you dirty market timer. I was about to withdraw my offer, in light of the new developments.
Oh, well, I'll be the man of my word, the bet is on. I can't go too wrong betting on the insanity of Republicans.
What new developments are you talking about? :huh:
McConnell probing for a way out of the Mexican standoff.
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2011, 05:04:09 PM
McConnell probing for a way out of the Mexican standoff.
:rolleyes: You're such a stereotypical shtetl haggler. Like that's going to change anything.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 12, 2011, 03:26:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 12, 2011, 03:17:09 PM
Oh, come on. You guys know how far to the right I am.
:ph34r:
Seems to me like your position is the equivalent of a lefty preferring Kucinich to McCain or Romney in the last election. It's not just of question of Left or Right. There are certain people who as a categorical matter should not be placed in a position of such power because they have demonstrated their incapability of acting responsibly. In that sense Kucinich and Bachman are more alike than Pawlenty and Bachman, and Obama and Pawlenty are more alike than either Kucinich and Bachman.
Right and Left are all fine and dandy; I'll admit to as much partisanship as the next guy. But America still comes first.
The Republican hatred of Obama is blinding all good sense. Fuck, they'd welcome a Chinese dictator before Obama. That's why they going on about light bulbs and other bullshit (even though Obama has nothing to do with it).
James K. Galbraith argues that there is in fact no actual crisis beyond that manufactured by political posturing, and that the Debt Ceiling is in fact unconstitional here: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/07/11/the_catastrophic_debt_ceilng_debate/index.html
Oh and here's my bet with Yi. The next Republican to win the Presidency will increase the deficit under his/her administration. If I am correct I get to have my way with his current girlfriend. If I'm wrong, I have to be Yi's personal assassin and kill one person of his choice.
Quote from: Jacob on July 12, 2011, 06:16:15 PM
James K. Galbraith argues that there is in fact no actual crisis beyond that manufactured by political posturing, and that the Debt Ceiling is in fact unconstitional here: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/07/11/the_catastrophic_debt_ceilng_debate/index.html
The argument about the 14th Amendment has been made elsewhere, and much, much better than this schmuck does. His airy dismissal of the debt is similarly unimpressive.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2011, 06:18:59 PM
Oh and here's my bet with Yi. The next Republican to win the Presidency will increase the deficit under his/her administration. If I am correct I get to have my way with his current girlfriend. If I'm wrong, I have to be Yi's personal assassin and kill one person of his choice.
In nominal terms, real terms, % of GDP, or % of government expenditure?
Quote from: Jacob on July 12, 2011, 06:16:15 PM
James K. Galbraith argues that there is in fact no actual crisis beyond that manufactured by political posturing, and that the Debt Ceiling is in fact unconstitional here: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/07/11/the_catastrophic_debt_ceilng_debate/index.html
From that:
Quote
Never mind that to force default on the public obligations of the United States is plainly unconstitutional. Section 4 of the 14th amendment says in simple language that public debts, once duly authorized by law and including pensions, by the way, "shall not be questioned." The purpose of this language was to foreclose, to put beyond politics, any possibility that the Union would renege on debts and pensions and bounties incurred to win the Civil War. But the application is very general and the courts have ruled that the principle extends to the present day.
What is going on in Congress at this moment already violates that mandate. It is an effort to subvert the authority of the government to meet and therefore to incur obligations of every possible stripe. It is an attack on the concept of government itself – as the "Tea Party" by its very name would no doubt agree. It therefore paints those deficit hawks who are using the debt ceiling to take budget hostages as enemies of the United States Constitution.
The President, though supposedly a constitutional expert and though sworn to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution, will not say this.
Maybe if the Constitutional Scholar President doesn't think it's true, you should doubt it also, Mr. Galbraith.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2011, 06:37:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2011, 06:18:59 PM
Oh and here's my bet with Yi. The next Republican to win the Presidency will increase the deficit under his/her administration. If I am correct I get to have my way with his current girlfriend. If I'm wrong, I have to be Yi's personal assassin and kill one person of his choice.
In nominal terms, real terms, % of GDP, or % of government expenditure?
I don't understand any of that. This could possibly be a problem.
I was hoping there would be a new different argument for the ceiling to be unconstitutional in that piece, but alas. I think McConnell's plan sounds much more unconstitutional to me, as it's sort of delegating part of the powers of the purse to the executive. Maybe not outright unconstitutional, but certainly making the separation of powers more squishy than intended. Wouldn't be the first time, but still. I think when the debt limit came in during the war, it was probably a way to allow the executive more leeway while still retaining ultimate spending power in the Congress. It is, in itself, a compromise on the constitutional intent. Again maybe not unconstitutional on those grounds, but...squishy.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 12, 2011, 07:59:25 PM
I was hoping there would be a new different argument for the ceiling to be unconstitutional in that piece, but alas. I think McConnell's plan sounds much more unconstitutional to me, as it's sort of delegating part of the powers of the purse to the executive. Maybe not outright unconstitutional, but certainly making the separation of powers more squishy than intended. Wouldn't be the first time, but still. I think when the debt limit came in during the war, it was probably a way to allow the executive more leeway while still retaining ultimate spending power in the Congress. It is, in itself, a compromise on the constitutional intent. Again maybe not unconstitutional on those grounds, but...squishy.
Doesn't matter; the President will do it, and the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional 5-4. Fuck it all.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2011, 07:55:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2011, 06:37:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2011, 06:18:59 PM
Oh and here's my bet with Yi. The next Republican to win the Presidency will increase the deficit under his/her administration. If I am correct I get to have my way with his current girlfriend. If I'm wrong, I have to be Yi's personal assassin and kill one person of his choice.
In nominal terms, real terms, % of GDP, or % of government expenditure?
I don't understand any of that. This could possibly be a problem.
Nominal = amount by simple numbers. 100 = 100.
Real = amount adjusted for inflation. 100 in 1950 != 100 in 2000.
% of GDP is just what it says.
% of government expenditure means that, if the deficit makes up 20% of current expenditure, but it rises to 30% of expenditure, then the deficit would be considered to have gone up even if spending went dramatically down (which would assume revenues did likewise).
I think I parsed that last one correctly.
So you down to buying guns and canned food now, Seedy?
I've got gold. Raz's favorite investment.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2011, 08:08:52 PM
So you down to buying guns and canned food now, Seedy?
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/index.asp
You tell them I'm coming, and Hell's coming with me.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 12, 2011, 04:32:36 PM
Quote from: Drakken on July 12, 2011, 04:05:30 PM
McConnell fall-back plan would leave debt-ceiling hikes to Obama
Doesn't that plan defeat the whole purpose to limit big government, which is the bulk of the Tea Party's whole economic "ideology"? Yeah, give the Executive more power to increase the debt limit arbitrarily, especially when the Prez has has a Majority in Congress, that would mean less government and less federal involvement. :lmfao:
Their pinning their hopes that the American people believe that raising the debt ceiling is as big a deal as the GOP's making it out to be, like it's some sort of catastrophic paradigm-changer, and they can then blame the President for doing...something.
Either way, they think the key to 2012 is blaming the President. For jobs. For the deficit reduction. For raising the debt ceiling. Anything. Anything at all.
More than anything that has gone before, it shows the Republicans to be nothing more than partisan hostages to the tea party that don't really want anything to do with actually governing. This would just mean that they effectively cave on the debt limit, but can pin all the debt increases on Obama and don't have to defend their debt limit votes to their know nothing base.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 12, 2011, 08:11:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2011, 08:08:52 PM
So you down to buying guns and canned food now, Seedy?
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/index.asp
You tell them I'm coming, and Hell's coming with me.
:lol:
You do realize that there's a clause in the Canadian Pledge of Allegiance about football having only 3 downs, right?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 12, 2011, 07:59:25 PM
I was hoping there would be a new different argument for the ceiling to be unconstitutional in that piece, but alas. I think McConnell's plan sounds much more unconstitutional to me, as it's sort of delegating part of the powers of the purse to the executive. Maybe not outright unconstitutional, but certainly making the separation of powers more squishy than intended. Wouldn't be the first time, but still. I think when the debt limit came in during the war, it was probably a way to allow the executive more leeway while still retaining ultimate spending power in the Congress. It is, in itself, a compromise on the constitutional intent. Again maybe not unconstitutional on those grounds, but...squishy.
MIM, there is nothing in the constitution about needing a debt limit. Congress passes appropriations, and the Executive spends them. Maybe it is unconstitutional to let the president set a debt limit (theoretically he could refuse to increase it, and just not spend on the programs he doesn't like, creating a back door line item veto), but I would think the remedy would be to toss the whole debt limit out.
Quote from: Jacob on July 12, 2011, 06:16:15 PM
James K. Galbraith argues that there is in fact no actual crisis beyond that manufactured by political posturing, and that the Debt Ceiling is in fact unconstitional here: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/07/11/the_catastrophic_debt_ceilng_debate/index.html
I've read some rather convincing take downs of that argument. Maybe there is something to the idea that if the debt ceiling isn't increased we will still have to make debt payments from our current revenues, but that doesn't mean people are going to keep getting their medicare (and actually would make it less likely they get their medicare).
Maybe a real lawyer could chime in.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2011, 06:26:51 PMThe argument about the 14th Amendment has been made elsewhere, and much, much better than this schmuck does. His airy dismissal of the debt is similarly unimpressive.
"Shtetl haggler" and now "schmuck" - what's with all the Yiddishisims? Is the Yi in your name short for Yiddisher?
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 08:18:05 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 12, 2011, 08:11:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2011, 08:08:52 PM
So you down to buying guns and canned food now, Seedy?
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/index.asp
You tell them I'm coming, and Hell's coming with me.
:lol:
You do realize that there's a clause in the Canadian Pledge of Allegiance about football having only 3 downs, right?
SON OF A
QuoteLanguage abilities
Canada has two official languages—English and French. You need to have adequate knowledge of one of these two languages in order to become a Canadian citizen.
The citizenship knowledge test and your interaction with CIC staff will be used to assess if you have an adequate ability to communicate in either English or French. CIC staff will observe
* your ability to understand basic spoken statements and questions, and
* your ability to communicate basic information or respond to questions.
For example, as part of your interaction with departmental staff or as part of your written test or your interview with a citizenship judge, you will be expected to:
* answer simple questions on familiar topics, using short sentences;
* show that you know enough words for basic everyday communication;
* tell a simple story about everyday activities;
* speak about something you did in the past (or will do in the future);
* give simple everyday instructions and directions; and
* express satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
I wish we had that.
Your immigrants are all illegal anyways, so it wouldn't matter what sorts of laws you make.
Quote from: derspiess on July 12, 2011, 03:17:09 PM
I think he's the worst we've had since Carter. I never thought we'd have a president that would make me miss Clinton this much.
He's a complete Clinton clone, if there's any difference he's further to the right.
Quote from: derspiess on July 12, 2011, 03:17:09 PM
It should mystify you-- because I didn't say it. I don't fear a Bachmann presidency like you guys do. She's not my first choice, nor is she my second, third, etc. But I agree with her politically a lot more than I do Obama.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/
You agree with lies?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 12, 2011, 09:33:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 12, 2011, 03:17:09 PM
It should mystify you-- because I didn't say it. I don't fear a Bachmann presidency like you guys do. She's not my first choice, nor is she my second, third, etc. But I agree with her politically a lot more than I do Obama.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/
You agree with lies?
He does get his news from Breitbart, a blog site that alters videos to serve their purposes.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 12, 2011, 09:31:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 12, 2011, 03:17:09 PM
I think he's the worst we've had since Carter. I never thought we'd have a president that would make me miss Clinton this much.
He's a complete Clinton clone, if there's any difference he's further to the right.
Republicans hated Clinton so much they blew up a federal building.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2011, 09:53:33 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 12, 2011, 09:31:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 12, 2011, 03:17:09 PM
I think he's the worst we've had since Carter. I never thought we'd have a president that would make me miss Clinton this much.
He's a complete Clinton clone, if there's any difference he's further to the right.
Republicans hated Clinton so much they blew up a federal building.
I don't think that was the Republican Party.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 12, 2011, 08:20:52 PM
MIM, there is nothing in the constitution about needing a debt limit.
I know. I think it's unnecessary to have it at all. And I don't like the idea of it if it's intended as a method for the Congress to devolve some of their powers to the executive. The McConnell thing goes farther in that direction. That's why I have distaste for it.
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 09:56:35 PM
I don't think that was the Republican Party.
McVeigh was a registered Republican, though he was leaning toward Libertarian.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2011, 10:16:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 09:56:35 PM
I don't think that was the Republican Party.
McVeigh was a registered Republican, though he was leaning toward Libertarian.
So what? When a black person robs someone, they are robbed by a black person, not the Democratic Party.
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 10:46:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2011, 10:16:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 09:56:35 PM
I don't think that was the Republican Party.
McVeigh was a registered Republican, though he was leaning toward Libertarian.
So what? When a black person robs someone, they are robbed by a black person, not the Democratic Party.
How many black robbers are actually involved in politics enough to be registered?
Quote from: Fate on July 13, 2011, 08:18:37 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 10:46:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2011, 10:16:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 09:56:35 PM
I don't think that was the Republican Party.
McVeigh was a registered Republican, though he was leaning toward Libertarian.
So what? When a black person robs someone, they are robbed by a black person, not the Democratic Party.
How many black robbers are actually involved in politics enough to be registered?
Presumably all of them. Blacks are still driven by machine politics.
Still, it doesn't matter. When someone commits a criminal act, it's a stain on their personal honour and not that of their political party, especially in a country like the US where there are only two political parties.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 12, 2011, 04:27:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 12, 2011, 11:40:32 AM
And it goes without saying that I'd rather have her than Obama as Prez.
Strike my last post; my vote cancels out dergoof's.
Joke's on you, then. My wife will vote as I tell her, so you need to come up with another vote to cancel out my two :contract:
Quote from: Fate on July 13, 2011, 08:18:37 AM
How many black robbers are actually involved in politics enough to be registered?
Ask someone from ACORN. I'm sure they'll give you the lowdown.
Quote from: derspiess on July 13, 2011, 08:59:33 AM
Quote from: Fate on July 13, 2011, 08:18:37 AM
How many black robbers are actually involved in politics enough to be registered?
Ask someone from ACORN. I'm sure they'll give you the lowdown.
You still believe that conspiracy shit, even after the videos were found to be edited? :lol:
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 10:46:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2011, 10:16:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 09:56:35 PM
I don't think that was the Republican Party.
McVeigh was a registered Republican, though he was leaning toward Libertarian.
So what? When a black person robs someone, they are robbed by a black person, not the Democratic Party.
It was a political act. Robbing someone is not a political act.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 12, 2011, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 12, 2011, 09:31:20 PM
He's a complete Clinton clone,
You're a putz.
Does that offend you as a Clinton voter or as an Obama voter? :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 09:05:44 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 13, 2011, 08:59:33 AM
Quote from: Fate on July 13, 2011, 08:18:37 AM
How many black robbers are actually involved in politics enough to be registered?
Ask someone from ACORN. I'm sure they'll give you the lowdown.
You still believe that conspiracy shit, even after the videos were found to be edited? :lol:
I wasn't talking about the videos.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 12, 2011, 08:25:30 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 12, 2011, 06:16:15 PM
James K. Galbraith argues that there is in fact no actual crisis beyond that manufactured by political posturing, and that the Debt Ceiling is in fact unconstitional here: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/07/11/the_catastrophic_debt_ceilng_debate/index.html
I've read some rather convincing take downs of that argument. Maybe there is something to the idea that if the debt ceiling isn't increased we will still have to make debt payments from our current revenues, but that doesn't mean people are going to keep getting their medicare (and actually would make it less likely they get their medicare).
Maybe a real lawyer could chime in.
I don't think the 14th amendment argument makes a lot of sense.
However, it does seems to me that if Congress does the following:
1) Directs expenditure of money
2) Refuses to raise revenues sufficient to support those expenditures, and
3) Refuses to authorize issuance of debt,
then it has created a fundamental logical contradiction for the Executive, which has the duty to carry out the laws faithfully. The Executive can't do all three of those things; it must take some action that is inconsistent with its obligations. The discussion to date in the media seems to presume that the only way to resolve the problem is for the Executive to repudiate its obligations at least in part with respect to Item 1. But it is less than clear to me why it is OK to flaunt laws directing expenditure of money but not those directing limits on authorized debt. All the laws stand in equal dignity. Thus, if Congress has acted in a way as to force the Executive to break some directive, then it seems to me the Executive should be able to exercise its discretion about which directive to bend.
Quote from: derspiess on July 13, 2011, 09:09:49 AM
I wasn't talking about the videos.
Which conspiracy were you thinking of?
Probably the same one that convinces you that McVeigh was under orders from the RNC.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 09:57:50 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 13, 2011, 09:09:49 AM
I wasn't talking about the videos.
Which conspiracy were you thinking of?
The ones they pled guilty to ;)
You mean where they got fined 5,000? Wow. That's something to get worked up about.
:lol:
Here's a funny idea:
http://pragcap.com/lets-end-this-debt-ceiling-debate-with-a-1-oz-1t-coin
Quote
"No, Tsy isn't authorized to just "print" money, the Federal Reserve Act gives that power to the Fed, However, the Coinage Act grants the Secretary of the Treasury rather broad coin seigniorage authority. Geithner could sidestep the debt ceiling this afternoon by ordering the West Point Mint to coin a 1 oz. $ 1 trillion coin. Tsy can then present the jumbo coins at the NY Fed to buy back $1 trillion in Fed-held debt (the Fed has to accept it, a creditor can't refuse legal tender paid in to settle a debt):
(h) The coins issued under this title shall be legal tender... (k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, may prescribe from time to time."
Interesting argument Joan.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 09:06:29 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 10:46:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2011, 10:16:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 09:56:35 PM
I don't think that was the Republican Party.
McVeigh was a registered Republican, though he was leaning toward Libertarian.
So what? When a black person robs someone, they are robbed by a black person, not the Democratic Party.
It was a political act. Robbing someone is not a political act.
I don't think that's important.
Still, if you want to go that way, should every Democrat be considered a traitor because of Alger Hiss?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 13, 2011, 09:13:23 AM
I don't think the 14th amendment argument makes a lot of sense.
However, it does seems to me that if Congress does the following:
1) Directs expenditure of money
2) Refuses to raise revenues sufficient to support those expenditures, and
3) Refuses to authorize issuance of debt,
then it has created a fundamental logical contradiction for the Executive, which has the duty to carry out the laws faithfully. The Executive can't do all three of those things; it must take some action that is inconsistent with its obligations. The discussion to date in the media seems to presume that the only way to resolve the problem is for the Executive to repudiate its obligations at least in part with respect to Item 1. But it is less than clear to me why it is OK to flaunt laws directing expenditure of money but not those directing limits on authorized debt. All the laws stand in equal dignity. Thus, if Congress has acted in a way as to force the Executive to break some directive, then it seems to me the Executive should be able to exercise its discretion about which directive to bend.
Should they just sue Congress then? Or is the Supreme Court so full of Republican creatures that it wouldn't be helpful?
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 07:40:29 PM
I don't think that's important.
Still, if you want to go that way, should every Democrat be considered a traitor because of Alger Hiss?
I believe that was the thrust of McCarthy's arguments.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2011, 07:48:10 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 07:40:29 PM
I don't think that's important.
Still, if you want to go that way, should every Democrat be considered a traitor because of Alger Hiss?
I believe that was the thrust of McCarthy's arguments.
If you choose to support your reasoning process by claiming McCarthy, then perhaps you should rethink your viewpoint.
Moreover, when I disagree with you, you should know right away that you are wrong.
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 07:40:29 PM
Still, if you want to go that way, should every Democrat be considered a traitor because of Alger Hiss?
Why not; every Republican should be considered a tyrannical despot that eschews the rule of law because of Richard Nixon.
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 09:22:17 PM
Moreover, when I disagree with you, you should know right away that you are wrong.
You're not even a real person! You're a Canadian.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2011, 10:13:46 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 07:40:29 PM
Still, if you want to go that way, should every Democrat be considered a traitor because of Alger Hiss?
Why not; every Republican should be considered a tyrannical despot that eschews the rule of law because of Richard Nixon.
It's that sort of talk that makes me happy to think that you'll soon be having to bend your knee to President Bachmann.
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 10:41:09 PM
It's that sort of talk that makes me happy to think that you'll soon be having to bend your knee to President Bachmann.
Dude, if Bachmann becomes POTUSA, it's more likely to be bending at the
waist and facing away from her.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 13, 2011, 10:42:51 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 10:41:09 PM
It's that sort of talk that makes me happy to think that you'll soon be having to bend your knee to President Bachmann.
Dude, if Bachmann becomes POTUSA, it's more likely to be bending at the waist and facing away from her.
Either way, Money will pay for his slander.
It's funny how a Federal Tax at 4% would mostly fix all these problems within a decade. Yet, there's no political will to actually fix the situation.
"...under the weight of its own internal contradictions" I said some time ago. It's been sagging for while but now it's becoming visible. :P
G.
I think you also said we would have rounded up and gassed all Muslims in the country by now too.
Who is Ezra Klein? And where is he on the political spectrum, not to mention the credibility spectrum?
I found this piece of his interesting: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-white-houses-case-for-a-big-deficit-deal/2011/07/14/gIQAdj4AEI_blog.html?wprss=ezra-klein
Quote from: Ezra KleinTo put all this slightly differently, White House officials believe a big deficit reduction deal would do them enough good, both politically and economically, that it's worth making very significant compromises on the details of that deal. If you thought getting to $4 trillion in deficit reduction was a Republican goal, you're wrong. It's the White House's goal, and the only reason it might not happen is Republicans won't let them do it.
As I write in my Bloomberg column today, the Republican Party has taken the exact opposite position as the administration: A deal won't help them politically, and they don't actually care about the deficit all that much, and so they're much more interested in resisting compromises on the details than passing a big debt-reduction package. Put those two positions together and it's pretty easy to see how the deal has moved so far to the right, and also why it'll be very hard to close.
What do you guys think?
It's a great piece except for the part you quoted. :P
Many GOP members may not care about deficit reduction, but a majority probably do. More importantly, their constituencies very much do. Even if they wanted not to reduce the deficit, it's a politically impossible position for them to take.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 14, 2011, 05:34:04 PM
It's a great piece except for the part you quoted. :P
Many GOP members may not care about deficit reduction, but a majority probably do. More importantly, their constituencies very much do. Even if they wanted not to reduce the deficit, it's a politically impossible position for them to take.
I would put it somewhat cynically as follows: the Republicans are calculating that, if the economy tanks because no deal is reached, it will harm the current president and not them.
Quote from: Malthus on July 14, 2011, 05:49:24 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 14, 2011, 05:34:04 PM
It's a great piece except for the part you quoted. :P
Many GOP members may not care about deficit reduction, but a majority probably do. More importantly, their constituencies very much do. Even if they wanted not to reduce the deficit, it's a politically impossible position for them to take.
I would put it somewhat cynically as follows: the Republicans are calculating that, if the economy tanks because no deal is reached, it will harm the current president and not them.
Not only that, but the stick to go with that carrot is that if they do cave in without getting a big concession, their voters will crucify them.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 14, 2011, 05:34:04 PM
Many GOP members may not care about deficit reduction, but a majority probably do. More importantly, their constituencies very much do. Even if they wanted not to reduce the deficit, it's a politically impossible position for them to take.
I doubt they actually do care. Most of them wouldn't know about it if the GOP machine wasn't ginning them up. When the GOP stops talking about the deficit then it's voters will stop caring. You know, like the last time.
So when will the US go bankrupt? Is it the first of August or the second? :hmm:
Oh, and the entire Rebublican party should be taken out back and shot in the back of the head. Let Canada annex the whole failed state.
Quote from: Grallon on July 14, 2011, 07:48:56 AM
"...under the weight of its own internal contradictions"
I asked you then what the internal contradictions were, don't recall receiving an answer.
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 07:45:49 PM
Should they just sue Congress then? Or is the Supreme Court so full of Republican creatures that it wouldn't be helpful?
Unlikely the Supreme Court would hear the merits; they would probably pass on it as a political question between two coordinate branches.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2011, 07:24:21 PM
I doubt they actually do care. Most of them wouldn't know about it if the GOP machine wasn't ginning them up. When the GOP stops talking about the deficit then it's voters will stop caring. You know, like the last time.
There's a point where we're all gonna have to care.
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2011, 10:43:21 AM
There's a point where we're all gonna have to care.
Before or after the US goes bankrupt? :yeahright:
-----
See Minsk, Derspiess here expresses one of the contradictions I was referring to: he wishes his fellow Americans would "care" but he, like so many so called 'conservatives', refuses to raise the taxes necessary to bring in more revenues. In other words he wants to eat his cake and keep it.
G.
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2011, 10:43:21 AMThere's a point where we're all gonna have to care.
But is 65% of the GDP net indebtedness (from the Economist, who characterizes that level as "perfectly affordable) really that point in time? And if you care about the deficit so mortally, why does "no increase in revenue at all" become the line in the sand?
Again looking at the Economist, earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that a 85%-15% split beteen spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations according to historical evidence. The White House was last offering an 83%-17% split.
Quote from: Jacob on July 15, 2011, 12:34:23 PM
But is 65% of the GDP net indebtedness (from the Economist, who characterizes that level as "perfectly affordable) really that point in time? And if you care about the deficit so mortally, why does "no increase in revenue at all" become the line in the sand?
GOP House members would have to go back on their pledges not to increase taxes. IIRC, doing so hurt a certain GOP politician back in the early 90s. Not to mention that tax increases are likely to fall disproportionately (or exclusively) on the backs of the more productive elements of society, and that's not exactly a smart way to get the economy back on track.
Spending is a much bigger part of the problem IMO, and until I see the Dems being serious about serious cuts in spending, I'd rather the GOP keep tax increases off the table. We could eliminate the deficit without any tax increases (the outstanding debt is another issue, of course).
I realize that a tax increase of some sort may be necessary as a long-term solution to pay down debt. But short-term, I don't want the GOP to budge in the current battle. Get spending under control, and then we'll talk taxes.
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2011, 12:51:43 PM
Not to mention that tax increases are likely to fall disproportionately (or exclusively) on the backs of the more productive elements of society, and that's not exactly a smart way to get the economy back on track.
:bleeding: Is "more productive elements of society" the new Republican bumper sticker slogan to justify tax cuts?
Quote
Spending is a much bigger part of the problem IMO, and until I see the Dems being serious about serious cuts in spending, I'd rather the GOP keep tax increases off the table. We could eliminate the deficit without any tax increases (the outstanding debt is another issue, of course).
I realize that a tax increase of some sort may be necessary as a long-term solution to pay down debt. But short-term, I don't want the GOP to budge in the current battle. Get spending under control, and then we'll talk taxes.
Like all uncritical GOP faithful, you seem to ignore the little inconvenient fact that current deficits to a large degree were caused by tax receipts falling through the floor.
QuoteGOP House members would have to go back on their pledges not to increase taxes. IIRC, doing so hurt a certain GOP politician back in the early 90s. Not to mention that tax increases are likely to fall disproportionately (or exclusively) on the backs of the more productive elements of society, and that's not exactly a smart way to get the economy back on track.
Yeah, if we cut that corporate jet tax break, companies will hire even fewer people and unemployment will go through the roof.
Quote from: Grallon on July 15, 2011, 12:24:08 PM
See Minsk, Derspiess here expresses one of the contradictions I was referring to: he wishes his fellow Americans would "care" but he, like so many so called 'conservatives', refuses to raise the taxes necessary to bring in more revenues. In other words he wants to eat his cake and keep it.
I would agree that there are individuals who hold to views about the budget that are contradictory.
But that is a little different from talking about systemic internal contradictions in the Marxian sense.
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2011, 12:51:43 PM
GOP House members would have to go back on their pledges not to increase taxes. IIRC, doing so hurt a certain GOP politician back in the early 90s.
What people forget is that Bush was right on that issue back then (just as he was right on the response to the S&L crisis). Bush 41 helped lay the foundations for the economic expanision of the 90s yet he is viewed with contempt in his own camp for those same actions. And that points to the deep ideological rot that afflicts the present day GOP.
QuoteSpending is a much bigger part of the problem IMO
The US is raising between 15-16% of its GDP in the form of federal revenue. Query how does one run a defense establishment in excess of 5% of GDP, plus any pension or health care program plus all the rest of domestic spending plus the state block grants (without which state taxes must increase) at that revenue level.?
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2011, 12:51:43 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 15, 2011, 12:34:23 PM
But is 65% of the GDP net indebtedness (from the Economist, who characterizes that level as "perfectly affordable) really that point in time? And if you care about the deficit so mortally, why does "no increase in revenue at all" become the line in the sand?
GOP House members would have to go back on their pledges not to increase taxes. IIRC, doing so hurt a certain GOP politician back in the early 90s. Not to mention that tax increases are likely to fall disproportionately (or exclusively) on the backs of the more productive elements of society, and that's not exactly a smart way to get the economy back on track.
Spending is a much bigger part of the problem IMO, and until I see the Dems being serious about serious cuts in spending, I'd rather the GOP keep tax increases off the table. We could eliminate the deficit without any tax increases (the outstanding debt is another issue, of course).
I realize that a tax increase of some sort may be necessary as a long-term solution to pay down debt. But short-term, I don't want the GOP to budge in the current battle. Get spending under control, and then we'll talk taxes.
But it seems rather unlikely democrats in congress and the President will agree to massive cuts in spending unless packaged together with some tax increases.
"Give me what I want now, and we'll talk about what you want later" is rarely an effective negotiating strategy.
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2011, 12:59:14 PM
Like all uncritical GOP faithful, you seem to ignore the little inconvenient fact that current deficits to a large degree were caused by tax receipts falling through the floor.
...which were to a large degree caused by the recession.
And I'm not uncritical of the GOP. I've criticized the party leadership before & I'm sure I'll do it again. In fact, it's almost guaranteed that I'll have something critical to say about them soon re: the budget battle.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2011, 01:46:33 PM
What people forget is that Bush was right on that issue back then (just as he was right on the response to the S&L crisis). Bush 41 helped lay the foundations for the economic expanision of the 90s yet he is viewed with contempt in his own camp for those same actions. And that points to the deep ideological rot that afflicts the present day GOP.
No-- grumbler reminds us about that every chance he gets :)
Quote
The US is raising between 15-16% of its GDP in the form of federal revenue. Query how does one run a defense establishment in excess of 5% of GDP, plus any pension or health care program plus all the rest of domestic spending plus the state block grants (without which state taxes must increase) at that revenue level.?
You don't. Cuts are needed across the board, defense included.
I wouldn't mind reducing block grants and making the states make up the difference. The states can't run a deficit, so it wouldn't all become debt.
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2011, 02:10:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2011, 12:59:14 PM
Like all uncritical GOP faithful, you seem to ignore the little inconvenient fact that current deficits to a large degree were caused by tax receipts falling through the floor.
...which were to a large degree caused by the recession.
...but to an even larger degree were caused by tax cuts.
With the G Fund and the CSRDF now drained, there is only one thing left: The Exchange Stabilization Fund
http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1243.aspx
Quote
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury released the following statement from Jeffrey Goldstein, Under Secretary for Domestic Finance, regarding the use of the last of the four previously announced measures available to keep our nation under the statutory debt limit, suspension of reinvestment of the Exchange Stabilization Fund.
"Today, as previously announced, the Treasury Department will suspend reinvestment of the Exchange Stabilization Fund, the last of the measures available to keep the nation under the statutory debt limit. In order to prevent a default on the nation's obligations, Congress must enact a timely increase of the debt ceiling."
The U.S. reached the debt limit on May 16, 2011, but the Treasury Department has employed three previous measures to temporarily extend our ability to meet the nation's obligations. Those measures, in order taken, are (1) suspending issuance of State and Local Government Series (SLGS) Treasury securities; (2) declaring a "debt issuance suspension period" of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF); and (3) suspending reinvestment of the Government Securities Investment Fund (G Fund).
As previously stated in the May, June, and July monthly updates, taken altogether, these four extraordinary measures allow the Treasury to extend borrowing authority until August 2, 2011.
Prepare for volatility!!!!!!11
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 15, 2011, 04:18:23 PM
With the G Fund and the CSRDF now drained, there is only one thing left: The Exchange Stabilization Fund
http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1243.aspx
Quote
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury released the following statement from Jeffrey Goldstein, Under Secretary for Domestic Finance, regarding the use of the last of the four previously announced measures available to keep our nation under the statutory debt limit, suspension of reinvestment of the Exchange Stabilization Fund.
"Today, as previously announced, the Treasury Department will suspend reinvestment of the Exchange Stabilization Fund, the last of the measures available to keep the nation under the statutory debt limit. In order to prevent a default on the nation's obligations, Congress must enact a timely increase of the debt ceiling."
The U.S. reached the debt limit on May 16, 2011, but the Treasury Department has employed three previous measures to temporarily extend our ability to meet the nation's obligations. Those measures, in order taken, are (1) suspending issuance of State and Local Government Series (SLGS) Treasury securities; (2) declaring a "debt issuance suspension period" of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF); and (3) suspending reinvestment of the Government Securities Investment Fund (G Fund).
As previously stated in the May, June, and July monthly updates, taken altogether, these four extraordinary measures allow the Treasury to extend borrowing authority until August 2, 2011.
Prepare for volatility!!!!!!11
You could call this whole crisis the Yakuza theory of economic policy, cutting off individual fingers to prove just how hard you are.
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2011, 12:51:43 PM
GOP House members would have to go back on their pledges not to increase taxes. IIRC, doing so hurt a certain GOP politician back in the early 90s. Not to mention that tax increases are likely to fall disproportionately (or exclusively) on the backs of the more productive elements of society, and that's not exactly a smart way to get the economy back on track.
Revenues as a proportion of GDP is at its lowest in at least 40 years, while unemployment was just at its highest. That "guvmnt renevoos harm the economy" dog just won't hunt. We need to increase revenues enough to get us back to the realm of high employment. Many Republicans refuse to restore prosperity, because they made a silly promise not to do the things that have restored prosperity in the past. I think it is time for the Republicans in the House to start caring more about their country and less about the embarrassment of having to concede that their promises were silly and shortsighted and self-serving and unpatriotic.
Quote from: grumbler on July 15, 2011, 06:13:48 PM
Revenues as a proportion of GDP is at its lowest in at least 40 years, while unemployment was just at its highest. That "guvmnt renevoos harm the economy" dog just won't hunt. We need to increase revenues enough to get us back to the realm of high employment. Many Republicans refuse to restore prosperity, because they made a silly promise not to do the things that have restored prosperity in the past. I think it is time for the Republicans in the House to start caring more about their country and less about the embarrassment of having to concede that their promises were silly and shortsighted and self-serving and unpatriotic.
Exactly. The notion of these Tea Baggers running around waving the American flag when their ideological stubborness and political gamesmanship are destroying their economy , would be laughable, if it was funny.
Quote from: grumbler on July 15, 2011, 06:13:48 PM
Revenues as a proportion of GDP is at its lowest in at least 40 years, while unemployment was just at its highest. That "guvmnt renevoos harm the economy" dog just won't hunt. We need to increase revenues enough to get us back to the realm of high employment. Many Republicans refuse to restore prosperity, because they made a silly promise not to do the things that have restored prosperity in the past. I think it is time for the Republicans in the House to start caring more about their country and less about the embarrassment of having to concede that their promises were silly and shortsighted and self-serving and unpatriotic.
So... raising taxes = more jobs? Also, I like how you played the patriotism card there. So anyone who disagrees with you on economic policy is unpatriotic?
Quote from: Josephus on July 15, 2011, 06:36:03 PM
Exactly. The notion of these Tea Baggers running around waving the American flag when their ideological stubborness and political gamesmanship are destroying their economy , would be laughable, if it was funny.
Honest question: do you hold the Dems and Obama responsible for
their stubbornness?
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2011, 07:03:51 PM
Honest question: do you hold the Dems and Obama responsible for their stubbornness?
I was very much until Obama came up with 4 and change large package with the cuts to SocSec (assuming they weren't just smoke and mirrors...stat) and Cantor pulled an Arafat.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 12, 2011, 08:25:30 PM
I've read some rather convincing take downs of that argument. Maybe there is something to the idea that if the debt ceiling isn't increased we will still have to make debt payments from our current revenues, but that doesn't mean people are going to keep getting their medicare (and actually would make it less likely they get their medicare).
Maybe a real lawyer could chime in.
We would almost certainly continue to make our debt payments if the debt ceiling wasn't increased.
Without an inability to issue more debt, next month we'd bring in about $200bn. We have budgeted more than $300bn. Some stuff will not get paid, but here is how it could break down:
Interest on the Debt: $29bn - I argue this would definitely be paid, the Constitution more or less says we have to pay our debts for one and the government deciderers are very serious about it in any case.
Social Security Payments: $49.2bn - Old people wouldn't be able to buy groceries or anything else for the month, these checks will definitely go out.
Medicare & Medicaid: $50bn - I would argue these expenses will also be "definites", just because the government wouldn't let people go without treatment. However, it is possible the government could issue "Medicare & Medicaid" "coupons" to health care providers which are redeemable at some later date for cash--essentially IOUs. It's not as crazy as it sounds, very few healthcare providers get paid right away in any case, they are used to waiting for receivables and the assumption is the IOUs would be paid back relatively quickly. But even assuming they just pay this expense in cash we still have only spent $128.2bn of our $200bn.
Active Duty Troop Pay: $2.9bn - Most of this would be paid, and politically I'd be shocked if less than 100% of it were paid. Logically you could probably tell soldiers overseas they won't be receiving pay checks until this clears up, instead they will receive IOUs that will be converted to real money later on. Deployed soldiers are some of the ones who are least likely to actually need their regular pay check to survive. They will still have food, shelter without it and real money could be disbursed for soldiers with dependents who could demonstrate hardship. Nonetheless, it's still only $2.9bn for the whole thing and politically I'd be shocked if it wasn't paid.
Food Stamps and Welfare: $9.3bn - Would almost definitely be paid, Treasury won't let people starve.
Unemployment Benefits: $12.8bn - Would almost definitely be paid. I'm basically working under the assumptions any program that pays out benefits that constitute the majority of a regular American's income or provides them food or housing will almost definitely be paid before they pay people like me to come in and ride a desk or they buy a bunch of new planes from Boeing.
That puts us at $153.2bn so we have about $46.8bn to spend divvy it up between the following parties:
Veterans Affairs Programs - $2.9bn budgeted
Defense Vendors - $31.7bn budgeted
IRS Refunds - $3.9bn owed
Department of Ed. - $20.2bn budgeted
Housing and Urban Dev. - $6.7bn
Other Spending - $73.6bn - Essentially all other Federal agencies/functions
I'm not sure which of those gets shafted the most, probably the Defense Vendors who would probably get IOUs and Other Spending who would only get a portion of what was budgeted. From the Other Spending category we would keep any Federal law enforcement going, Prisons, Air Traffic Controllers, and the like. Most everyone else would close down (Commerce, Labor, large portions of civilian DoD, large portions of EPA, large portions of Dept. of Justice outside of LEOs.)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2011, 07:06:35 PM
I was very much until Obama came up with 4 and change large package with the cuts to SocSec (assuming they weren't just smoke and mirrors...stat) and Cantor pulled an Arafat.
Yup. I was on a long road trip for work when I heard Obama talking about being willing to make cuts to sacred cows and he even mentioned that in a compromise everyone has to give up something they want. Commentators were going on and on about how this meant that behind the scenes some members of the GOP had agreed to tax increases. Then Cantor goes off the deep end, he's actually my congressman by the way and I had never before regretted voting for him, but he's coming off as fucking insane now.
It's fine and reasonable to oppose taxes tax hikes
generally but it is unreasonable to say "not a cent more in taxes under any circumstances" especially when it comes with dramatic reductions in spending.
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2011, 07:03:51 PM
Quote from: Josephus on July 15, 2011, 06:36:03 PM
Exactly. The notion of these Tea Baggers running around waving the American flag when their ideological stubborness and political gamesmanship are destroying their economy , would be laughable, if it was funny.
Honest question: do you hold the Dems and Obama responsible for their stubbornness?
Well, no. I think Obama has been fairly pliable and hasn't been so ideological. Look how he has refused to end the Bush tax cuts, for one. In this particular case it seems as though he's trying to put some compromises on the table, isn't he? Honest question.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2011, 07:26:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2011, 07:06:35 PM
I was very much until Obama came up with 4 and change large package with the cuts to SocSec (assuming they weren't just smoke and mirrors...stat) and Cantor pulled an Arafat.
Yup. I was on a long road trip for work when I heard Obama talking about being willing to make cuts to sacred cows and he even mentioned that in a compromise everyone has to give up something they want. Commentators were going on and on about how this meant that behind the scenes some members of the GOP had agreed to tax increases. Then Cantor goes off the deep end, he's actually my congressman by the way and I had never before regretted voting for him, but he's coming off as fucking insane now.
It's fine and reasonable to oppose taxes tax hikes generally but it is unreasonable to say "not a cent more in taxes under any circumstances" especially when it comes with dramatic reductions in spending.
Are your saying this tea party virus is now infecting regular conservative congressmen as well ? :unsure:
Quote from: Josephus on July 15, 2011, 07:31:32 PM
Well, no. I think Obama has been fairly pliable and hasn't been so ideological. Look how he has refused to end the Bush tax cuts, for one. In this particular case it seems as though he's trying to put some compromises on the table, isn't he? Honest question.
:lol: Dude, the guy campaigned on not raising taxes on people earning less than 200K. That was his initiative, not theirs.
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2011, 07:02:43 PM
So... raising taxes = more jobs?
Probably. Revenue, plus cutting spending. That's what the Republicans concluded last year. This year, they seem to be concluding that last year's Republicans were morons.
QuoteAlso, I like how you played the patriotism card there. So anyone who disagrees with you on economic policy is unpatriotic?
It is called the "bullshit rhetoric" card, and yes, I deliberately played it and, yes, it was bullshit. The difference between your bullshit rhetoric and mine is that I
admit when my rhetoric is bullshit. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2011, 07:06:35 PM
and Cantor pulled an Arafat.
A brilliant analogy. Kudos to you, sir.
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2011, 07:03:51 PM
Quote from: Josephus on July 15, 2011, 06:36:03 PM
Exactly. The notion of these Tea Baggers running around waving the American flag when their ideological stubborness and political gamesmanship are destroying their economy , would be laughable, if it was funny.
Honest question: do you hold the Dems and Obama responsible for their stubbornness?
Why would anyone do that? The Dems are not threatening to destroy the economy. All responsibility is for the hostage takers, not the negotiators.
I gotta say that if Admiral Yi and OvB are saying the Republicans have gone too far, then the Republicans are getting out on deep water.
Yi and OvB, how does this have to play out for each of the following scenarios:
1) You say "fucking hell, that's outlandish guys; I'll have to vote Democrat for a while until you get your damn senses back."
2) You say "okay, that's pretty damn stupid; that's a serious mark against the Republican party, but you might still look better compared to the Democrats down the road on this and other issues. My vote is up for grabs in a way it hasn't been before."
3) You say "yeah, some of that was pretty dumb guys but in the end you're still more sensible than the Democrats. I'm still voting Republican, but try to chill out a bit."
What's really frustrating is I feel we could have had a "win" if we had taken a $4tn deal with cuts to sacred cow entitlement programs. Those are the sort of things that could have seriously altered the next 15-30 years in a positive way, and that are very, very difficult to ever get Democrats to go along with. Read: it has never really happened before, even the Clinton welfare reforms weren't touching the famed third rail of American politics.
All we were giving up was a roll back of some of the Bush tax cuts on top earners and possibly a 5% increase in the capital gains tax or something. Fuck, we're still out ahead versus the year 2000, because most of the Bush tax cuts will have persisted and we would have slashed entitlement spending. And a few years down the road if things looked better, it would not be difficult to undo those tax increases if the economy really picks up and it becomes fiscally feasible--tax cuts are always easy to get through.
Why are you guys so obsessed with tax cuts anyway?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2011, 12:51:50 AM
Why are you guys so obsessed with tax cuts anyway?
Does that really need to be asked? I wanna get paid, bitch.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2011, 10:44:27 PM
What's really frustrating is I feel we could have had a "win" if we had taken a $4tn deal with cuts to sacred cow entitlement programs. Those are the sort of things that could have seriously altered the next 15-30 years in a positive way, and that are very, very difficult to ever get Democrats to go along with. Read: it has never really happened before, even the Clinton welfare reforms weren't touching the famed third rail of American politics.
All we were giving up was a roll back of some of the Bush tax cuts on top earners and possibly a 5% increase in the capital gains tax or something. Fuck, we're still out ahead versus the year 2000, because most of the Bush tax cuts will have persisted and we would have slashed entitlement spending. And a few years down the road if things looked better, it would not be difficult to undo those tax increases if the economy really picks up and it becomes fiscally feasible--tax cuts are always easy to get through.
I'm curious: how much do you think Obama and his economic team might think that trimming entitlements is a good idea and are using the Republican hard line as cover with their own base?
What Biscuit said more or less. Obama offered the Republicans 93% of the West Bank and Gaza and they told him to fuck off. It would be different if the zero tax kooks were only a wing of the party and I could point at amazing centrist Republicans who were the true Republicans, but there's only 6 GOP members of the House that haven't signed the Norquist no increase pledge.
Why do politicians let some fanatic control their actions? What's to stop all the Congressmen from collectively reneging on that pledge? What's he going to do, campaign against every single one of them?
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2011, 03:49:32 AM
Why do politicians let some fanatic control their actions? What's to stop all the Congressmen from collectively reneging on that pledge? What's he going to do, campaign against every single one of them?
QuoteGrover Norquist, the anti-tax enforcer behind the scenes of the debt debate
By Jason Horowitz, Published: July 12, WashingtonPost.com
The sacred texts from which Grover Norquist draws his political power are hidden in a secret fireproof safe.
"I keep the originals in a vault, in case D.C. burns down," said Norquist, referring to the pledge that his organization asks politicians to sign, vowing to "oppose any and all efforts" to raise taxes. "When someone takes the pledge, you don't want it tampered with; you don't want it destroyed."
For more than two decades, signing Norquist's pledge has been an almost religious rite of passage for Washington Republicans.
The 54-year-old president of Americans for Tax Reform is Washington's anti-tax doctrinal watchdog, his stature derived from the faith of his Republican signatories. He is using all of his authority to prevent GOP leaders from giving an inch on taxes as President Obama and congressional leaders seek a historic compromise to raise the debt ceiling and bring down the deficit.
Since he first collected the signatures of Jack Kemp, Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich 25 years ago, Norquist has prepared for this very clash, enlisting about 95 percent of the Republican members of Congress in the crusade against tax increases. Along the way, he has become one of Washington's most visible and idiosyncratic characters: a zealous, self-promoting tax scourge who presides over a weekly meeting of conservative power brokers and dabbles in stand-up comedy.
On Monday afternoon, as Republican congressional leaders again refused Obama's entreaty to raise taxes on the wealthy to restrain the nation's ballooning debt, Norquist, sporting glasses and a closely cropped graying beard, sat at his desk in his 12th Street offices, describing the pledge as a "self-enforcing" and "powerful" tool.
He said it is an immutable covenant with voters, regardless of the mundane demands of governance, one so serious it must be co-signed by two witnesses. As he meticulously folded sheets of newspaper, adjusted business cards, repositioned scissors and laid down a stress ball next to a pair of hand grips, Norquist acknowledged issuing gentle reminders to pledge-takers.
He has, he said, been in e-mail contact "on a regular basis" with "leadership and leadership staff" during the debt talks, "just to check in to see if there was anything they needed from me." When he read in the news that House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), a pledge-taker, was apparently considering a compromise, he simply dropped him a note asking, "What did you say?"
Norquist said he has also been in frequent touch with the Republican presidential candidates, who have emerged as a solid bloc against a compromise. Copies of their pledges — with the exception of holdout Jon Huntsman Jr. — are kept in a black binder on the desk of one his interns.
"I talk with [Mitt] Romney directly," Norquist said. He mentioned that Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) will be attending his Wednesday meeting this week and that Gingrich recently sent him an unsolicited statement strongly opposing backing down in the debt talks. For Norquist, any other position would be unacceptable.
"This is team ball," he said of the pledge-signing presidential candidates. "When somebody seems to be off, first you call them, then you write them, then you have an argument with them. And nobody running for president has done anything that has made me want to call them on the phone and say, 'Did you say that?' "
The stakes for the anti-tax orthodoxy have never been higher, he argued. "If the entire Republican Party decides, 'Okay, this once we'll trade a tax increase for something,' then the pledge would be meaningless," he said, discounting the suggestion that such a break would dilute his own power. Instead, he calmly predicted that the White House will give in on spending because Boehner and the GOP congressional leadership are "in line."
"The speaker has never voted for a tax hike, and he never will," said Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner. "Like Mr. Norquist, he has always fought for lower taxes, and a smaller, less costly government in Washington."
A very personal library
Norquist likes reading about himself. In his headquarters' library, opposite the 100-plus copies of his own book ("Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government's Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives"), are shelves reserved for tomes in which he is quoted. A hallway is lined with framed newspaper and magazine stories about him. One is in Japanese. In his executive office, decorated with a green lava lamp, a Janis Joplin poster ("a high point of Western civilization," he said) and stuffed "Sesame Street" Grover dolls, another floor-to-ceiling bookcase holds titles including a 1994 comic book called "Taxpayers' Tea Party" in which he is depicted. He plucked a copy of Ralph Nader's "Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us" out of the stacks, because, he said, "I'm a major character in it." The green tags on the pages, he explained, mark every time his persona appears.
Norquist is also a frequent and combative presence on television. As he offered a tour of his office, he asked his communications director to confirm an in-studio radio interview at 10 p.m. with Jim Bohannon.
His hunger for the spotlight extends to less likely stages, as well. Last year, his political and family humor earned him third place behind White House speechwriter Jon Lovett and Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) in the "D.C.'s Funniest Celebrities" contest. He said he specialized in Steven Wright-style one-liners. ("When midgets play miniature golf, do they know?" he deadpanned.)
Norquist is better known for more controversial lines, such as saying he wants to shrink government enough so that he can "drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Being willing to speak in absolutist, brook-no-dissent sound bites has made him extremely valuable to political media built around conflict.
And all that attention is highly valuable to Norquist, who depends on the media to magnify the fate of pledge-breakers. For instance, when President George H.W. Bush lost in 1992 to Bill Clinton after breaking his "read my lips" vow not to raise taxes, "I didn't have to buy ads — CBS, NBC and ABC told everybody," Norquist said.
However much he likes to describe himself as a man of peace, letting the pledges work their own magic, his organization has sometimes taken matters into its own hands. His office prominently features posters, once displayed in Metro stations, targeting Republicans who refused to take the pledge. "There are times," he boasted, "when we'll call everybody in the congressional district and let them know that one guy signed the pledge and one guy didn't."
Last month, Norquist's hold on Republicans seemed to slip when he faced an insurgency from conservative Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.), who led 34 of 47 Senate Republicans in a vote to reduce the deficit by eliminating $6 billion in ethanol subsidies. Norquist, who is opposed to government support for ethanol but more opposed to any whiff of a tax increase, spoke of the eventual defeat of the bill, which he considered a test run for the current negotiations, in triumphant terms.
"We had Coburn boxed in, and we beat him," he said, explaining that the failure of the challenge was important "because if Coburn is trying to make the case that it's okay to raise taxes, that might confuse some people about the nature of the world."
Norquist has sought to restore his preferred world order. He said he "inoculated" all the Republicans in Congress against the compromise virus and "cauterized" Coburn's bipartisan Gang of Six from expanding. "We talked to everybody who might have been tempted to join that group," he said. And then he declared war on Coburn.
Coburn argued that Norquist has his own interests at heart.
"What's more conservative? To fix the country and not let it go bankrupt, or to follow a pledge to Grover Norquist?" asked Coburn, who is not running for reelection in 2016 and described Norquist as a well-paid lobbyist. "We cannot allow one individual to have that kind of power over a vote that can help fix the country."
The senator said Norquist exercises his power by "threatening all these guys here for the first time by saying he'll send mailers, press releases and make it known to their constituents that they aren't conservative." Coburn argued that the support his ethanol measure had from GOP senators was their way of saying: "Grover, you're stupid, forget it, we're going to vote the right way."
Coburn's criticism of Norquist is unusual only in that it comes from an elected Republican. With the exception of remarks by Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), who has accused him of "bullying," almost all the barbs are launched by pundits who don't face reelection. The vast majority of the criticism is on the substance of his positions or the control he exercises over most Republicans in Congress. But Norquist said he is also a victim of some anonymous shots that have crossed the line.
"Guys have run around saying I'm gay," said Norquist, who sits on the advisory council of GOProud, a group that represents gay conservatives and their allies. And the anonymous attacks on him for being married to a Palestinian Muslim, the mother of his two children, he said, amount to "a completely different bigotry."
The main event
In January 2009, Norquist moved the Americans for Tax Reform headquarters from Dupont Circle to the old Verizon building downtown. The selling point was a large space on the sixth floor where he could house the sprawling Wednesday meeting, which has become a main event for conservative lawmakers, lobbyists and policy wonks. Rows of stadium seating that can accommodate nearly 200 guests surround a large oval table.
"I sit here," Norquist said, his hands on the chair at the table's head.
Norquist has never been bashful. The oldest son of a Polaroid engineer and a nursery school director, he volunteered for Richard Nixon as a 12-year-old. He graduated from Harvard and Harvard Business School. As executive director of the College Republicans, he worked with Jack Abramoff, who was later ensnared in a lobbying scandal, and Ralph Reed, who would go on to lead the Christian Coalition. In 1985, President Ronald Reagan's administration picked Norquist to run Americans for Tax Reform, an outside group funded by individual and corporate donors to help pass a tax overhaul.
Norquist has reciprocated by deifying Reagan, despite the fact that the president raised taxes several times. He runs the Reagan Legacy Project, which led the charge to rename National Airport and has stamped Reagan's name on more than 100 schools, highways, gardens, missile silos and roundabouts around the world. He suggests, half-seriously, that "there is space for one more" on Mount Rushmore.
But Norquist's main mission is keeping his members devout.
In his airy meeting room, he pointed to a scoreboard-size sign listing the 2010 signatories to the Taxpayer Protection Pledge and expressed confidence that he will "eventually" bring the six Republican House members yet to sign into the fold.
"When there are active primaries," he said, "that's the easiest time to get people."
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2011, 03:49:32 AM
Why do politicians let some fanatic control their actions? What's to stop all the Congressmen from collectively reneging on that pledge? What's he going to do, campaign against every single one of them?
Cantor has slowly become one of the young leaders of the GOP Caucus (as reflected by his position as House Majority Leader.) He is even talked about as someone who might get the nomination to run for President some day (in a few election cycles), although his recent behavior may be the end of such talk. But it isn't just the loyalty some members of Congress have to Cantor, it is that Cantor essentially represents the stance of a huge portion of GOP Congressmen who are not willing to raise taxes.
I can sort of understand it. A lot of Blue Dog Democrats campaigned on how they were going to reflect their State's values in Congress, but they went along with a few of Obama's plans and many of the Blue Dog Democrats lost their seats in 2010. Essentially members of the GOP are afraid of the same thing happening to them, all those new Congressmen were elected essentially as a repudiation of Obama's policies, if they are seen to have negotiated with Obama and supported an Obama tax increase it could cause them to lose reelection.
Quote from: Jacob on July 16, 2011, 01:08:08 AMI'm curious: how much do you think Obama and his economic team might think that trimming entitlements is a good idea and are using the Republican hard line as cover with their own base?
None. I think Obama is a devout Keynesian and thinks we should be spending far more, not less. The only reason he's conceding on cuts is because otherwise our rating by Moody's and et al will be reduced in August and the economy will go into a major recession if he doesn't agree to some spending cuts. Obama is a horse trader of the first degree, if he legitimately was willing to cut entitlements it was because he's a politician interested in getting agreements done not because he really believed in trimming entitlements. I've seen no evidence Obama would not like America to essentially be a social welfare State ala Norway. At the same time Obama is the most blatantly "political" of any recent President, who is willing to give away any of his key ideals in exchange for getting consensus and passing legislation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2011, 08:57:35 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2011, 03:49:32 AM
Why do politicians let some fanatic control their actions? What's to stop all the Congressmen from collectively reneging on that pledge? What's he going to do, campaign against every single one of them?
QuoteGrover Norquist, the anti-tax enforcer behind the scenes of the debt debate
It is interesting that the Republican equivalent of ACORN is so open about his activities, and yet Republicans claim they can see the Emperor's new clothes on him, while they frothed at the mouth and barked at the moon over the lack of clothes on ACORN.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 16, 2011, 09:12:01 AM
I've seen no evidence Obama would not like America to essentially be a social welfare State ala Norway.
I could say the exact same thing about either Bush: As far as the evidence goes, the only reason they didn't create a social welfare state like Norway's is because they couldn't get away with it, so had to talk and campaign as though they didn't want to.
Of course, that would be an absurd thing to say about the Bushes or any President, no?
That reminds me of the accusations of trying trying to turn the US into Sweden. Seriously? Sweden, Norway? If you want to paint a bleak socialist future why would you ever choose one of the countries with best quality of life in the world as an example?
Quote from: grumbler on July 16, 2011, 09:29:21 AM
I could say the exact same thing about either Bush: As far as the evidence goes, the only reason they didn't create a social welfare state like Norway's is because they couldn't get away with it, so had to talk and campaign as though they didn't want to.
Of course, that would be an absurd thing to say about the Bushes or any President, no?
You can say whatever you want. My opinion is that Bush wanted to privatize Social Security, boost enrollments in private schools and he was also in favor of private HSAs as an alternative to any sort of public option.
At the same time Bush had a strong streak of socialism in him, which many people never properly acknowledged. Bush was a strange President in that regard, he seemed to believe in privatization but he also believed in giving shit tons of money away to people. I've always viewed Bush as the most un-nuanced President of our times. His whole compassionate Christian thing wasn't an act, he genuinely believed that shit and felt that the rich should be giving lots of money to the poor. Where he disagrees with men like Obama is he did not feel that programs like a public health care option were the funnel through which that money should pass.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 16, 2011, 09:46:50 AM
That reminds me of the accusations of trying trying to turn the US into Sweden. Seriously? Sweden, Norway? If you want to paint a bleak socialist future why would you ever choose one of the countries with best quality of life in the world as an example?
Because everything about Sweden and Norway is anathema to what it means to be American, seriously. Plus, most of those indexes of "quality of life" are predisposed to value things that (through election results) it is obvious Americans do not value as highly as Scandinavians.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 16, 2011, 09:10:58 AM
Essentially members of the GOP are afraid of the same thing happening to them, all those new Congressmen were elected essentially as a repudiation of Obama's policies, if they are seen to have negotiated with Obama and supported an Obama tax increase it could cause them to lose reelection.
Do you really think a fresh blue dog Democrat is going to win such a seat by running on a tax-increasing Republican's left flank.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 16, 2011, 09:51:58 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 16, 2011, 09:46:50 AM
That reminds me of the accusations of trying trying to turn the US into Sweden. Seriously? Sweden, Norway? If you want to paint a bleak socialist future why would you ever choose one of the countries with best quality of life in the world as an example?
Because everything about Sweden and Norway is anathema to what it means to be American, seriously. Plus, most of those indexes of "quality of life" are predisposed to value things that (through election results) it is obvious Americans do not value as highly as Scandinavians.
I don't know, I like food and medicine. Is this uncommon in the US?
Quote from: grumbler on July 16, 2011, 09:23:41 AM
Grover Norquist, the anti-tax enforcer behind the scenes of the debt debate
It is interesting that the Republican equivalent of ACORN is so open about his activities, and yet Republicans claim they can see the Emperor's new clothes on him, while they frothed at the mouth and barked at the moon over the lack of clothes on ACORN.
I'm surprised he's not in jail.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2011, 11:03:42 AM
I don't know, I like food and medicine. Is this uncommon in the US?
I have the best food and medicine money can buy.
Note I'm not saying Euro style socialism is bad for everyone, only that it is bad for me.
The Republicans are in trouble no matter what. If they compromise, the fundamentalist tax-loons will turn against them and they'll be primaried to death. If they stand fast to their pledge, the economy will be destroyed. In the short term, that's exactly what the Republicans want. However, once they take over the government, their tax-reduction policies coupled with their spending-increase policies would quickly result in the complete and permanent destruction of the US economy. When you add in the Republican stance on social protection and tort reform, you'll end up with an America where the average American would be better off during the Great Depression.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2011, 11:04:49 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 16, 2011, 09:23:41 AM
Grover Norquist, the anti-tax enforcer behind the scenes of the debt debate
It is interesting that the Republican equivalent of ACORN is so open about his activities, and yet Republicans claim they can see the Emperor's new clothes on him, while they frothed at the mouth and barked at the moon over the lack of clothes on ACORN.
I'm surprised he's not in jail.
Anti-taxers are marginally more sane than de-taxers.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 16, 2011, 12:55:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2011, 11:03:42 AM
I don't know, I like food and medicine. Is this uncommon in the US?
I have the best food and medicine money can buy.
Note I'm not saying Euro style socialism is bad for everyone, only that it is bad for me.
I had no idea you were a Saudi Prince.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2011, 01:55:48 PM
I had no idea you were a Saudi Prince.
Explain what I'd get out of a Norwegian style socialist system that I don't already have.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 16, 2011, 02:47:34 PM
Explain what I'd get out of a Norwegian style socialist system that I don't already have.
Me. :)
Quote from: Jacob on July 15, 2011, 09:37:35 PM
I gotta say that if Admiral Yi and OvB are saying the Republicans have gone too far, then the Republicans are getting out on deep water.
I tuned into a bit of Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity to get a sense of what they think.
Beck was making fun of the idea that there is a crisis at all, and that the media is reporting that (and dismissing his point of view that we will be just fine without a debt limit increase). He seemed to be cheerleading for no deal at all, as then we get a balanced budget next month.
Rush and Hannity were just talking about how there is no way the Republicans should cave and agree to any tax increases. That seemed to be the major point they were driving home: no tax increases.
If you are a republican in congress, you probably come from a safe seat. Your challenge is going to come from a Republican in a primary, and conservative republicans have been getting primaried by even more conservative challengers. A guy like Orrin Hatch looks like he might lose in a primary, and he has been one of the most conservative republicans the last few decades. It does seem like that any republican who makes a deal that involves raising taxes is going to be branded a traitor by the talk radio crowd.
O'Riley has been taking it seriously.
When the US defaults early next month what happens next? :wacko:
Quote from: Legbiter on July 16, 2011, 07:00:33 PM
When the US defaults early next month what happens next? :wacko:
Big drop in the stock market. Not much else that will be immediately obvious.
Quote from: Legbiter on July 16, 2011, 07:00:33 PM
When the US defaults early next month what happens next? :wacko:
Interest rates for the federal government will rise dramatically. As a result, the US will descend into a death spiral of insolvency and the attendant political extremism.
Quote from: Neil on July 16, 2011, 07:09:22 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on July 16, 2011, 07:00:33 PM
When the US defaults early next month what happens next? :wacko:
Interest rates for the federal government will rise dramatically. As a result, the US will descend into a death spiral of insolvency and the attendant political extremism.
We already have the political extremism, that's why things can't get done.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 16, 2011, 08:01:51 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 16, 2011, 07:09:22 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on July 16, 2011, 07:00:33 PM
When the US defaults early next month what happens next? :wacko:
Interest rates for the federal government will rise dramatically. As a result, the US will descend into a death spiral of insolvency and the attendant political extremism.
We already have the political extremism, that's why things can't get done.
You have gridlock. Political extremism will be when the crazies stop having protests and start building private armies.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 16, 2011, 02:47:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2011, 01:55:48 PM
I had no idea you were a Saudi Prince.
Explain what I'd get out of a Norwegian style socialist system that I don't already have.
Don't know your life style, prince.
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 02:03:23 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2011, 12:51:43 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 15, 2011, 12:34:23 PM
But is 65% of the GDP net indebtedness (from the Economist, who characterizes that level as "perfectly affordable) really that point in time? And if you care about the deficit so mortally, why does "no increase in revenue at all" become the line in the sand?
GOP House members would have to go back on their pledges not to increase taxes. IIRC, doing so hurt a certain GOP politician back in the early 90s. Not to mention that tax increases are likely to fall disproportionately (or exclusively) on the backs of the more productive elements of society, and that's not exactly a smart way to get the economy back on track.
Spending is a much bigger part of the problem IMO, and until I see the Dems being serious about serious cuts in spending, I'd rather the GOP keep tax increases off the table. We could eliminate the deficit without any tax increases (the outstanding debt is another issue, of course).
I realize that a tax increase of some sort may be necessary as a long-term solution to pay down debt. But short-term, I don't want the GOP to budge in the current battle. Get spending under control, and then we'll talk taxes.
But it seems rather unlikely democrats in congress and the President will agree to massive cuts in spending unless packaged together with some tax increases.
"Give me what I want now, and we'll talk about what you want later" is rarely an effective negotiating strategy.
Indeed. It is so rarely successful, that one has to question the sincerity of those proposing it in fact.
Quote from: Legbiter on July 16, 2011, 07:00:33 PM
When the US defaults early next month what happens next? :wacko:
Default means we stop making payments on our debts. My numbers above show we will not be in danger of doing that, so we will not default. If I lose my job and my unemployment check still allows me to pay my mortgage but means I can no longer pay for a premium cable TV package you can't say I'm "defaulting" on my debts, I'm no longer in great financial shape but I'm still meeting my obligations.
What would happen is we would pay the debt servicing, Medicare & Medicaid, Social Security, Active Duty Military Pay, Food Stamps, and a few other things on that list and the rest would shut down. The $30bn we owe Defense Vendors would not be paid immediately and those companies would probably have to go through some lean times (layoffs potentially, almost definitely factories would shut down temporarily.) Because we would not be able to take out any more debt, the debt would decrease because we would make payments on our debts throughout August but not get new debt. That means that come September we will no longer be at the debt ceiling and we'd be able to issue 30 bn or so more in new debt and we'd hit the ceiling again.
It would continue indefinitely, but it wouldn't because that whole time most of the Federal government would be shut down and while the scaremongering about seniors not getting SSA checks or unemployment not being paid or food stamps not being issued are (as I've shown above) unlikely, people won't stand for a government shut down for very long.
To a degree Glen Beck is right that it won't be the catastrophe being predicted. Where he's wrong is that it will mean we lose our sterling credit rating, which more than just meaning higher interest payments means a great loss in confidence, that's at the heart of serious economic problems. Most great recession and the great depression itself were obviously caused by "real" problems, but their scope and depth typically was because of a dramatic loss of investor confidence because of the more material issues. So we would be at serious risk of entering a second major recession over this thing.
Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2011, 09:45:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 15, 2011, 02:03:23 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2011, 12:51:43 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 15, 2011, 12:34:23 PM
But is 65% of the GDP net indebtedness (from the Economist, who characterizes that level as "perfectly affordable) really that point in time? And if you care about the deficit so mortally, why does "no increase in revenue at all" become the line in the sand?
GOP House members would have to go back on their pledges not to increase taxes. IIRC, doing so hurt a certain GOP politician back in the early 90s. Not to mention that tax increases are likely to fall disproportionately (or exclusively) on the backs of the more productive elements of society, and that's not exactly a smart way to get the economy back on track.
Spending is a much bigger part of the problem IMO, and until I see the Dems being serious about serious cuts in spending, I'd rather the GOP keep tax increases off the table. We could eliminate the deficit without any tax increases (the outstanding debt is another issue, of course).
I realize that a tax increase of some sort may be necessary as a long-term solution to pay down debt. But short-term, I don't want the GOP to budge in the current battle. Get spending under control, and then we'll talk taxes.
But it seems rather unlikely democrats in congress and the President will agree to massive cuts in spending unless packaged together with some tax increases.
"Give me what I want now, and we'll talk about what you want later" is rarely an effective negotiating strategy.
Indeed. It is so rarely successful, that one has to question the sincerity of those proposing it in fact.
I suspect there is a threshold of spending cuts that will be so attractive that the GOP leaders will feel compelled to accept tax increases with it. It's just that it's a high bar to reach. From their perspective, they got elected specifically to do what they are doing now. Their "mandate" is not to raise the debt ceiling.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 16, 2011, 09:57:59 PM
To a degree Glen Beck is right that it won't be the catastrophe being predicted. Where he's wrong is that it will mean we lose our sterling credit rating, which more than just meaning higher interest payments means a great loss in confidence, that's at the heart of serious economic problems. Most great recession and the great depression itself were obviously caused by "real" problems, but their scope and depth typically was because of a dramatic loss of investor confidence because of the more material issues. So we would be at serious risk of entering a second major recession over this thing.
Looks like America is preparing to hand on the baton to the Peoples Republic of China. :rolleyes:
Quote from: mongers on July 16, 2011, 10:13:41 PM
Looks like America is preparing to hand on the baton to the Peoples Republic of China. :rolleyes:
Oh yeah, you can be real confident in the PRC.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 16, 2011, 10:07:26 PM
I suspect there is a threshold of spending cuts that will be so attractive that the GOP leaders will feel compelled to accept tax increases with it. It's just that it's a high bar to reach. From their perspective, they got elected specifically to do what they are doing now. Their "mandate" is not to raise the debt ceiling.
Maybe, maybe not. It seems as though Obama has put some very serious spending cuts on the table--including to entitlements--in return for relatively minor (maybe you could even say symbolic) tax cuts. If I wanted to be really cynical, I would say that the Republicans don't want to really address the deficit problem because making a deal with Obama to do that could take off the table the biggest criticism against him (excessive spending).
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 16, 2011, 09:57:59 PM
To a degree Glen Beck is right that it won't be the catastrophe being predicted. Where he's . So we would be at serious risk of entering a second major recession over this thing.
And you haven't exactly recovered from the first. And that's a huge problem.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2011, 10:49:33 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 16, 2011, 10:07:26 PM
I suspect there is a threshold of spending cuts that will be so attractive that the GOP leaders will feel compelled to accept tax increases with it. It's just that it's a high bar to reach. From their perspective, they got elected specifically to do what they are doing now. Their "mandate" is not to raise the debt ceiling.
Maybe, maybe not. It seems as though Obama has put some very serious spending cuts on the table--including to entitlements--in return for relatively minor (maybe you could even say symbolic) tax cuts. If I wanted to be really cynical, I would say that the Republicans don't want to really address the deficit problem because making a deal with Obama to do that could take off the table the biggest criticism against him (excessive spending).
Honestly, I think the cuts are also very minor, and the entitlements thing hasn't actually been proposed, just mentioned in passing verbally. The highest number I've seen is 4T over ten years in reductions, with most of that back-loaded to later years (meaning it's unlikely to happen at all). I'm not impressed at all by these cuts. They're paltry.
Maybe I'd be more enthusiastic if you hadn't pointed out the actual budget to me. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 17, 2011, 01:46:04 PM
Honestly, I think the cuts are also very minor, and the entitlements thing hasn't actually been proposed, just mentioned in passing verbally. The highest number I've seen is 4T over ten years in reductions, with most of that back-loaded to later years (meaning it's unlikely to happen at all). I'm not impressed at all by these cuts. They're paltry.
Maybe I'd be more enthusiastic if you hadn't pointed out the actual budget to me. :P
I hear what you are saying about whether or not the cuts will materialize if they are backloaded, but practically speaking that is the only way to do it. First, we are in a period of economic downturn, so you don't want to cut too much right now. Second, the government is a huge entity and it takes time to downsize.
$4 trillion isn't chump change. Say in 10 years that is $500 billion a year in cuts (since it is backloaded). I think the projected deficit is a bit over $1 trillion that far out. So we are almost cutting it in half, and a deficit of $500 billion or so isn't going to break us. Also, this isn't the last time budget cuts can be discussed. If you want to balance the budget, you don't have to do so in the next two weeks before we are supposed to default.
Well, the gauntlet will be thrown tomorrow.
Quote
Leader Cantor Statement in Support of Cut, Cap and Balance
WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) today issued the following statement regarding the White House's veto threat against the Cut, Cap and Balance Act:
"Tomorrow, the House will vote on Cut, Cap and Balance, a common sense proposal that will cut and cap federal spending to ensure that Washington begins to live within its means and put in place a Constitutional balanced budget amendment that will make balancing our budget the rule, not the exception. No one wants to default on our debt, and that is why House Republicans are bringing forth this plan to meet the President's request for a debt limit increase with the necessary safeguards to make sure that we don't continue to kick the can down the road. With millions of Americans out of work, we need to get the economy growing again and control spending here in Washington, and Cut, Cap and Balance is a path forward to do just that. As President Obama has not put forth a plan that can garner 218 votes in the House, I'd caution him against so hastily dismissing Cut, Cap and Balance."
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 18, 2011, 02:39:19 PMQuote
Cut, Cap and Balance
catchy. right now there are thousands of letters on their way to d.c. crying out "CUT CPA BALLANCE OR WE FIRE U"
I think slash and burn would be more appropriate description.
According to a CNN poll 61% of Americans are in favor of a balanced budget amendment.
I wonder if that's the same people who are in favor of reducing the deficit, against touching Social Security, Medicare, or the military. :lol:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 18, 2011, 02:39:19 PM
Well, the gauntlet will be thrown tomorrow.
Quote
Leader Cantor Statement in Support of Cut, Cap and Balance
WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) today issued the following statement regarding the White House's veto threat against the Cut, Cap and Balance Act:
"Tomorrow, the House will vote on Cut, Cap and Balance, a common sense proposal that will cut and cap federal spending to ensure that Washington begins to live within its means and put in place a Constitutional balanced budget amendment . . .
Someone please tell me he is kidding.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 18, 2011, 05:51:51 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 18, 2011, 02:39:19 PM
Well, the gauntlet will be thrown tomorrow.
Quote
Leader Cantor Statement in Support of Cut, Cap and Balance
WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) today issued the following statement regarding the White House's veto threat against the Cut, Cap and Balance Act:
"Tomorrow, the House will vote on Cut, Cap and Balance, a common sense proposal that will cut and cap federal spending to ensure that Washington begins to live within its means and put in place a Constitutional balanced budget amendment . . .
Someone please tell me he is kidding.
How does it feel to find out you live in an asylum ? :P
edit:well at least in a society, some of whose leaders should be in an asylum ?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 18, 2011, 05:43:45 PM
According to a CNN poll 61% of Americans are in favor of a balanced budget amendment.
I wonder if that's the same people who are in favor of reducing the deficit, against touching Social Security, Medicare, or the military. :lol:
Probably. People like slogans like "Balance the budget!", but when you get down in the details they become less enthusiastic.
I wonder if the "Balanced budget amendment" is going to be the "preserve marriage amendment" of 2012.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 18, 2011, 05:51:51 PM
Someone please tell me he is kidding.
It's been part of the bargaining baseline for some time. You didn't notice?
But if they don't get their federal cheques, there'll be he'll to pay.
Quote from: Neil on July 18, 2011, 06:16:14 PM
But if they don't get their federal cheques, there'll be he'll to pay.
If they don't come to some arrangement, there sure as hell better not be any congressmen getting paid.
Quote...with the necessary safeguards to make sure that we don't continue to kick the can down the road.
:lol: But you kicked it down the road 7 times between 2000 and 2008; only back then it was called "housekeeping".
Tim Russert with Catkiller Frist, 2006.
Veddy interestink.
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/tax-cuts-and-the-debt-ceiling/6r099vn?cpkey=e10461f7-89e1-415c-aa58-80d1b6f8066e|||
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2011, 06:41:18 PM
Tim Russert with Catkiller Frist, 2006.
Veddy interestink.
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/tax-cuts-and-the-debt-ceiling/6r099vn?cpkey=e10461f7-89e1-415c-aa58-80d1b6f8066e|||
No surprises there. When the republicans had the White House, the principled stand was for increases in the debt ceiling. When the Democrats have it, the principled stand is against increases in the debt ceiling. The principle in the Republicans' principled stands is expediency.
What's surprising is people still buy it.
Quote from: mongers on July 18, 2011, 05:56:57 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 18, 2011, 05:51:51 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 18, 2011, 02:39:19 PM
Well, the gauntlet will be thrown tomorrow.
Quote
Leader Cantor Statement in Support of Cut, Cap and Balance
WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) today issued the following statement regarding the White House's veto threat against the Cut, Cap and Balance Act:
"Tomorrow, the House will vote on Cut, Cap and Balance, a common sense proposal that will cut and cap federal spending to ensure that Washington begins to live within its means and put in place a Constitutional balanced budget amendment . . .
Someone please tell me he is kidding.
How does it feel to find out you live in an asylum ? :P
Minsky lives in New York, not South Carolina.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 19, 2011, 12:44:04 AM
Minsky lives in New York, not South Carolina.
Just means it makes national news less often. Could be because we expect wackiness from NY politics. I get regular jaw-droppers from my dad and stepmom in Albany.
House voting today.
Gallup (http://"http://www.gallup.com/poll/148562/Americans-Including-Republicans-Debt-Compromise.aspx")
I like the name of the link. Americans, including Republicans. lol
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsas-origin.onstreammedia.com%2Forigin%2Fgallupinc%2FGallupSpaces%2FProduction%2FCms%2FPOLL%2Fcdo-fggankyv_hhc6nj1pq.gif&hash=fd5b78074240a4d2622bc15e82d68f384656eca3)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsas-origin.onstreammedia.com%2Forigin%2Fgallupinc%2FGallupSpaces%2FProduction%2FCms%2FPOLL%2Fk-d-pib0rka7dgowima49g.gif&hash=737f5cf92f2a0cd88357c4de448d676344bb1d25)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsas-origin.onstreammedia.com%2Forigin%2Fgallupinc%2FGallupSpaces%2FProduction%2FCms%2FPOLL%2Fk03tblep-uyge0wf79qutg.gif&hash=85a10b10f33c5d1adc52b12deee1912a41d44c43)
So apparently, we're afraid they won't cut enough, we want compromise and we're a bunch of cynical bastards with no faith in our elected leaders to get it done.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 17, 2011, 02:38:20 PM
$4 trillion isn't chump change. Say in 10 years that is $500 billion a year in cuts (since it is backloaded). I think the projected deficit is a bit over $1 trillion that far out. So we are almost cutting it in half, and a deficit of $500 billion or so isn't going to break us. Also, this isn't the last time budget cuts can be discussed. If you want to balance the budget, you don't have to do so in the next two weeks before we are supposed to default.
If it's heavily backloaded, it's meaningless. You guys are all praising Obama for being so flexible on spending cuts, but is he really being that gracious if most of the cuts would be scheduled for after he's out of office (assuming a second term)?
Do we know the exact details of Obama's proposal, btw? Where is that info coming from?
Total cuts in the C,C&B plan = 6T.
Quote
WASHINGTON (AP) - With a default deadline drawing ominously near, House Republican leaders are giving the tea party what amounts to a symbolic floor vote on a "cut, cap and balance" debt-limit plan while behind the scenes work continues on a fallback measure that could become the framework for a compromise.
The chamber will vote Tuesday on the plan to let the government borrow another $2.4 trillion - but only after big and immediate spending cuts and adoption by Congress of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget.
The plan is doomed in the Democratic-controlled Senate, and the White House has promised a veto.
The cut, cap and balance measure - and the veto threat issued Monday - sparked the latest in predictable tit-for-tat exchanges between combatants of Capitol Hill and in the White House, even as it was revealed that President Barack Obama hosted House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., at the White House on Sunday.
"We're making progress," Obama reported.
But the White House attacked the cut, cap and balance idea as an assault on cherished programs. The measure doesn't contain any actual spending cuts but promises they will be made in the future.
"What we are witnessing here with this measure is classic Washington posturing, kabuki theater," said White House press secretary Jay Carney, adding that the measure would "dismantle ... our social safety net: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid."
Despite the veto threat, House Republicans said they would go ahead with plans to pass the bill Tuesday. "It's disappointing the White House would reject this commonsense plan to rein in the debt and deficits that are hurting job creation in America," Boehner said.
After the cut, cap and balance measure stalls, Senate leaders appear likely to try to advance a bipartisan plan to get around the debt limit crisis by giving Obama sweeping powers to order an increase in the borrowing limit. The backup measure faces furious opposition among groups like the Club for Growth and activists like blogger Erick Erickson of Redstate.com, whose opinions carry weight with many conservatives, but it's nonetheless seen as probably the most viable option for avoiding a default in two weeks.
Barring action by Congress to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, the Treasury will be unable to pay all the government's bills that come due beginning Aug. 3. Administration officials, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and others say the resulting default would inflict serious harm on the economy, which is still struggling to recover from the worst recession in decades.
Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that the Senate will meet each day until the issue is resolved, including weekends.
Tuesday's vote follows the collapse of a weeks-long effort to negotiate a sweeping bipartisan plan to rein in future deficits. Obama demanded that tax increases on the wealthy and selected corporations be included alongside cuts in benefit programs, but Republicans refused. It appears GOP lawmakers are still negotiating with Obama on a package of spending cuts that might be attached to the emerging Senate compromise - in which Obama is essentially awarded the power to force a $2.5 trillion increase in the debt limit unless overridden by two-thirds of both the House and Senate.
Supporters of the cut, cap and balance measure say it mirrors a budget passed by the House in April that seeks cuts of $111 billion from government spending in the budget year that begins Oct. 1, and another $6 trillion over the coming decade through a requirement that the budget shrink relative to the overall size of the economy.
Additionally, it would require both houses of Congress to approve a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution as a condition for an increase in the debt limit.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has swung behind the measure. "Not only is this legislation just the kind of thing Washington needs right now, it may be the only option we have if you want to see the debt limit raised at all," he said.
In spite of his warning, McConnell and Reid have been deeply involved in writing a fallback measure that is viewed in both houses as promising.
It would allow the president to raise the debt limit by $2.5 trillion in three installments over the next year without a prior vote by lawmakers. It also would establish a panel of House and Senate members to recommend cuts in benefit programs, with any bipartisan recommendations guaranteed a yes-or-no vote.
I wish the President could declare martial law and get rid of that dysfunctional Congress. :contract:
G.
I'm all for giving the president that right, as long as there is a clause limiting that right only to Democratic presidents.
One thing about the balanced budget requirement that is positive--I've noticed in the last couple legislatures here in Nevada that the GOP members are actually forced to come down on what they will cut if we don't raise taxes. They seem to be much more willing to compromise than the guys in Congress are. We have a supermajority requirement for raising taxes, so just a few holdouts can block it. When the option of "we can just cut taxes and expect revenues to rise next year" isn't available, things actually get done.
Would that actually work though? I mean, aren't the Congressional Republicans are completely devoted to the big lie that they can, in fact, cut taxes and expect revenues to rise. That's what got them there in the first place.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 19, 2011, 12:42:52 PM
When the option of "we can just cut taxes and expect revenues to rise next year" isn't available, things actually get done.
How does that even happen?
Quote from: Neil on July 19, 2011, 12:55:46 PM
Would that actually work though? I mean, aren't the Congressional Republicans are completely devoted to the big lie that they can, in fact, cut taxes and expect revenues to rise. That's what got them there in the first place.
Yeah, because they aren't held to account for the results. "Deficits don't matter."
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 19, 2011, 12:56:50 PM
How does that even happen?
They open their mouths and lie. that's pretty much how any partisan political slogan happens.
If a budget has to balance according to the less partial state comptroller's people, then these Big Lies don't get to fly.
Note that cutting tax rates
can increase revenue, under the right conditions. That's what gives this particular Big Lie its legs.
Quote from: Grallon on July 19, 2011, 11:23:34 AM
I wish the President could declare martial law and get rid of that dysfunctional Congress. :contract:
G.
Maybe he can burn the congress building down and blame it on the Tea party
Quote from: grumbler on July 19, 2011, 01:01:42 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 19, 2011, 12:56:50 PM
How does that even happen?
They open their mouths and lie. that's pretty much how any partisan political slogan happens.
If a budget has to balance according to the less partial state comptroller's people, then these Big Lies don't get to fly.
Note that cutting tax rates can increase revenue, under the right conditions. That's what gives this particular Big Lie its legs.
What would those conditions be?
PC happening now about changing to "chained CPI" for SSA COLA adjustments. How much will that save?
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 19, 2011, 01:04:44 PM
What would those conditions be?
At a certain point higher taxes can cut economic growth and so can have negative returns on revenue - especially if equivalent lower tax jurisdictions are available.
But that isnt really the problem facing the US right now.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 19, 2011, 01:12:03 PM
PC happening now about changing to "chained CPI" for SSA COLA adjustments. How much will that save?
With inflation running 2-3% I don't see how any COLA adjustment could save real money.
Quote from: derspiess on July 19, 2011, 11:07:18 AM
If it's heavily backloaded, it's meaningless. You guys are all praising Obama for being so flexible on spending cuts, but is he really being that gracious if most of the cuts would be scheduled for after he's out of office (assuming a second term)?
This is true of the Republican plan as well. I mean Ryan's plan balances the budget in 2030.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 19, 2011, 01:12:49 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 19, 2011, 01:04:44 PM
What would those conditions be?
At a certain point higher taxes can cut economic growth and so can have negative returns on revenue - especially if equivalent lower tax jurisdictions are available.
But that isnt really the problem facing the US right now.
And depending on the structure of the tax cut, you can also have the wealthy and corporations arranging their tax liability in such a way that it comes due during a period of lower taxes.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 19, 2011, 01:12:49 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 19, 2011, 01:04:44 PM
What would those conditions be?
At a certain point higher taxes can cut economic growth and so can have negative returns on revenue - especially if equivalent lower tax jurisdictions are available.
But that isnt really the problem facing the US right now.
Plus, if a country has an enforcement/evasion problem, cutting rates and increase compliance to the point that the greater compliance brings in more than the lower rates cost.
But agree that this also isn't the problem facing the US.
The problem facing the US is that consumers and businesses don't think the government can manage the economy, and so won't spend fearing that they will need the cash later. A tax increase right now, coupled with spending cuts, would signal that Congress's bout with insanity has ended and that the era of Arafatism is over. Kicking the can down the road as they have been doing since they evaporated the Clinton budget surplus simply dooms them to lower and lower revenue no matter the tax cuts.
Quote from: grumbler on July 19, 2011, 01:56:48 PM
The problem facing the US is that consumers and businesses don't think the government can manage the economy, and so won't spend fearing that they will need the cash later. A tax increase right now, coupled with spending cuts, would signal that Congress's bout with insanity has ended and that the era of Arafatism is over. Kicking the can down the road as they have been doing since they evaporated the Clinton budget surplus simply dooms them to lower and lower revenue no matter the tax cuts.
Agreed. And the signal is not just o people in the US. People here are also sitting on decisions to expand their businesses. Right now the only viable market for many of our products is China. To the extent businesses are also looking to the US as a potential market this insanity is creating uncertaintly which in business terms equals death of expansion which further excacerbates the problem because then the ROTW has less wealth to purchase US goods and services.
Quote from: derspiess on July 19, 2011, 11:07:18 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 17, 2011, 02:38:20 PM
$4 trillion isn't chump change. Say in 10 years that is $500 billion a year in cuts (since it is backloaded). I think the projected deficit is a bit over $1 trillion that far out. So we are almost cutting it in half, and a deficit of $500 billion or so isn't going to break us. Also, this isn't the last time budget cuts can be discussed. If you want to balance the budget, you don't have to do so in the next two weeks before we are supposed to default.
If it's heavily backloaded, it's meaningless. You guys are all praising Obama for being so flexible on spending cuts, but is he really being that gracious if most of the cuts would be scheduled for after he's out of office (assuming a second term)?
Do we know the exact details of Obama's proposal, btw? Where is that info coming from?
that's closeby... here in Belgium the guy trying to form a government has also promised to deal with the lopsided pensions of government-employees. The method used to achieve that however would mean that "the something done" would be done in 4 decades! Francophone socialist fucker. If Belarus wasnt European he'd be leading the last old-style socialist party on the continent lol. So 4 years is soon then :p
Meanwhile in the Senate..
Quote from: The Hill
Bipartisan support builds for Gang of Six $3.7 trillion deficit-reduction package
By Alexander Bolton and Erik Wasson - 07/19/11 02:05 PM ET
President Obama joined Democratic and Republican senators Tuesday in offering support for a $3.7 trillion deficit-reduction plan announced that morning by the five remaining members of the Gang of Six.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who had pulled out of the Gang of Six in May, also rejoined the group and praised the plan as something that could win the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate.
"The plan has moved significantly, and it's where we need to be — and it's a start," Coburn said. "This doesn't solve our problems, but it creates the way forward where we can solve our problems."
Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), in saying he would support the Gang's plan, added: "There's a lot of support for turning the gang into a mob.
"Count me in," he said. "I've long held this is what we need to do. The credit agencies are saying it's not enough to take care of the debt limit. We have to take care of the long-term fiscal scenario."
At the top of the White House press briefing, Obama described the plan as "good news," adding that it was "broadly consistent" with the approach he had endorsed for reducing the deficit.
Another key endorsement came from Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the third-ranking Republican in the Senate.
"This is a serious, bipartisan proposal that will help stop Washington from spending money that we don't have, and I support it," Alexander said.
Coburn said the plan would reduce the deficit by $3.7 trillion over the next 10 years and increase tax revenues by $1 trillion by closing a variety of special tax breaks and havens.
He also noted, however, that the Congressional Budget Office would score the plan as a $1.5 trillion tax cut because it would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax. It would generate a significant amount of revenue out of tax reform and reduction of tax rates, which authors believe would spur economic growth.
Coburn said he expected a "significant portion of the Senate" to support the plan — "maybe 60 members."
He endorsed the plan to colleagues during Tuesday's meeting, according to a lawmaker who attended.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) said the plan, negotiated by the remaining members of the Gang of Six — Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) — could win a majority of votes in the Senate.
"Likely 60 [votes]," she said. "The House should like this plan because it has spending cuts, and I believe it will spur the economy."
Hutchison said she would vote for it, and urged House Republicans to back it as well.
"I think that they have produced something that has mechanisms that are concrete, and that's what I think the House is looking for, and [so are we]," she said.
Warner also touted the Gang's proposal.
"The Gang of Six-plus is back," he said after the meeting.
Conrad said the Gang has given their colleagues 24 hours to say whether they are on board, and that signs are encouraging because Republicans and Democrats in the room stood up to support the framework.
"Obviously a group of six can't pass anything around here — we need to get to 60," Conrad said.
He added that he does not know if the framework could be used to resolve the debt-ceiling crisis, but that such an idea could be a "possibility" if enough senators signed on.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has not yet been briefed on the Gang's plan.
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said he has met with the Gang a total of six times. He added that the framework "could be helpful" in the debt-ceiling fight, but said the White House and the House have to be brought in on it next.
"That is the challenge," he said.
According to an executive summary, the Gang of Six plan would stabilize the debt by 2014 and reduce publicly held debt to 70 percent of gross domestic product by 2021.
It would involve two separate bills — one implementing $500 billion in immediate deficit cuts and another implementing larger reforms. Conrad said he has held off marking up a budget in committee to use the normal budget process to move the Gang of Six plan.
On entitlements, the plan would fully pay for the Medicare "doc fix" over 10 years, allowing doctors to avoid a drastic cut in Medicare payments under the law, which is regularly avoided but never paid for.
The plan also contains strong enforcement procedures. One of these would require a 67-vote supermajority in the Senate to circumvent spending caps.
Conrad said Coburn was enticed to rejoin the group because the Gang had agreed to add $116 billion in heathcare-entitlement savings to the framework. He said the way the extra reductions are achieved is up to Senate committees, but the framework specifies that if target savings are not achieved, 10 senators can propose a way to do so on the Senate floor and have the plan receive expedited treatment.
Conrad said 74 percent of the plan's deficit-reduction goal would come from spending cuts and 26 percent from higher revenues, adding that the framework addresses Social Security but does not use savings for deficit reduction.
More than 50 senators, including an even mix of Democrats and Republicans, attended a briefing by the architects of the plan.
Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), who co-authored a letter in March urging Obama to support a comprehensive deficit-reduction package that received 64 signatures, said the remaining members of the Gang of Six have produced a politically viable plan.
"This is a very thoughtful, serious plan," Johanns said. "I have now seen the presentation half a dozen times, and each time I have seen it I have become more and more convinced that this is the vehicle that gives us the best opportunity to deal with a whole range of issues. I'm excited about the possibilities here."
Republican Sens. Alexander, Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), John Barrasso (Wyo.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Bob Corker (Tenn.), John Cornyn (Texas), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Pat Roberts (Kan.) and John Thune (S.D.) also attended Tuesday's meeting.
Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet (Colo.), who led the March letter-writing effort with Johanns, said the Gang's proposal received a warm reception from Republicans and Democrats in Tuesday's meeting.
"We need to make sure that the capital markets are reassured the paper they own is worth what they paid for it," he said. "No one is going to agree with every single thing in this plan. There is no plan that everybody is going to agree with in its entirety, but this plan meets those broad tests."
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said he and many of his colleagues would support the framework because they believe Congress needs to take significant steps to reduce the deficit. He also said many see a contingency plan under negotiation by Senate leaders as insufficient.
The fallback plan being discussed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would include $1.5 trillion in spending cuts and set up a special committee that would put together a larger deficit-reduction package that would come straight to the Senate floor. But some lawmakers see such a committee as a waste of time that would merely replicate the work already done by the president's fiscal commission and the Gang of Six.
"I think what happened this morning is that the Gang of Six began to turn into a bipartisan majority of senators who want to solve a national problem rather than play partisan politics," Lieberman said. "I am ready to sign up. ... I appeal to people, don't start to pick away at this.
"I was actually worried they had taken so long to come together as a Gang of Six that their moment had passed, but I think this really is the moment because everybody sees the process drifting toward a kick-the-can-down-the-road response, which is embarrassing."
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said the framework could be part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling, because it is a balanced approach.
He called the percentage of deficit reduction achieved through higher tax revenues "small" and questioned whether the plan does enough to stimulate growth, but acknowledged that every senator would probably want to tweak the framework.
Quotebecause it would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax.
That's a bigger deal than people think.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 19, 2011, 06:43:42 PM
Quotebecause it would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax.
That's a bigger deal than people think.
Yes. It's actually a massive tax cut.
Also this:
Quote from: The Hill
Finance would be required to reduce tax rates to three tax brackets of rates: of 8-12 percent, 14-22 percent and 23-29 percent. The current top marginal rate is 35 percent.
The corporate tax rate would be between 23 percent and 29 percent, and tax reform would cease taxation of oversees profits.
That's a big deal too. Bringing corporate tax rates down to almost European levels and no longer taxing repatriated profits. Also, the debate about the Bush tax cuts expiring would be instantly over for obvious reasons.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 19, 2011, 06:45:31 PM
Yes. It's actually a massive tax cut.
That depends. AMT exists because there are so many loopholes that people were paying zero tax. If the loopholes disappear, so does the need for an alternative tax.
I certainly agree that there is the potential for this to amount to a massive tax break for the very wealthy, but I don't think that it
necessarily is one.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 19, 2011, 07:10:03 PM
That's a big deal too. Bringing corporate tax rates down to almost European levels and no longer taxing repatriated profits. Also, the debate about the Bush tax cuts expiring would be instantly over for obvious reasons.
I have never paid taxes on overseas profits, because the taxes I paid before the money was repatriated was always higher than the tax I would have owed here.
I favor taxation at the individual level, not the corporate level. Corporations have always found it cheaper to evade US taxes than citizens find it, and it makes sense to want them to store and report profits domestically. If you make it cheaper for them to pay their taxes than offshore them, you get more money.
Quote from: grumbler on July 19, 2011, 07:18:46 PM
I favor taxation at the individual level, not the corporate level.
Considering how long and hard corporations fought to become legal persons, they should be taxed accordingly.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 19, 2011, 09:37:21 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 19, 2011, 07:18:46 PM
I favor taxation at the individual level, not the corporate level.
Considering how long and hard corporations fought to become legal persons, they should be taxed accordingly.
lolwut?
Corporate personhood is a pretty old concept at this point. Like 18th century.
Quote from: Barrister on July 19, 2011, 11:02:55 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 19, 2011, 09:37:21 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 19, 2011, 07:18:46 PM
I favor taxation at the individual level, not the corporate level.
Considering how long and hard corporations fought to become legal persons, they should be taxed accordingly.
lolwut?
Corporate personhood is a pretty old concept at this point. Like 18th century.
Yes, and I'm sure they tried very hard at the time to get it that way.
I think a bunch of Dutch guys asked their government, and the government said sure.
1844 in England (before then you had to get an Act of Parliament passed to become a corporation like the East India Company).
I think it was later in US and followed the Sherman Act.
It was the creation of corporation which was the big deal it was allowing them to limit their liabilities. That came a bit later (in England, dunno about the states) and was very controversial, fitting CdM's description.
Ideally corporations would be taxed, but there's no doubt that the big ones are adept at avoiding it.
Quote from: Barrister on July 19, 2011, 11:02:55 PM
Corporate personhood is a pretty old concept at this point. Like 18th century.
Legal personhood for the purposes of contracting, yes. Personhood with rights like the right to free speech? That's more recent, I think.
Gups: you're saying the limited liability corporation didn't come to England until after 1844? That sounds awful late. What was the East India Company?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 20, 2011, 06:42:09 AM
Gups: you're saying the limited liability corporation didn't come to England until after 1844? That sounds awful late. What was the East India Company?
1855, actually (Limited Liability Act). The EIC was a joint stock company, with unlimited liability until 1855.
I think the English were the first to allow limited liability, although others weren't far behind.
MadBadImmortalMan: heard on NPR that your chain low home CPI is supposed to save 112 billion over 10. Chump change.
Quote from: grumbler on July 19, 2011, 07:18:46 PM
I favor taxation at the individual level, not the corporate level.
Yes, but for this to work, you have to end the preferential treatment for cap gains and dividends.
Or alternatively, you get rid of C corporations and tax all corporate stockholders as if it were an S. Then you wouldn't need taxes on capital at all.
Quote from: grumbler on July 19, 2011, 07:18:46 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 19, 2011, 07:10:03 PM
That's a big deal too. Bringing corporate tax rates down to almost European levels and no longer taxing repatriated profits. Also, the debate about the Bush tax cuts expiring would be instantly over for obvious reasons.
I have never paid taxes on overseas profits, because the taxes I paid before the money was repatriated was always higher than the tax I would have owed here.
I favor taxation at the individual level, not the corporate level. Corporations have always found it cheaper to evade US taxes than citizens find it, and it makes sense to want them to store and report profits domestically. If you make it cheaper for them to pay their taxes than offshore them, you get more money.
This does seem to make some good sense. Eliminate some of the tax loop holes while bringing the tax rate down. As it is now many corps pay much less than the highest tax bracket due to taking advantage of tax breaks, and something like 30% or more corps pay no taxes.
Quote from: Gups on July 20, 2011, 06:36:42 AM
1844 in England (before then you had to get an Act of Parliament passed to become a corporation like the East India Company).
I think it was later in US and followed the Sherman Act.
Not so - corporations existed in the US as early in the 18th century; one of the most famous Supreme Court decision, Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, was decided in 1819, and concerned the rights of private corporations. It is true that in the 18th century and the early 19th in most states, an act of the state legislature was required to get a corporate charter, but by 1811, New York State already had a general incorporation statute. Massachusetts also had general incorporation in the 19th century, and the principle of limited corporate liability was already being recognized in the Massacusetts courts by 1817.
The key thing to keep in mind is that corporation law in the US is primarily a state and not a federal matter.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 20, 2011, 09:53:28 AM
Yes, but for this to work, you have to end the preferential treatment for cap gains and dividends.
Or alternatively, you get rid of C corporations and tax all corporate stockholders as if it were an S. Then you wouldn't need taxes on capital at all.
The latter. I wouldn't tax "capital" at all, just treat it all as income, where such is in fact the case. You'd need some mechanism for taxing foreign investors, but I think such a mechanism is in place already.
Quote from: KRonn on July 20, 2011, 10:23:45 AMEliminate some of the tax loop holes while bringing the tax rate down. As it is now many corps pay much less than the highest tax bracket due to taking advantage of tax breaks, and something like 30% or more corps pay no taxes.
I'll repeat a post I did on the other forum about this. I don't know what the data suggests specifically, but it's a bit interesting.
On the revenue side of things, here (http://"http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/07/us-government-receipts-as-percent-of.html") is a post on CR about it:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcr4re.com%2FCRimages%2FUSReceipts.jpg&hash=08f4653f191c705b96f4af0dfb41ec8ae0bf41aa)
A couple of things stand out, looking at the linked data (except CBO, their site is still down :p ).
First of all, corporate tax receipts dropped over the same period way faster than corporate tax rates dropped. I think that's all the deductions and loopholes growing over the period in question. Almost all of the decline in receipts happened in the period of years before the significant rate reductions took place. These rates bottomed out during the Clinton Administration. There seems to be very little correlation between the actual rates and the receipts during the period, as the top marginal corporate income tax rate stayed between 45 and 55% all the way up to 1987.
Second, personal income tax seems to be primarily driven by economic factors and not by tax rate. The top marginal rate in this category was in the 80 to 94% range until 1963 (Kennedy lowered it), 70% until 1981, and dropped to 50% and then 35% where it is presently. Yet receipts don't match the rate changes here either. I suspect it would be more closely tied to a chart of the unemployment rate, or especially in later years, a chart of the Dow Jones. That suggests that tax receipts are more dependent on job creation than they are tax rates.
The purple line SSA/Medicare receipts seem somewhat more straightforward. The rates for those taxes has steadily increased (http://"http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html") over the years and so have the receipts. There are very few tax credits or exemptions for them.
Quote from: grumbler on July 20, 2011, 06:40:12 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 19, 2011, 11:02:55 PM
Corporate personhood is a pretty old concept at this point. Like 18th century.
Legal personhood for the purposes of contracting, yes. Personhood with rights like the right to free speech? That's more recent, I think.
It's a shame they can't be jailed or executed.
Something's happening. Boehner came out and made a statement but I don't know what it was. Saw it on tv in a restaurant.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 21, 2011, 05:09:46 PM
Something's happening. Boehner came out and made a statement but I don't know what it was. Saw it on tv in a restaurant.
And I heard that China --oh, wait, how does the meme go now :hmm:
So a deal is imminent, but some Dems are rebelling this evening according to AC360.
BIG PLAN!
The chyron says: New Framework: Spending cuts now, new revenue later.
My guess is, very little new revenue, and cuts that never materialize.
Mr. Anti-Tax himself gave his blessing to axe the Bush tax cuts.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 22, 2011, 08:49:58 AM
Mr. Anti-Tax himself gave his blessing to axe the Bush tax cuts.
He backtracked. Boehner is now demanding the repeal of the mandate to support raising the debt ceiling.
Dance, Obama, dance!
I wonder if there are enough Republicans who are either sane enough or knowledgeable enough to actually raise the debt ceiling.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2011, 10:59:53 AM
I wonder if there are enough Republicans who are either sane enough or knowledgeable enough to actually raise the debt ceiling.
They'll wuss out, don't worry.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 22, 2011, 10:42:07 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 22, 2011, 08:49:58 AM
Mr. Anti-Tax himself gave his blessing to axe the Bush tax cuts.
He backtracked. Boehner is now demanding the repeal of the mandate to support raising the debt ceiling.
Dance, Obama, dance!
They're getting new polling I think. Look at this:
Quote
25. Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget?
July 18-20
2011
Favor 74%
Oppose 24%
No opinion 1%
Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2011, 11:20:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2011, 10:59:53 AM
I wonder if there are enough Republicans who are either sane enough or knowledgeable enough to actually raise the debt ceiling.
They'll wuss out, don't worry.
This is the same sort of "wuss out" as a suicide bomber who has second thoughts. It honestly boggles the mind why some people want to do this. Presumably they don't care if the economy collapses or have deluded themselves that anyone who isn't spouting conservative orthodoxy is a liar.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2011, 12:58:56 PM
This is the same sort of "wuss out" as a suicide bomber who has second thoughts. It honestly boggles the mind why some people want to do this. Presumably they don't care if the economy collapses or have deluded themselves that anyone who isn't spouting conservative orthodoxy is a liar.
Or they genuinely are convinced they personally would benefit from the disaster.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 22, 2011, 12:16:32 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on July 22, 2011, 10:42:07 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 22, 2011, 08:49:58 AM
Mr. Anti-Tax himself gave his blessing to axe the Bush tax cuts.
He backtracked. Boehner is now demanding the repeal of the mandate to support raising the debt ceiling.
Dance, Obama, dance!
They're getting new polling I think. Look at this:
Quote
25. Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget?
July 18-20
2011
Favor 74%
Oppose 24%
No opinion 1%
Now would 74% of the plebs support a balanced budge amendment if the pollster informs them that it would result in some combination of Medicare/SS cuts and tax increases?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 22, 2011, 01:02:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2011, 12:58:56 PM
This is the same sort of "wuss out" as a suicide bomber who has second thoughts. It honestly boggles the mind why some people want to do this. Presumably they don't care if the economy collapses or have deluded themselves that anyone who isn't spouting conservative orthodoxy is a liar.
Or they genuinely are convinced they personally would benefit from the disaster.
Would they though? OK, let's say they get elected (and I'm not sure they will just because of this), but if they do they'll inherit an economic disaster and then must figure out how to fix what they broke without breaking their pledges of no tax hikes and balanced budgets.
Quote from: Fate on July 22, 2011, 01:19:30 PM
Now would 74% of the plebs support a balanced budge amendment if the pollster informs them that it would result in some combination of Medicare/SS cuts and tax increases?
That would be a loaded speculative question, so I don't think a
good pollster would ask that. However, here's a relevant bit from the same poll:
Quote
24. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific proposals for cutting government spending and
increasing taxes that have been suggested as part of the discussions on the debt ceiling. For each
one, please tell me whether you favor or oppose that proposal as a way to reduce the amount that
the government owes. (RANDOM ORDER)
Favor Oppose No Opinion
Cutting federal subsidies to farmers 31% 66% 2%
Cutting pensions and benefits for retired government workers 30% 68% 2%
Cutting defense spending 47% 52% 1%
Cutting the amount the government spends on Medicaid, the federal health program for the poor 22% 77% *
Cutting the amount the government spends on Medicare, the federal health program for the elderly 12% 87% 1%
Cutting the amount the government spends on Social Security 16% 84% 1%
Increasing the taxes paid by oil and gas companies by ending federal subsidies for those businesses 73% 26% 1%
Increasing the taxes paid by businesses that own private jets 76% 23% *
Increasing the taxes paid by people who make more than 250 thousand dollars a year 73% 26% *
Quote from: MadImmortalMan link=topic=5170.msg288037#msg288037
...
24. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific proposals for cutting government spending and
increasing taxes that have been suggested as part of the discussions on the debt ceiling. For each
one, please tell me whether you favor or oppose that proposal as a way to reduce the amount that
the government owes. (RANDOM ORDER)
Favor Oppose No Opinion
Cutting federal subsidies to farmers 31% 66% 2%
Cutting pensions and benefits for retired government workers 30% 68% 2%
Cutting defense spending 47% 52% 1%
Cutting the amount the government spends on Medicaid, the federal health program for the poor 22% 77% *
Cutting the amount the government spends on Medicare, the federal health program for the elderly 12% 87% 1%
Cutting the amount the government spends on Social Security 16% 84% 1%
Increasing the taxes paid by oil and gas companies by ending federal subsidies for those businesses 73% 26% 1%
Increasing the taxes paid by businesses that own private jets 76% 23% *
Increasing the taxes paid by people who make more than 250 thousand dollars a year 73% 26% *
Hmmm so a majority oppose cuts to all the stated expenditures and a majority oppose any raises in taxes...
I think you guys are in a major rut. :mellow:
G.
Quote from: Grallon on July 22, 2011, 01:34:40 PM
Hmmm so a majority oppose cuts to all the stated expenditures and a majority oppose any raises in taxes...
USA! USA! USA!
Quote from: Grallon on July 22, 2011, 01:34:40 PM
Hmmm so a majority oppose cuts to all the stated expenditures and a majority oppose any raises in taxes...
I think you guys are in a major rut. :mellow:
:huh:
Doesn't the poll say the majority (70+%) favours raising taxes on oil companies (and ending subsidies), businesses that own private jets and individuals making $250 K+/year?
Quote from: Jacob on July 22, 2011, 01:41:14 PM
Doesn't the poll say the majority (70+%) favours raising taxes on oil companies (and ending subsidies), businesses that own private jets and individuals making $250 K+/year?
You are right - I misread. Still, what they need are major tax raises across the board. They're certainly not paying the ratio we are - and we don't live in the Third World.
G.
Quote from: Jacob on July 22, 2011, 01:41:14 PM
Quote from: Grallon on July 22, 2011, 01:34:40 PM
Hmmm so a majority oppose cuts to all the stated expenditures and a majority oppose any raises in taxes...
I think you guys are in a major rut. :mellow:
:huh:
Doesn't the poll say the majority (70+%) favours raising taxes on oil companies (and ending subsidies), businesses that own private jets and individuals making $250 K+/year?
Of course, the Dems have been saying that there is no need to raise taxes on anyone but the rich, and no need to cut anything as long as we raise the taxes on those damn rich people. There is plenty of money, as long as the rich pay their share!
Quote from: Grallon on July 22, 2011, 01:45:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 22, 2011, 01:41:14 PM
Doesn't the poll say the majority (70+%) favours raising taxes on oil companies (and ending subsidies), businesses that own private jets and individuals making $250 K+/year?
You are right - I misread. Still, what they need are major tax raises across the board. They're certainly not paying the ratio we are - and we don't live in the Third World.
G.
We only "need* major tax raises if we want to continue funding stuff at the level we currently are - if we are willing to spend less, then there is no need for major tax increases.
Sadly we have one party selling the message that we don't need to raise taxes, and the other party selling the message that we don't need to cut spending. And people are listening to whatever it is they want to hear.
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2011, 01:53:18 PM
Of course, the Dems have been saying that there is no need to raise taxes on anyone but the rich, and no need to cut anything as long as we raise the taxes on those damn rich people. There is plenty of money, as long as the rich pay their share!
There is not enough revenue in that. I don't know any mainstream Dems claiming it.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 22, 2011, 01:56:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2011, 01:53:18 PM
Of course, the Dems have been saying that there is no need to raise taxes on anyone but the rich, and no need to cut anything as long as we raise the taxes on those damn rich people. There is plenty of money, as long as the rich pay their share!
There is not enough revenue in that. I don't know any mainstream Dems claiming it.
You don't read to many Dem blogs then. Plenty have been arguing that for some time, although now that actual numbers are coming they seem to be backing off the "there is plenty of money if only the rich paid their share!" bullshit. I imagine it depends on how you define "mainstream Dem" I suppose. Certainly there were plenty of the talking heads claiming that.
And yes, of course there isn't enough revenue there.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 22, 2011, 01:56:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2011, 01:53:18 PM
Of course, the Dems have been saying that there is no need to raise taxes on anyone but the rich, and no need to cut anything as long as we raise the taxes on those damn rich people. There is plenty of money, as long as the rich pay their share!
There is not enough revenue in that. I don't know any mainstream Dems claiming it.
I dunno, the top 2% have something like 40% of the wealth. If you can raise taxes on 40% of the assets in the US by only annoying 2% of the people it would seem like smart politics. Still, I think an across the board tax increase is in order and perhaps a special tax on libertarians and people who like Ayn Rand.
Quote from: Jacob on July 22, 2011, 01:41:14 PM
Doesn't the poll say the majority (70+%) favours raising taxes on oil companies (and ending subsidies), businesses that own private jets and individuals making $250 K+/year?
Taxing corporate jets wouldn't even rise to the level of a rounding error in the deficit. Higher taxes on oil companies just rise to that level but not much past it. So even assuming the US keeps a more modest deficit, to do it with just these things would mean the 250K+ people paying about another $1 trillion in tax every year. There are about 2.2 million families in the US whose combined family earnings exceed $250,000. Which means in order to close the distance just by taxing the 250K, those families would have to pay an average of over $450,000 additional tax per year.
Now I am no supply-sider, but that seems a bit excessive.
The only way to close the deficit is through both expenditure cuts and tax increases, and the latter will probably have to be broader than just the 250K people.
I heard on NPR that to close the deficit on the backs of only the 250K+ marginal rates would have to go to 90%.
Yes Grallon, the US public is in deep, stupid denial about the deficit. I've been saying that all along, especially when posters say that the Republicans are trying to score easy political points. I won't name any names, but we all know I'm talking about Razgovory.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 22, 2011, 01:25:53 PM
That would be a loaded speculative question, so I don't think a good pollster would ask that. However, here's a relevant bit from the same poll:
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the general public doesn't see the connection between a balanced budget amendment and a subsequent curtailment of Medicare spending. 87% for not touching Medicare, 74% for the amendment.
Where's this money coming from? Increased revenues from massive tax cuts? :rolleyes:
So is America broke yet ?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2011, 02:33:28 PM
I heard on NPR that to close the deficit on the backs of only the 250K+ marginal rates would have to go to 90%.
According to the census bureau in 2009, there were 2.375 million families that fell into that income stratum, with a mean income of $425,226. If you multiply those numbers together you get almost exactly $1 trillion. So taking into account that this group is probably already paying some tax, then total income tax rates (forget marginal) would probaby exceed 100%.
Quote from: Fate on July 22, 2011, 02:34:54 PM
Where's this money coming from? Increased revenues from massive tax cuts? :rolleyes:
Some senior organization is running ads demanding we do it through waste and abuse. :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2011, 02:01:29 PM
I dunno, the top 2% have something like 40% of the wealth. If you can raise taxes on 40% of the assets in the US by only annoying 2% of the people it would seem like smart politics. Still, I think an across the board tax increase is in order and perhaps a special tax on libertarians and people who like Ayn Rand.
The problem is that it's a political football, since political fundraising from individuals predominantly comes from the 2% of people that would be ticked off. :hmm:
I agree it's probably not the magic "anti-deficit" button the Democrats seem to think it is, though. The numbers have also been mired in misleading or outright false statistics for so long that it's not even clear to most of us what kind of impact it would have on revenue, or how unfair it actually would be to top earners. Even if you subjected an entire 40% of the taxable income to a 2% tax hike with no refunds, credits, or loopholes, you'd still only generate less than 1% of the previous year's tax revenue.
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2011, 01:56:49 PM
Sadly we have one party selling the message that we don't need to raise taxes, and the other party selling the message that we don't need to cut spending. And people are listening to whatever it is they want to hear.
What party is selling the message that we don't need to cut spending? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2011, 02:37:29 PM
Quote from: Fate on July 22, 2011, 02:34:54 PM
Where's this money coming from? Increased revenues from massive tax cuts? :rolleyes:
Some senior organization is running ads demanding we do it through waste and abuse. :lol:
What a joke. I love how that's always a magic solution. If waste and abuse were a line item in the budget, it would have to be a couple trillion. :P
What is it about American society and politics that makes removing tax breaks for people earning incomes 99% of your population is never going to make so contraversial?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2011, 02:49:32 PM
What is it about American society and politics that makes removing tax breaks for people earning incomes 99% of your population is never going to make so contraversial?
The Republican argument is something along the lines of: "They are the most productive members of society. If you make them pay more taxes, then the economy would contract."
Quote from: Fate on July 22, 2011, 02:45:22 PM
What party is selling the message that we don't need to cut spending? :huh:
Please tell me you're joking.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2011, 02:52:46 PM
Quote from: Fate on July 22, 2011, 02:45:22 PM
What party is selling the message that we don't need to cut spending? :huh:
Please tell me you're joking.
What I've seen these past few months is unanimous House Republican opposition to tax increases and a willingness of the leader of the Democratic party to cut spending. What have you seen these past few months?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2011, 02:37:29 PMSome senior organization is running ads demanding we do it through waste and abuse. :lol:
No problem. Just classify farming subsidies, medicare and medicaid, and the defense budget as "waste and abuse" :bowler:
Willingness to do cuts in the distant future.
The only ones giving any actual ground appear to be the Gang of 6(7).
Quote from: Jacob on July 22, 2011, 03:04:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2011, 02:37:29 PMSome senior organization is running ads demanding we do it through waste and abuse. :lol:
No problem. Just classify farming subsidies, medicare and medicaid, and the defense budget as "waste and abuse" :bowler:
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Quote from: Fate on July 22, 2011, 02:56:35 PM
What I've seen these past few months is unanimous House Republican opposition to tax increases and a willingness of the leader of the Democratic party to cut spending. What have you seen these past few months?
I've seen and heard all kinds of stuff in the past few months. A Democratic Congress and Senate passing a bill to extend the Bush tax cuts for two more years and extend unemployment benefits to 99 weeks as a "second stimulus bill." Repeated denunciaton of the cruelty and unfairness of the Ryan proposal to freeze Medicare and Medicaid. Four rounds of government shutdown chicken in which each and every cut proposed was argued against. A first counter-proposal from Obama that cut nothing and offered only to raise taxes on the forces of darkness. And even now, after Obama's breakthrough proposal, Nancy Pelosi is still reciting lines about protecting the helpless people on fixed incomes.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2011, 02:49:32 PM
What is it about American society and politics that makes removing tax breaks for people earning incomes 99% of your population is never going to make so contraversial?
If you're talking about things like oil exploraion credits then no one in our population is ever going to qualify.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2011, 03:10:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2011, 02:49:32 PM
What is it about American society and politics that makes removing tax breaks for people earning incomes 99% of your population is never going to make so contraversial?
If you're talking about things like oil exploraion credits then no one in our population is ever going to qualify.
Not sure how oil credits are involved. My post relates to the ones directly above it talking about the tax rate on people earning more than 250k.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2011, 03:38:22 PM
Not sure how oil credits are involved. My post relates to the ones directly above it talking about the tax rate on people earning more than 250k.
Ah. Usually when I read tax breaks I think of some kind of credit or deduction, not the marginal rate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2011, 03:40:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2011, 03:38:22 PM
Not sure how oil credits are involved. My post relates to the ones directly above it talking about the tax rate on people earning more than 250k.
Ah. Usually when I read tax breaks I think of some kind of credit or deduction, not the marginal rate.
iirc Obama campaigned on ending the tax breaks brought in under the Republicans for people earning 250+.
Back to the original question. Why all the cultural horror over such a thing?
American Dream*
The US is a place full of people who envision themselves as the future rich.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2011, 03:43:38 PM
iirc Obama campaigned on ending the tax breaks brought in under the Republicans for people earning 250+.
Admiral is giving you the Yi treatment b/c while the Bush cuts lowered marginal rates it can be argued that they didn't put in place tax "breaks" based in income.
IN any event, the 03 cuts never should have been enacted and the 01 cuts should have been allowed to sunset. Both were enacted as stimulus measures.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 22, 2011, 03:46:48 PM
American Dream*
The US is a place full of people who envision themselves as the future rich.
The Rich have very effective PR and advertising companies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2011, 03:07:58 PM
Quote from: Fate on July 22, 2011, 02:56:35 PM
What I've seen these past few months is unanimous House Republican opposition to tax increases and a willingness of the leader of the Democratic party to cut spending. What have you seen these past few months?
I've seen and heard all kinds of stuff in the past few months. A Democratic Congress and Senate passing a bill to extend the Bush tax cuts for two more years and extend unemployment benefits to 99 weeks as a "second stimulus bill." Repeated denunciaton of the cruelty and unfairness of the Ryan proposal to freeze Medicare and Medicaid. Four rounds of government shutdown chicken in which each and every cut proposed was argued against. A first counter-proposal from Obama that cut nothing and offered only to raise taxes on the forces of darkness. And even now, after Obama's breakthrough proposal, Nancy Pelosi is still reciting lines about protecting the helpless people on fixed incomes.
What is your hard-on for the Ryan Plan? Saying they are opposed the Ryan plan is not the same as saying they opposed all cuts. The Ryan plan is not even a serious attempt, as most cuts are being kicked down the road by over a decade. I find it unlikely that the congress adhering to a budget plan that doesn't bear fruit until 2030, which is when the budget is balanced.
And you are right, I do believe the Republicans are trying score political points. They played the game of tax cuts and deregulation twice in the last 30 years. It ended the same way both times, with a government bailout of financial institutions, a huge deficit, and a sharp recession. How many times do they have to try the same stupid idea before it occurs to them it doesn't work.
I have often seen Republicans referring to welfare and entitlement programs as "bribes" for the electorate (particularly minorities), I take the Republicans at their word that they in fact believe this and I think it explains why they want to cut these programs when a Democrat is President and why they are less likely to cut them when a Republican is president. They are opposed to a Democratic president benefiting from these electoral "bribes", but less so for a Republican. I think they wish to cut government programs during a Obama's term to make him unpopular with those weak minded minorities who only want a bribe.
What strikes me as odd though, is that the moment that Obama (and Clinton) get elected the GOP goes back to concern about the debt guys like you come running back. You're like an abused spouse who keeps letting in her husband back in when he promise to fly straight and not hit you anymore. When President Perry or Romney comes into to office you just get beat all over again.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2011, 02:49:32 PM
What is it about American society and politics that makes removing tax breaks for people earning incomes 99% of your population is never going to make so contraversial?
Hyper-partisanship. The trick is to grab the people with some hard stances on divisive social issues, like abortion or gay marriage. Then, when you have them in your control, advocate for issues your really care about, like tax cuts for your campaign contributors.
Since it's "their party" that's proposing it, they're going go along with it as long as they're provided with some kind of explanation for why the economic policies that are so against their interests are really in their interests. The explanations don't have to make any logical sense, and most of them just cannot possibly make any sense, but that's not a problem. They will believe you as long as you let them, and will become your fervent supporters.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2011, 03:43:38 PM
iirc Obama campaigned on ending the tax breaks brought in under the Republicans for people earning 250+.
That's not the language he used. He campaigned on *not* raising taxes for people earning less tha 250K, and on "eliminating tax breaks for corporations shipping jobs overseas." It's interesting to me that he didn't go anywhere with that. My guess is on further examination he learned that particular tax break was reasonable.
QuoteBack to the original question. Why all the cultural horror over such a thing?
Well, as you can see from MIM's poll results, a slight majority of Americans are in favor of raising rates on "millionaires and billionaires."
Then what the Fates and Moneys of the world say has some truth: country club Republicans are still an important political force, particularly at fund raising time.
I've gone on record several times as being in favor of raising *everyone's* taxes, of letting them rise back to the Clinton rates. More for philosophical than economic reasons. I think the Bernie Saunders wing of the Democratic party wants to raise taxes on the rich because they want to punish evil. The rich caused the recession, the rich forced poor minorities to assume mortgages that were too large, the rich paid themselves gigantic bonuses with TARP money, etc, etc. To me that's class warfare. Also I think it's dangerous to create a system in which 99% of voters get to decide what kind of free money they will get from the state but don't ever face a bill for that free money. I was and am generally supportive of Obamacare, but if we all benefit shouldn't we all contribute? Finally there's the basic free market principle that a person is entitled to the fruit of their own labors.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2011, 03:57:06 PM
What is your hard-on for the Ryan Plan? Saying they are opposed the Ryan plan is not the same as saying they opposed all cuts. The Ryan plan is not even a serious attempt, as most cuts are being kicked down the road by over a decade. I find it unlikely that the congress adhering to a budget plan that doesn't bear fruit until 2030, which is when the budget is balanced.
And you are right, I do believe the Republicans are trying score political points. They played the game of tax cuts and deregulation twice in the last 30 years. It ended the same way both times, with a government bailout of financial institutions, a huge deficit, and a sharp recession. How many times do they have to try the same stupid idea before it occurs to them it doesn't work.
I have often seen Republicans referring to welfare and entitlement programs as "bribes" for the electorate (particularly minorities), I take the Republicans at their word that they in fact believe this and I think it explains why they want to cut these programs when a Democrat is President and why they are less likely to cut them when a Republican is president. They are opposed to a Democratic president benefiting from these electoral "bribes", but less so for a Republican. I think they wish to cut government programs during a Obama's term to make him unpopular with those weak minded minorities who only want a bribe.
What strikes me as odd though, is that the moment that Obama (and Clinton) get elected the GOP goes back to concern about the debt guys like you come running back. You're like an abused spouse who keeps letting in her husband back in when he promise to fly straight and not hit you anymore. When President Perry or Romney comes into to office you just get beat all over again.
When the issue on the table is have Democrats been willing to make spending cuts, and you start talking about how terrible the Republicans are, that's called changing the subject.
Quote from: mongers on July 22, 2011, 03:56:06 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 22, 2011, 03:46:48 PM
American Dream*
The US is a place full of people who envision themselves as the future rich.
The Rich have very effective PR and advertising companies.
But that is true in other countries and yet I think the US is the only place where this sort of visceral reaction against ending tax cuts for the rich (thanks for the clarification JR) would occur.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2011, 04:13:01 PM
But that is true in other countries and yet I think the US is the only place where this sort of visceral reaction against ending tax cuts for the rich (thanks for the clarification JR) would occur.
I don't think it is that visceral; what is "special" about America is the degree to which tax increases in general are perceived to be politically unacceptable.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2011, 04:06:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2011, 03:57:06 PM
What is your hard-on for the Ryan Plan? Saying they are opposed the Ryan plan is not the same as saying they opposed all cuts. The Ryan plan is not even a serious attempt, as most cuts are being kicked down the road by over a decade. I find it unlikely that the congress adhering to a budget plan that doesn't bear fruit until 2030, which is when the budget is balanced.
And you are right, I do believe the Republicans are trying score political points. They played the game of tax cuts and deregulation twice in the last 30 years. It ended the same way both times, with a government bailout of financial institutions, a huge deficit, and a sharp recession. How many times do they have to try the same stupid idea before it occurs to them it doesn't work.
I have often seen Republicans referring to welfare and entitlement programs as "bribes" for the electorate (particularly minorities), I take the Republicans at their word that they in fact believe this and I think it explains why they want to cut these programs when a Democrat is President and why they are less likely to cut them when a Republican is president. They are opposed to a Democratic president benefiting from these electoral "bribes", but less so for a Republican. I think they wish to cut government programs during a Obama's term to make him unpopular with those weak minded minorities who only want a bribe.
What strikes me as odd though, is that the moment that Obama (and Clinton) get elected the GOP goes back to concern about the debt guys like you come running back. You're like an abused spouse who keeps letting in her husband back in when he promise to fly straight and not hit you anymore. When President Perry or Romney comes into to office you just get beat all over again.
When the issue on the table is have Democrats been willing to make spending cuts, and you start talking about how terrible the Republicans are, that's called changing the subject.
There's not much to talk about with Democrats being willing to make cuts. They are willing to make cuts and have stated so.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2011, 04:01:50 PM
My guess is on further examination he learned that particular tax break was reasonable.
very droll
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2011, 04:31:56 PM
I don't get it Joan.
There is no tax break for shipping jobs.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2011, 04:34:20 PM
There is no tax break for shipping jobs.
Surely that particular line must have had *some* basis in fact, no? :huh:
Quote from: Habbaku on July 22, 2011, 01:36:29 PM
Quote from: Grallon on July 22, 2011, 01:34:40 PM
Hmmm so a majority oppose cuts to all the stated expenditures and a majority oppose any raises in taxes...
USA! USA! USA!
I think that position is one that unites all the peoples of the world :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2011, 04:35:41 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2011, 04:34:20 PM
There is no tax break for shipping jobs.
Surely that particular line must have had *some* basis in fact, no? :huh:
QuoteInformation No results found for "eliminating tax breaks for corporations shipping jobs overseas"
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22eliminating+tax+breaks+for+corporations+shipping+jobs+overseas%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
I think some guy just made it up today on Languish. Two guesses as to what that guy's Yi was.
Quote"We can end tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those breaks to companies that create good jobs with decent wages here in America," Obama said last month in Lorain, Ohio.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-03-20-corporate-tax-offshoring_N.htm
Maybe you can quote him accurately if you use google.com
Damn good guess.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/16/politics/main6964121.shtml
Senate has voted down CC&B. 51-46
Closer than I expected, but then it was a safe vote for the GOP members. No threat, but still appease the ranting mobs back home.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 22, 2011, 05:09:01 PM
Senate has voted down CC&B. 51-46
Closer than I expected, but then it was a safe vote for the GOP members. No threat, but still appease the ranting mobs back home.
McCain didn't vote :hmm:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 22, 2011, 05:09:01 PM
Senate has voted down CC&B. 51-46
Closer than I expected, but then it was a safe vote for the GOP members. No threat, but still appease the ranting mobs back home.
I must admit that I found it amusing that the Republicans were willing to pretend that they could, by majority vote, force the Congress to promise to pass legislation that would require a 2/3 vote.
I think we have time for some more grandstanding before the adults have to take away the kiddie's toys. Maybe the Republicans can whip up a bill that promises to pass a constitutional amendment to allow states to secede if taxes go up.
Obama is doing a pc now. Apparently, it's Boehner's turn to walk away from negotiations. He's going to talk to the Senate without Obama there.
The Presidential gray hair curse has got Barack already.
I thought he had put something like 4 billion in cuts on the table just a little while ago. :huh:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhtmlimg3.scribdassets.com%2F64rub4ykao11umkc%2Fimages%2F1-0054303c08.jpg&hash=d0d6108d96c96d78e334f8436a4a443e3e500659)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhtmlimg4.scribdassets.com%2F64rub4ykao11umkc%2Fimages%2F2-b7ca8f3c9d.jpg&hash=8efead9dec10b7716c7b268fb8145fa8298e6307)
Ed: Aren't you supposed to capitalize "President"?
Question is Grumber, where are the adults?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2011, 05:34:42 PM
I thought he had put something like 4 billion in cuts on the table just a little while ago. :huh:
Boehner did an Arafat on those negotiations, as he now has for the smaller package.
I think he is terrified about what his caucus might do to him if he was reasonable.
I think that what we are going to end up with is a naked vote on the debt ceiling.
Where do you get communist from that? :rolleyes:
Anyway Boehner answers crazy canuck's question: "... As a former small businessman, I know tax increases destroy jobs." Democrats have never presented an effective counter argument.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2011, 05:44:16 PM
Question is Grumber, where are the adults?
In the White House for the Democrats and the Senate for the Republicans.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2011, 05:44:16 PM
Question is Grumber, where are the adults?
In the Senate, hopefully.
There's been buzz that Obama has been very rude in these talks. I don't know how true that is. We know from the past that his style can sometimes be abrasive (remember "I Won"), so I don't completely disbelieve it.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 22, 2011, 05:47:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2011, 05:44:16 PM
Question is Grumber, where are the adults?
In the Senate, hopefully.
There's been buzz that Obama has been very rude in these talks. I don't know how true that is. We know from the past that his style can sometimes be abrasive (remember "I Won"), so I don't completely disbelieve it.
The President was rude, therefore we're going to send the Republic off a cliff! :hmm:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 22, 2011, 05:47:44 PMThere's been buzz that Obama has been very rude in these talks. I don't know how true that is. We know from the past that his style can sometimes be abrasive (remember "I Won"), so I don't completely disbelieve it.
But Boehner himself, in his letter, says it was "[n]not because of different personalities...".
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 22, 2011, 05:36:41 PM
Ed: Aren't you supposed to capitalize "President"?
Only when part of the title (i.e. a proper name).
Obama has rudely refused to resign.
Quote from: The Hill
Reid: 'I'm the Senate majority leader. Why don't I know about this deal?'
By Alexander Bolton - 07/21/11 07:12 PM ET
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) confronted White House budget director Jack Lew during a Thursday afternoon meeting about secret talks on a deficit-reduction deal between the president and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).
"I'm the Senate majority leader — why don't I know about this deal?" Reid demanded as soon as the budget director walked into the historic Mansfield Room for a meeting with Senate Democrats, according to a lawmaker who witnessed the exchange.
Lew shot back: "If there's a deal, then the president doesn't know about it, the vice president doesn't know about it and I don't know about it."
A Senate Democratic aide confirmed the exchange took place.
Democrats were outraged about reports that Obama was willing to accept major spending cuts in exchange for reforming the tax code at some point in the future as part of a deal to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.
Reid and other Democrats warned the administration officials in the meeting that they might not support a deal between Obama and Boehner if kept out of the loop.
"It was a heated session," said a senior Democratic senator who attended the lunch. "There's a basic lack of trust with the president."
The lawmaker said the lack of trust stems from what they suspect are secret negotiations taking place between Obama and Boehner, without the input of Reid and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.).
"Harry's not being included!" exclaimed the second senator.
Reid has told Democrats and Democratic allies that he did not have any of the details of a reported $3 trillion deficit-reduction deal coming together between Obama and Boehner.
The lawmaker said Senate Democrats "can't be assumed to go along with whatever deal."
Senate Democrats grilled Lew about whether the president was holding side talks with Boehner, according to a source who attended Thursday's meeting.
Lew was somewhat evasive in his answer, leading some Democrats to conclude that Obama is conducting backchannel talks with Boehner.
Lew explained that Obama has to be able to negotiate one on one with Boehner if they are to come up with an agreement to raise the debt limit that can pass the House of Representatives.
"Obama and Boehner can't put together anything that can pass the House if there are too many people in the room," said a lawmaker who listened to Lew's explanation.
Boehner complained in a television interview last week that the group of negotiators had grown too big.
"The room's too big," Boehner told Fox News. "There are too many people in there trying to negotiate what is a very difficult — could be and will be a very difficult agreement. There are just too many people in there pouring cold water on virtually every idea that gets thrown on the table."
Democratic aides said congressional leaders were told Wednesday night that Obama is prepared to cut a deal with Boehner that would include spending cuts and entitlement reform and only a promise from Republicans of taking up tax reform next year.
Reid appeared to be as surprised by the reports as any of his rank-and-file colleagues during Thursday's lunch.
Senate Democrats told Lew and White House legislative affairs director Rob Nabors, who also attended the meeting, that they would not support a deficit-reduction deal that cut spending and entitlement programs and deferred the elimination of special corporate tax breaks to a later date.
"It would be very hard to take Republicans at their word that they would do anything later on," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), speaking of a potential deficit-reduction deal that would postpone tax reform.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said "a year is way too long" for Democrats to wait for tax reforms if they agree to trillions of dollars in spending cuts this summer.
"If you take key parts of the deal off the table, then how do you come up with a fair-minded approach to what's on the table?" Kerry said.
Kerry and other Democrats, such as Sens. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and Michael Bennet (Colo.) are optimistic about a framework from the Senate's Gang of Six that would reduce the deficit by $3.7 trillion over 10 years.
Feinstein said a deal that would implement trillions in spending cuts immediately and postpone until next year tax reforms to raise new revenues is "a nonstarter."
Bennet is circulating a letter among Democratic and Republican colleagues to build support for the Gang of Six's plan and already has more than 33 signatures.
The organizers are not likely to release the letter, however, until after the Senate votes on the Cut, Cap and Balance legislation.
Republican signatories would be seen as undercutting the legislation, a priority of Tea Party conservatives, if they publicly endorsed the Gang of Six plan before a Senate vote on Friday. The conservatives' bill would require passage of a balanced-budget amendment before raising the debt limit.
Labor unions, a powerful ally of Democratic leaders in Congress, are mobilizing to kill the gang's proposed entitlement cuts.
"Our organizations oppose cutes in Social Security benefits, period," AFSCME, the AFL-CIO, the SEIU and the National Education Association said in a letter to Senate and House Democrats on Thursday.
"Nobody should pretend that reducing Social Security [cost-of-living adjustments] by 0.3 percentage points per year is anything other than a benefit cut," the unions wrote.
The labor groups expressed alarm over the "proposed cuts in $383 billion to $500 billion in healthcare" and tax reform that would lower the income tax rate for the nation's wealthiest earners.
"The Gang of Six's proposed top individual rate of 23-29 percent is historically low," they wrote.
The unions plan to take out full-page ads in Capitol Hill publications Friday proclaiming that the plan is "no deal for working families."
Sheesh. It's all bad blood all the time up there.
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2011, 05:44:36 PM
]Boehner did an Arafat on those negotiations, as he now has for the smaller package.
I think he is terrified about what his caucus might do to him if he was reasonable.
I think that what we are going to end up with is a naked vote on the debt ceiling.
This is major problem. Republicans have long known that much of what they say to their base is bullshit. The problem with the tea party phenomenon is that the base is what got elected, and they actually believe the bullshit. They had a similar problem in 94 and ended up impeaching Clinton.
Boener in his press conference claimed that "they had a deal" and just today Obama went back on it and insisted on a larger revenue number, which is why he walked out. CNN hairdos were rumor-mongering (no offense) furiously that Obama had to renege on his offer because of rebellion in the Democratic ranks, which sort of fits in with MIM's article.
On a very encouraging note, both Boener in his press conference and Grover Nordquist (gasp) in an interview were talking about the absolute calamity a default would be.
Why is Grover Nordquist so respected in Conservative circles?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2011, 06:44:53 PM
Boener in his press conference claimed that "they had a deal" and just today Obama went back on it and insisted on a larger revenue number, which is why he walked out. CNN hairdos were rumor-mongering (no offense) furiously that Obama had to renege on his offer because of rebellion in the Democratic ranks, which sort of fits in with MIM's article.
I hope this doesn't turn into a he-said-she-said issue
On the other hand, Boehner said just earlier in writing that there had been no deal and they didn't get close to a deal. Now he is saying differently. I wonder which story is true, and why he told the fib one.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2011, 06:47:09 PM
Why is Grover Nordquist so respected in Conservative circles?
Dunno. I don't think he's all that rich, and he's never had a real job or elected position in his life, so why would anyone pay attention to him? Looks like a social butterfly trustafarian to me.
Didn't he write the no tax increase pledge that the GOP members were all forced to sign?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 22, 2011, 07:15:41 PM
Didn't he write the no tax increase pledge that the GOP members were all forced to sign?
Nobody forced them sign it. Politicians get all kinds of pledges from assholes when they run for office. Any jackass with a printer and stamps can send out pledges for politicians to sign.
I vaguely remember him back in the 1990's, and I recall that he got caught up in the Jack Abramoff thing but wasn't ever charged. Still, I don't know why he has such clout.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 22, 2011, 07:15:41 PM
Didn't he write the no tax increase pledge that the GOP members were all forced to sign?
Forced to sign? Most signed it, but why? They certainly weren't being "forced" to sign it.
Norquist is just a very successful bully. No one ever called his bluff, unless you count elder Bush (I wouldn't), so everyone is scared of Republicans zagradotryads during the primaries.
Quote from: DGuller on July 22, 2011, 07:41:56 PM
Norquist is just a very successful bully. No one ever called his bluff, unless you count elder Bush (I wouldn't), so everyone is scared of Republicans zagradotryads during the primaries.
Actually, the perception is that Bush Sr. did call his bluff, and went from a 90%+ approval rating to not getting re-elected. And they are perfectly willing to take credit for that.
So are the Republicans "forced" to take the pledge? No, but apparently somewhere around 100% of them think they probably should...
Reminds me of the Game of Thrones riddle about who has actual power. The answer: whoever people think has the power, has the power. People think Nordquist can destroy them, so he can.
What is a zagradotryads?
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2011, 07:45:56 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 22, 2011, 07:41:56 PM
Norquist is just a very successful bully. No one ever called his bluff, unless you count elder Bush (I wouldn't), so everyone is scared of Republicans zagradotryads during the primaries.
Actually, the perception is that Bush Sr. did call his bluff, and went from a 90%+ approval rating to not getting re-elected. And they are perfectly willing to take credit for that.
That's just that, the perception. I suspect that Norquist gained his real power somewhat later, and is using elder Bush's example retroactively. I didn't say that it doesn't work out for him.
Quote
Reminds me of the Game of Thrones riddle about who has actual power. The answer: whoever people think has the power, has the power. People think Nordquist can destroy them, so he can.
Yep. Of course, times like these is when Norquist actually has the least power, if you think about it. What's he going to do if all Republicans decide to cave in on some kind of a non-lopsided deal? He's going to try to primary all 200+ of them? He probably knows that, which is why he put out the feelers that letting Bush tax cuts expire wouldn't violate his pledge.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2011, 07:48:38 PM
What is a zagradotryads?
NKVD detachments which were stationed with machine guns behind Soviet front lines, and shot everyone who wasn't as close to the front line as was desired.
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2011, 07:24:00 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 22, 2011, 07:15:41 PM
Didn't he write the no tax increase pledge that the GOP members were all forced to sign?
Forced to sign? Most signed it, but why? They certainly weren't being "forced" to sign it.
Coerced might be a better word.
I have a lot of faith in you guys' ability to handle a little hyperbole. :P
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2011, 02:01:26 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 22, 2011, 01:56:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2011, 01:53:18 PM
Of course, the Dems have been saying that there is no need to raise taxes on anyone but the rich, and no need to cut anything as long as we raise the taxes on those damn rich people. There is plenty of money, as long as the rich pay their share!
There is not enough revenue in that. I don't know any mainstream Dems claiming it.
You don't read to many Dem blogs then. Plenty have been arguing that for some time, although now that actual numbers are coming they seem to be backing off the "there is plenty of money if only the rich paid their share!" bullshit. I imagine it depends on how you define "mainstream Dem" I suppose. Certainly there were plenty of the talking heads claiming that.
And yes, of course there isn't enough revenue there.
I'm 7 hours and 5 pages late but how many "mainstream Dems" write these blogs of which you speak? I'm sure someone else has already mentioned this so:
Go Ducks!!
Who knows? I went over to Pdox, because frankly there aren't enough people defending the Republican actions on Languish. And mocking paradox Conservatives is easier.
:bleeding:
Quote from: sbr on July 22, 2011, 09:25:34 PM
Go Ducks!!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forgetthebox.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2Fmonopoly-go-to-jail-card.jpg&hash=779721ad3d01d9f4fb85eec0048cd6472c7a2321)
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2011, 09:32:57 PM
Quote from: sbr on July 22, 2011, 09:25:34 PM
Go Ducks!!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forgetthebox.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2Fmonopoly-go-to-jail-card.jpg&hash=779721ad3d01d9f4fb85eec0048cd6472c7a2321)
:lol:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 22, 2011, 09:31:18 PM
:bleeding:
What can I say, I like easy targets. Yi and Berkut are probably smarter then I am. I'm at a real disadvantage arguing with either of them.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2011, 04:15:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2011, 04:13:01 PM
But that is true in other countries and yet I think the US is the only place where this sort of visceral reaction against ending tax cuts for the rich (thanks for the clarification JR) would occur.
I don't think it is that visceral; what is "special" about America is the degree to which tax increases in general are perceived to be politically unacceptable.
Oh, it's quite visceral.
I wonder if there's ever been a case where taxes--and taxes alone--have actually resulted in someone in those upper brackets dropping below the poverty level.
Now, I'm not talking about taxes not paid piled up and prosecuted for, as that would be tax evasion. And tax evaders deserve getting it up the ass.
But I'd really like to know of any cases where couples who make $250K and singles who make $200K a year were ever forced into into becoming indigent during the Clinton years under the previous tax bracket, and how the expiration of the 01 and 03 tax cuts along with the AMT would put those same income brackets into mortal, impoverished, negro-living-standards peril.
Then, maybe I can accept the Republican argument against tax hikes.
Why so many penniless Dumbfuckistani rubes who don't make that sort of money keep defending those that do by voting in Republicans...well, as Oprah would say, that's for another show.
Seedy, Dems like you would be a lot easier to stomach of you just liked high taxes in general.
But sadly, it isn't that you are in favor of higher taxes to support greater spending for (and on) everyone, you are in favor of high taxes mainly for the purpose of engaging in class warfare.
It is interesting that your standard for what would clearly be something worthy of concern when it comes to excessive taxes necessitates driving people into poverty. Short of that, any tax increase is a good tax increase, amirite?
First of all, it's not only Democrats that are engaged in "class warfare". The fact that the very rich pay much less in taxes as percentage of income than upper middle class can be viewed as class warfare as well. Well, not really warfare, rather the spoils of a war already won by one of the classes.
And there is also a practical consideration, even if it may sound a little Socialist. Ever-increasing wealth concentration is a very bad thing for democracy. It's an unstable situation. Yes, you may view that argument as an all out class warfare statement, and that would be fair, but at the same time the concern for democracy is behind it. Wealth gives you power in practice, and lopsided wealth distribution disenfranchises those on the wrong side of it.
Quote from: DGuller on July 23, 2011, 12:57:57 AM
First of all, it's not only Democrats that are engaged in "class warfare". The fact that the very rich pay much less in taxes as percentage of income than upper middle class can be viewed as class warfare as well. Well, not really warfare, rather the spoils of a war already won by one of the classes.
Ahhh, so now simply the act of making money absent ANY political action of any kind, is defined as "class warfare". Nice.
Quote
And there is also a practical consideration, even if it may sound a little Socialist. Ever-increasing wealth concentration is a very bad thing for democracy. It's an unstable situation. Yes, you may view that argument as an all out class warfare statement, and that would be fair, but at the same time the concern for democracy is behind it. Wealth gives you power in practice, and lopsided wealth distribution disenfranchises those on the wrong side of it.
I don't consider that argument class warfare at all, actually. There are perfectly legitimate and valid reasons to be concerned about wealth distribution.
But the idea that simply showing up for work in the morning is such a heinous act that it justifies the level of animosity shown by Seedy and the like, to include using the power of the state to harm you irrespective of its utility is rather disturbing. It's funny, because the radical right runs around bleating about how the Dems really want to make all the not poor into the poor, that they are truly Socialists bent on dragging everyone down to "equality" via making everyone equally poor.
Then Seedy makes the argument that as long as we can show that no tax increase has actually done that yet, why, then we haven't really raised taxes enough, and the damned Republicans should quit their bitching! Are the radical right bleaters actually correct about the motivations of the Dems?
What do you mean "absent any political action"? Maintaining the status quo is one hell of a political action.
And what do you mean showing up for work? I think one of the most outlandish, amazing thing the America's rich have done (which proves more successful that Goebbel's propaganda) is convincing the America's middle class that they have similar lifestyles and ethics.
Related question: DG, do you really think the solution to the widening wealth gap is simply to have the state sieze the wealth of the wealthy in an effort to redress it? Do you really think that would be a sane use of the power of the state? Do you really think the state could practically do something useful with that wealth that would actually solve the systemic problem that created the gap without demolishing the economy in the process?
Quote from: Martinus on July 23, 2011, 05:24:48 AM
What do you mean "absent any political action"? Maintaining the status quo is one hell of a political action.
But that isn't what DG said. He simply said that making more money in and of itself is class warfare. He didn't say anything about maintaining anything. Under his definition of class warfare, YOU are engaged in it despite your political desire to close the gap even at your own expense. Simply making more than others is his definition of class warfare justifying the not wealthy to take extreme ("warfare") action to redress that imbalance.
Quote
And what do you mean showing up for work?
I mean that DG has defined making more money than that not wealthy as class warfare in and of itself, and hence justifying a warfare response.
Quote
I think one of the most outlandish, amazing thing the America's rich have done (which proves more successful that Goebbel's propaganda) is convincing the America's middle class that they have similar lifestyles and ethics.
I don't think they've done that at all, actually. But I am not surprised you accept the nutbar lefts view of America even though you've never been here and have shown time and again you have incredibly screwed up views of what the country is like.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2011, 05:20:05 AM
But the idea that simply showing up for work in the morning is such a heinous act that it justifies the level of animosity shown by Seedy and the like, to include using the power of the state to harm you irrespective of its utility is rather disturbing.
Is anyone arguing tat "simply showing up for work" is somehow "such a heinous act?" I think your hyperbole got way out of control on that one.
I think, in fact, that you and DG are not far apart in your arguments; you seem to be disagreeing over trifles.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2011, 05:38:25 AM
But I am not surprised you accept the nutbar lefts view of America even though you've never been here and have shown time and again you have incredibly screwed up views of what the country is like.
Marti is an expert on anything he decides to be an expert on. Didn't you know? It comes with moving in the same circles as the "movers and shakers" of the world.
And then he wakes up, and his pillow is gone!
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2011, 12:01:22 AM
Seedy, Dems like you would be a lot easier to stomach of you just liked high taxes in general.
But sadly, it isn't that you are in favor of higher taxes to support greater spending for (and on) everyone, you are in favor of high taxes mainly for the purpose of engaging in class warfare.
It is interesting that your standard for what would clearly be something worthy of concern when it comes to excessive taxes necessitates driving people into poverty. Short of that, any tax increase is a good tax increase, amirite?
I live in the 4th highest taxes in the Union. I'm in the Federal 28% tax bracket now. Next year, I will be paying out taxes like a motherfucker for the first time in my life. Taxes don't hurt me, make a noticable impact on my daily life in the American consumer-based economy or impede my life in any way. So share with the class how your taxes are destroying your life. They obviously do, or else you wouldn't be such a whiny bitch about them. Explain to us how, Berkut, if your tax rate jumped from 28% to 31% you won't be able to buy groceries.
I would be in favor of higher taxes for everyone, if everyone were subject to higher taxes. But they're not. Corporations aren't. Wall Street and the 1% that for some reason you feel slavishly devoted to don't.
But if you think Corporate America(tm), the 1%, Wall Street and their
Citizens United-purchased minions on the Hill aren't engaging in class warfare every fucking day, then you're dumber than you write.
Go ahead, keep supporting people who would hate you if they knew you. Try getting into their country clubs with your voter registration card. Sucker.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2011, 05:20:05 AM
Ahhh, so now simply the act of making money absent ANY political action of any kind, is defined as "class warfare". Nice.
How is it "absent any political action"? There were plenty of political actions that brought down the marginal tax rate tremendously for the super-rich, in various ways. They were mostly in the past, since they were highly successful, but I wouldn't classify successfully completed political actions as absence of political actions.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2011, 05:34:26 AM
Related question: DG, do you really think the solution to the widening wealth gap is simply to have the state sieze the wealth of the wealthy in an effort to redress it? Do you really think that would be a sane use of the power of the state? Do you really think the state could practically do something useful with that wealth that would actually solve the systemic problem that created the gap without demolishing the economy in the process?
I'm guessing that the liberal use of "really" makes this a loaded questions, but I'll answer anyway. Yes, I do think that the state could do a lot of useful things by increasing taxes on the wealth, like for example creating a progressive tax code to replace the code that progressive up to a point, and then highly regressive. I consider this crazy tax code to be the main systemic problem that causes ever-increasing concentration of wealth, so I do think that a change in tax code would solve the main systemic problem.
I also do not think that economy would be demolished, I think that's a naked scare tactic by the right that convinced half of America to just let the wealthy skirt their taxes. Western Europe is not exactly the economic black hole it is made out to be, and you can make an argument that their quality of life is higher (which is ultimately the end goal of the economy, you would think).
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2011, 05:38:25 AM
But that isn't what DG said. He simply said that making more money in and of itself is class warfare.
Woah, woah, who the fuck is that DG idiot? :wacko: :blink:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2011, 07:39:21 AM
..I'm in the Federal 28% tax bracket now. ...
:lol: I'm at 39% - and I'm quite behind you in terms of revenues. You people have it easy. <_<
G.
They sure do.
*hugs his RQAP cheque*
Quote from: DGuller on July 23, 2011, 12:57:57 AM
First of all, it's not only Democrats that are engaged in "class warfare". The fact that the very rich pay much less in taxes as percentage of income than upper middle class can be viewed as class warfare as well. Well, not really warfare, rather the spoils of a war already won by one of the classes.
And there is also a practical consideration, even if it may sound a little Socialist. Ever-increasing wealth concentration is a very bad thing for democracy. It's an unstable situation. Yes, you may view that argument as an all out class warfare statement, and that would be fair, but at the same time the concern for democracy is behind it. Wealth gives you power in practice, and lopsided wealth distribution disenfranchises those on the wrong side of it.
You know, I think I remember someone on this board engaging in class-warfare type rhetoric...
QuoteFuck the social contract, I didn't sign on to having millions of worthless pieces of shit demanding handouts while contributing no effort themselves. Why should those who work hard, save money for the future, and take responsibility for themselves be required to bail out all the worthless layabouts who blow all their money and then some ob big-screen TVs and XBOX 360's and then want a handout because working would distract from their play time.
Fuck em all. There is nothing more antisocial than the "social contract", which rewards bad behavior and punishes responsibility. This is why the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote: they end up voting to rob the public until eventually society collapses under their irresponsibility.
That was it.
Quote from: DGuller on July 23, 2011, 12:57:57 AM
First of all, it's not only Democrats that are engaged in "class warfare". The fact that the very rich pay much less in taxes as percentage of income than upper middle class can be viewed as class warfare as well. Well, not really warfare, rather the spoils of a war already won by one of the classes.
Which was worse in your opinion, FDR for capping Social Security contributions or JFK for dropping WWII marginal rates?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2011, 03:17:33 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 23, 2011, 12:57:57 AM
First of all, it's not only Democrats that are engaged in "class warfare". The fact that the very rich pay much less in taxes as percentage of income than upper middle class can be viewed as class warfare as well. Well, not really warfare, rather the spoils of a war already won by one of the classes.
Which was worse in your opinion, FDR for capping Social Security contributions or JFK for dropping WWII marginal rates?
FDR, of course, though I imagine that setting up the pretense that Social Security wasn't a social welfare program was a political necessity. Having the marginal tax rates at 91% is absurd.
Quote from: DGuller on July 23, 2011, 01:39:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2011, 05:38:25 AM
But that isn't what DG said. He simply said that making more money in and of itself is class warfare.
Woah, woah, who the fuck is that DG idiot? :wacko: :blink:
Yeah, that was a pretty frothy summation of your argument! :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2011, 07:39:21 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2011, 12:01:22 AM
Seedy, Dems like you would be a lot easier to stomach of you just liked high taxes in general.
But sadly, it isn't that you are in favor of higher taxes to support greater spending for (and on) everyone, you are in favor of high taxes mainly for the purpose of engaging in class warfare.
It is interesting that your standard for what would clearly be something worthy of concern when it comes to excessive taxes necessitates driving people into poverty. Short of that, any tax increase is a good tax increase, amirite?
I live in the 4th highest taxes in the Union. I'm in the Federal 28% tax bracket now. Next year, I will be paying out taxes like a motherfucker for the first time in my life. Taxes don't hurt me, make a noticable impact on my daily life in the American consumer-based economy or impede my life in any way. So share with the class how your taxes are destroying your life. They obviously do, or else you wouldn't be such a whiny bitch about them. Explain to us how, Berkut, if your tax rate jumped from 28% to 31% you won't be able to buy groceries.
I would be in favor of higher taxes for everyone, if everyone were subject to higher taxes. But they're not. Corporations aren't. Wall Street and the 1% that for some reason you feel slavishly devoted to don't.
But if you think Corporate America(tm), the 1%, Wall Street and their Citizens United-purchased minions on the Hill aren't engaging in class warfare every fucking day, then you're dumber than you write.
Go ahead, keep supporting people who would hate you if they knew you. Try getting into their country clubs with your voter registration card. Sucker.
Money has found his voice. :cheers:
It sounds very similar to his old voice. Except now he's finally dropped that assinine position about holding down the Chuck Schumer rates.
QuoteExplain to us how, Berkut, if your tax rate jumped from 28% to 31% you won't be able to buy groceries.
Why would I feel any need to explain that?
What I think is interesting is the argument that as long as a tax increase doesn't result in the welathy "not being able to buy groceries" there is nothing to be concerned about.
Some day I hope to be welathy.
Quote from: PDH on July 23, 2011, 08:56:10 PM
Some day I hope to be welathy.
Someday I hope to marry a supermodel.
And have a spaceship.
Quote
Vince Cable in attack on US 'right-wing nutters'
24 July 11 16:16
Vince Cable has attacked leading US Republican politicians for holding up a deal to reduce US government debt.
Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, the business secretary called them "a few right-wing nutters in the American Congress".
Unless a deal on Capitol Hill is agreed before 2 August, the US Treasury could run out of money to pay its bills.
Mr Cable said it presented a bigger risk to the global markets than the continuing debt woes in the eurozone.
......
rest of item here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/business-14267091 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/business-14267091)
Why should anyone in the US be concerned with what he thinks? Does the UK often report what the Secretary of HUD thinks on British domestic matters?
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2011, 06:16:55 PM
QuoteExplain to us how, Berkut, if your tax rate jumped from 28% to 31% you won't be able to buy groceries.
Why would I feel any need to explain that?
What I think is interesting is the argument that as long as a tax increase doesn't result in the welathy "not being able to buy groceries" there is nothing to be concerned about.
I don't understand why the fact that Seedy likes to give his money away in the form of taxes makes for a convincing argument about raising tax rates.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2011, 12:00:55 PM
I don't understand why the fact that Seedy likes to give his money away in the form of taxes makes for a convincing argument about raising tax rates.
And I don't understand why your deliberate misinterpretation of what Seedy says makes for a convincing argument that you are even
interested in an intelligent debate on the topic.
Quote from: PDH on July 23, 2011, 08:56:10 PM
Some day I hope to be welathy.
Me too, then I'll vote Republican.
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2011, 12:14:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2011, 12:00:55 PM
I don't understand why the fact that Seedy likes to give his money away in the form of taxes makes for a convincing argument about raising tax rates.
And I don't understand why your deliberate misinterpretation of what Seedy says makes for a convincing argument that you are even interested in an intelligent debate on the topic.
You're right. I should have said " I don't understand why the fact that Seedy is neutral on giving away his money in the form of taxes makes for a convincing argument about raising taxes rates."
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2011, 12:36:05 PM
You're right. I should have said " I don't understand why the fact that Seedy is neutral on giving away his money in the form of taxes makes for a convincing argument about raising taxes rates."
What you should have said, if you read his actual post, was "I
do understand why the fact that Seedy is willing to pay higher taxes makes for a convincing argument about raising taxes rates." If the people who would be taxed are willing to pay the extra taxes, then the arguments against the taxes pretty much boil down to feeble arguments about how great US employment is because US taxes are so low.
Quote from: Habbaku on July 24, 2011, 11:55:50 AM
Why should anyone in the US be concerned with what he thinks?
I don't think we are; however, I think a lot of people in the UK is concerned about what he thinks, considering they--and the rest of the civilized world--have some interest in this game.
Quote from: Habbaku on July 24, 2011, 11:55:50 AM
Why should anyone in the US be concerned with what he thinks? Does the UK often report what the Secretary of HUD thinks on British domestic matters?
Well, I was recently amused by Tim Geithner's comments on the disarray in the eurozone........pot and kettle?
It seems likely or certain that most people don't give a toss about Vince Cable, Greece or even Tim Geithner............good for them................but unfortunately what these entities get up to are not merely domestic in their consequences.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2011, 04:01:49 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on July 24, 2011, 11:55:50 AM
Why should anyone in the US be concerned with what he thinks?
I don't think we are; however, I think a lot of people in the UK is concerned about what he thinks, considering they--and the rest of the civilized world--have some interest in this game.
Yeah, it's like you're standing on the side-walk and you see a car heading towards a school crossing suddenly loose control, you want it to stop before it hits the more vulnerable members of society.
Quote from: mongers on July 24, 2011, 04:13:43 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2011, 04:01:49 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on July 24, 2011, 11:55:50 AM
Why should anyone in the US be concerned with what he thinks?
I don't think we are; however, I think a lot of people in the UK is concerned about what he thinks, considering they--and the rest of the civilized world--have some interest in this game.
Yeah, it's like you're standing on the side-walk and you see a car heading towards a school crossing suddenly loose control, you want if to stop before it hits the more vulnerable members of society.
Sorry, fellas.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 24, 2011, 04:13:23 PM
Well, I was recently amused by Tim Geithner's comments on the disarray in the eurozone........pot and kettle?
More like pots and right wing nutter kettles. I've got no problem with critiques of policy or process; I do with personalizing those critiques.
Can I assume this dude is a Lib-Dem?
Yes, he is a lib-dem. He's not taking to government very well, opposition is more his style.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 24, 2011, 04:13:23 PM
Well, I was recently amused by Tim Geithner's comments on the disarray in the eurozone........pot and kettle?
What did he say was true of Euro fiscal woes that he was pretending wasn't true of US fiscal woes?
Or is no one allowed to discuss fiscal woes without being guilty of pot and and kettle?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2011, 03:58:38 PM
It sounds very similar to his old voice. Except now he's finally dropped that assinine position about holding down the Chuck Schumer rates.
Chuck Schumer :wub:
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2011, 06:28:57 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 24, 2011, 04:13:23 PM
Well, I was recently amused by Tim Geithner's comments on the disarray in the eurozone........pot and kettle?
What did he say was true of Euro fiscal woes that he was pretending wasn't true of US fiscal woes?
Or is no one allowed to discuss fiscal woes without being guilty of pot and and kettle?
QuoteEurope should step up debt crisis efforts: US
AFP Jul 18, 2011, 09.11pm IST
WASHINGTON: US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Monday urged European Union leaders to step up efforts to contain contagion from debt troubles in certain eurozone countries.
"What Europe obviously needs to do is to work more forcefully to contain the risk of an escalating crisis in Europe," Geithner said in an interview with business television network CNBC.
EU leaders have taken a number of steps in the last two weeks "in that direction," he said, referring to action to avert a Greek debt default and stress tests on European banks, whose results were released Friday.
"Those things are all constructive, but the world needs to see the European leaders move now... to put in place those additional changes that would help contain the risk of a broader crisis," the Treasury secretary said.
"They have the capacity to manage this in a way that doesn't add to the broader burdens in the global economy, and of course we want them to do that."
Meh, once the Republicans let us drive over the cliff, I don't think "certain Eurozone countries" are going to be attention-getting problems as much anymore.
Quote from: citizen k on July 24, 2011, 06:38:37 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2011, 06:28:57 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 24, 2011, 04:13:23 PM
Well, I was recently amused by Tim Geithner's comments on the disarray in the eurozone........pot and kettle?
What did he say was true of Euro fiscal woes that he was pretending wasn't true of US fiscal woes?
Or is no one allowed to discuss fiscal woes without being guilty of pot and and kettle?
QuoteEurope should step up debt crisis efforts: US
AFP Jul 18, 2011, 09.11pm IST
WASHINGTON: US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Monday urged European Union leaders to step up efforts to contain contagion from debt troubles in certain eurozone countries.
"What Europe obviously needs to do is to work more forcefully to contain the risk of an escalating crisis in Europe," Geithner said in an interview with business television network CNBC.
EU leaders have taken a number of steps in the last two weeks "in that direction," he said, referring to action to avert a Greek debt default and stress tests on European banks, whose results were released Friday.
"Those things are all constructive, but the world needs to see the European leaders move now... to put in place those additional changes that would help contain the risk of a broader crisis," the Treasury secretary said.
"They have the capacity to manage this in a way that doesn't add to the broader burdens in the global economy, and of course we want them to do that."
So he's saying the European political leaders should do what he says US political leaders should do: head off crises.
That's not what "Pot and kettle" means. "Pot calling the kettle black" means the pot is pretending that it
isn't black, not that the pot is claiming that it
is.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2011, 06:38:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2011, 03:58:38 PM
It sounds very similar to his old voice. Except now he's finally dropped that assinine position about holding down the Chuck Schumer rates.
Chuck Schumer :wub:
He's Caliga-approved. :thumbsup:
He is?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 24, 2011, 07:06:29 PM
He is?
He must be confusing him with fellow New Yorker, Congressmen Jerrold Nadler.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3193%2F2613700789_b7256f6ce3.jpg&hash=63e1a5232d1ac65c70a40729b017149ee9ea98e9)
Now THAT is the way a true politician rolls.
Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2011, 07:18:25 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3193%2F2613700789_b7256f6ce3.jpg&hash=63e1a5232d1ac65c70a40729b017149ee9ea98e9)
:lol:
Cantor to GOP: Stop whining and vote! (http://"http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59920.html")
Quote
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) delivered a blunt message to the Republican Conference Tuesday morning: Quit the "grumbling" and "whining" and come together to rally behind Speaker John Boehner to pass his debt ceiling plan.
Cantor's heavy rhetoric came out in a closed session at the Capitol Hill Club as the GOP majority tried to whip up support for Boehner's latest deficit package. Cantor summed up what he knew many Republicans were thinking as they head into another critical vote.
"The debt limit vote sucks," he said, according to an attendee of the closed meeting. But Republicans have three options, Cantor said: risk default, pass Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) plan — which he thinks gives President Barack Obama a blank check — or "call the president's bluff" by passing the Boehner plan, which not only cuts deeply into domestic spending but calls for a bipartisan commission to find more savings.
Cantor also announced that the House will hold a vote on a balanced budget amendment Thursday, a nod to vocal conservatives in the conference.
House Republican leaders will spend Tuesday and Wednesday cobbling together votes to pass Boehner's plan to hike the debt ceiling by $1 trillion and cut federal spending by a greater amount. Treasury says that the nation will run out of the ability to borrow money on Aug. 2.
Boehner told reporters after the closed meeting that his proposal, which he says is the product of bipartisan negotiations, "is enough" to quell market concerns about the debt ceiling.
Cantor, who has split with Boehner during this debate, reiterated a message he delivered to colleagues Monday, saying he is behind the speaker "150 percent."
Boehner, who is in an epic stare down with the president over the debt ceiling, said he stuck his neck out and needs 218 votes to get this bill passed into law. He got a standing ovation, according to sources present, and House Republican Conference Chair Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) played snippets of the prime time speech the speaker gave Monday night.
"It comes down to the people in this room," Boehner said, according to a source present. "It comes down to the willingness to stand together. This is the path to victory for the American people."
Rep. Jon Runyan (R-N.J.), a former professional football player for the Philadelphia Eagles, told the conference he is behind Boehner — a reassuring message from a 6-foot-7 former offensive tackle.
Yet another compromise, as we get down the road to accomplishing less and less in these proposals in order to make them palatable to more legislators. My money is still on something passing on the very last day.
There's a defensive tackle behind the Boehner plan now? Well, I guess that settles it then.
There is the small problem that Boehner doesn't appear to have the votes in the House and does not have support from the Senate.
Meanwhile the House Chairman of the "Republican Study Committee" (oxymoron), whose profession before becoming a politician and making critical decisions about financing trillions of dollars in public expenditure was assistant wrestling coach, is bashing his own Speaker's plan because while it forces a vote on a BBA, it does not guarantee that both houses will approve by 2/3.
Seeing stuff like this makes me suspect that we are due for a crash and Congress won't pull it together at the last minute. I fear the markets are under-estimating the degree of stupidity and irresponsibility that is in play on Capitol Hill.
In the end it's going to come down to a completely toothless bill that has a facade of cutting something and raises the debt limit some. That's the only thing that will pass with enough support.
Quote from: Jacob on July 26, 2011, 12:40:52 PM
There's a defensive tackle behind the Boehner plan now? Well, I guess that settles it then.
Oh yeah - you could probably field a whole NCAA athletic program from the GOP House delegation. To bad they don't know a spreadsheet from a point spread.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 26, 2011, 12:46:24 PM
In the end it's going to come down to a completely toothless bill that has a facade of cutting something and raises the debt limit some. That's the only thing that will pass with enough support.
That may be, agreed, but then, given how rushed this has become, I'm a bit wary of them doing anything major on entitlements, heavy budget cutting, tax reform. Some of those items themselves should require a more lengthy debate and conversation. I mean, they only had over 800 days or so to debate and fix things, so coming down to the last month or so to enact major reforms is damned worrying.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2011, 12:42:44 PM
There is the small problem that Boehner doesn't appear to have the votes in the House and does not have support from the Senate.
Meanwhile the House Chairman of the "Republican Study Committee" (oxymoron), whose profession before becoming a politician and making critical decisions about financing trillions of dollars in public expenditure was assistant wrestling coach, is bashing his own Speaker's plan because while it forces a vote on a BBA, it does not guarantee that both houses will approve by 2/3.
Seeing stuff like this makes me suspect that we are due for a crash and Congress won't pull it together at the last minute. I fear the markets are under-estimating the degree of stupidity and irresponsibility that is in play on Capitol Hill.
Debt limit aside, what would be your plan to deal with our budget deficit and outstanding debt?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fav.r.ftdata.co.uk%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F07%2FUS-CDS-chart.jpg&hash=6145f3da83855ccabf18b0e8a0df2fb7778f57a5)
Quote from: derspiess on July 26, 2011, 02:25:24 PM
Debt limit aside, what would be your plan to deal with our budget deficit and outstanding debt?
Any number of the proposals that have been mooted would have been acceptable at this point. Boehner's latest plan, the Gang of Six plan, the Obama $4 trillion gambit - if any of those had resulted in legislation that moved the ball forward, it would have averted the immediate crisis, and calmed both markets and rating agencies by demonstrating that the political system could function.
At this moment, speculating about what can be done to "solve" the US fiscal problems over the long run is hopelessly over-ambitious. First it needs to be established that the US government can collectively do anything at all.
Default is really bad, but our default wouldn't be like a default in Argentina bad.
At the end of the day people know the US government is going to make good on the interest and debt payments, even if some are missed. Rating agencies may cut our rating to a junk or default status, but we won't have interest rates as bad as those ratings. What will hurt interest rates our future debt becomes slightly more uncertain, people needing interest and debt cash flows will be hurt (though I can't imagine too many people are getting far on the super low interest rates), and institutionals that have legal requirements to hold debt of certain grades may have to dump government debt.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2011, 02:34:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 26, 2011, 02:25:24 PM
Debt limit aside, what would be your plan to deal with our budget deficit and outstanding debt?
Any number of the proposals that have been mooted would have been acceptable at this point. Boehner's latest plan, the Gang of Six plan, the Obama $4 trillion gambit - if any of those had resulted in legislation that moved the ball forward, it would have averted the immediate crisis, and calmed both markets and rating agencies by demonstrating that the political system could function.
At this moment, speculating about what can be done to "solve" the US fiscal problems over the long run is hopelessly over-ambitious. First it needs to be established that the US government can collectively do anything at all.
If I wanted to be pessimistic and cynical, I'd suggest this: Obama sees that the Republicans are getting hurt worse in the polls than he is, so he isn't prone to give in to their harder line stances. Politics is zero sum, and he is comparatively winning. Republicans know that their candidate against Obama probably isn't in Congress right now, so while they may crash their popularity and the economy, they will also damage Obama's popularity while leaving their candidate unscathed.
I'd make a list of all the spending cuts the GOP wants plus all the tax hikes Obama wants. Then I'd do all the stuff on the list. Then, I'd raise the debt ceiling to 50 Trillion and begin building up a sovereign wealth fund as a new revenue source.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 26, 2011, 08:58:29 PM
I'd make a list of all the spending cuts the GOP wants plus all the tax hikes Obama wants. Then I'd do all the stuff on the list. Then, I'd raise the debt ceiling to 50 Trillion and begin building up a sovereign wealth fund as a new revenue source.
I'd suggest investing that sovereign debt fund entirely in US debt.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 26, 2011, 09:02:06 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 26, 2011, 08:58:29 PM
I'd make a list of all the spending cuts the GOP wants plus all the tax hikes Obama wants. Then I'd do all the stuff on the list. Then, I'd raise the debt ceiling to 50 Trillion and begin building up a sovereign wealth fund as a new revenue source.
I'd suggest investing that sovereign debt fund entirely in US debt.
So, would that mean that the social security trust fund would be repleted (nucoinage) due to debt setoff? Inquiring minds like mine want to know!
Quote from: Scipio on July 26, 2011, 09:12:18 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 26, 2011, 09:02:06 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 26, 2011, 08:58:29 PM
I'd make a list of all the spending cuts the GOP wants plus all the tax hikes Obama wants. Then I'd do all the stuff on the list. Then, I'd raise the debt ceiling to 50 Trillion and begin building up a sovereign wealth fund as a new revenue source.
I'd suggest investing that sovereign debt fund entirely in US debt.
So, would that mean that the social security trust fund would be repleted (nucoinage) due to debt setoff? Inquiring minds like mine want to know!
If the government borrows to fund a sovereign debt fund, and then uses that fund to buy the debt it has issued, the net effect will be nil. Nothing will be repleted, depleted, or even just pleted. :P
At the very least we should put $1,000 in a money market account.
Quote from: derspiess on July 26, 2011, 02:25:24 PM
Debt limit aside, what would be your plan to deal with our budget deficit and outstanding debt?
Prevent Republicans from holding office. The first step in healing a wound is to remove what ever offending object caused it.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 05:11:45 AM
Prevent Republicans from holding office. The first step in healing a wound is to remove what ever offending object caused it.
Word. Current Republicanism has to be one of the worst cases of a mass disconnect with reality in American history since the Salem witch trials.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 26, 2011, 11:38:09 PM
At the very least we should put $1,000 in a money market account.
:D
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 05:11:45 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 26, 2011, 02:25:24 PM
Debt limit aside, what would be your plan to deal with our budget deficit and outstanding debt?
Prevent Republicans from holding office. The first step in healing a wound is to remove what ever offending object caused it.
Then what?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2011, 08:21:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 05:11:45 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 26, 2011, 02:25:24 PM
Debt limit aside, what would be your plan to deal with our budget deficit and outstanding debt?
Prevent Republicans from holding office. The first step in healing a wound is to remove what ever offending object caused it.
Then what?
Well, with most of the crazy people gone we can raise taxes and cut spending.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 08:32:40 AM
Well, with most of the crazy people gone we can raise taxes and cut spending.
That sounds like an awesome plan.
Why do you think no one thought of this back in November of last year?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2011, 08:37:31 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 08:32:40 AM
Well, with most of the crazy people gone we can raise taxes and cut spending.
That sounds like an awesome plan.
Why do you think no one thought of this back in November of last year?
Oh I'm sure everyone thought of it back in November. Getting rid of the stupid people just ain't easy.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 27, 2011, 08:44:40 AM
Oh I'm sure everyone thought of it back in November. Getting rid of the stupid people just ain't easy.
The stupid people didn't get a majority in the House until January. :contract:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2011, 08:46:41 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 27, 2011, 08:44:40 AM
Oh I'm sure everyone thought of it back in November. Getting rid of the stupid people just ain't easy.
The stupid people didn't get a majority in the House until January. :contract:
Oh. Democrats aren't as bright as we think they are?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2011, 08:46:41 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 27, 2011, 08:44:40 AM
Oh I'm sure everyone thought of it back in November. Getting rid of the stupid people just ain't easy.
The stupid people didn't get a majority in the House until January. :contract:
There were still a lot of stupid people between 2008 and 2010. You could spot them because they were going on about death panels and promised to block everything the President tried to do and were holding big rallies.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 26, 2011, 08:36:14 PM
Default is really bad, but our default wouldn't be like a default in Argentina bad.
The markets seems to agree; treasuries keep gaining. And one possible counterintuitive result of a default would be to switch on the "risk on" trade and boost treasuries even more.
But there is a little echo of Lehman here - the reason Paulson allowed them to fall was on what seemed to be the sound assumption that Lehman was not a central player in the international financial system and had no bank deposit money at risk. What was not understood until too late what Lehman's deep interconnections with the "shadow" system - including debt they had placed with MM funds, their serial re-hypothetication of assets entrusted to their prime brokerage, and critically their counterparty relationships in huge complex webs of derivative and credit transactions.
The US Treasury securities market is the deepest, most liquid, most extensive market for securities that has ever existed in human history; it penetrates to every institution of significance in every corner of the globe. Exactly how all these holders will react to even a technical default is unknown. Many may hold tight, some may even buy. But dome will dump; some will have to dump (by mandate); and some may choose to dump out of fear that if they wait and see first they could get trampled on the way to the exit. Anyone that makes firm statements about what will happen or not happen IMO is fooling themselves, and the debt markets have been whistling in the dark by reacting to the news by bringing yields down. Maybe nothing really bad happens; probably that is the likely result. But there is real uncertainty, and a real risk of a nasty surprise.
Dome will dump! :ph34r:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 08:57:09 AM
There were still a lot of stupid people between 2008 and 2010. You could spot them because they were going on about death panels and promised to block everything the President tried to do and were holding big rallies.
I see. So the only thing holding the Democrats back from serious deficit reduction was Tea Party rallies and articles about death panels?
This whole time I thought the Democratic narrative until the Republicans threatened the debt limit was that the recovery was too fragile to consider deficit reduction at the moment but it was an awesome idea for the future. I'm glad you cleared up my misconception Raz.
Joan, read an article in the FT a while back that enlightened me quite a bit on the composition of demand for Treasuries. It may be old hat for you, but not something I had considered before.
As long as Treasuries are accepted as collateral for central bank lending and as Tier 1 capital, then demand could become divorced from standard notions of return/risk.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2011, 09:06:37 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 08:57:09 AM
There were still a lot of stupid people between 2008 and 2010. You could spot them because they were going on about death panels and promised to block everything the President tried to do and were holding big rallies.
I see. So the only thing holding the Democrats back from serious deficit reduction was Tea Party rallies and articles about death panels?
This whole time I thought the Democratic narrative until the Republicans threatened the debt limit was that the recovery was too fragile to consider deficit reduction at the moment but it was an awesome idea for the future. I'm glad you cleared up my misconception Raz.
You seem to have missed the part where I wrote "promised to block everything the President tried to do", can't reduce the debt with assholes throwing wrenches in the whole process. Nor should we trust the Republicans with the budget, after all they okay with the deficits at the time "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." -Dick Cheney
Interestedly most Republican voters don't want to raise the debt ceiling at all and don't want to compromise. http://today.yougov.com/news/2011/07/08/77-agree-defaulting-debt-would-be-serious-economy-/
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 09:10:36 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2011, 09:06:37 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 08:57:09 AM
There were still a lot of stupid people between 2008 and 2010. You could spot them because they were going on about death panels and promised to block everything the President tried to do and were holding big rallies.
I see. So the only thing holding the Democrats back from serious deficit reduction was Tea Party rallies and articles about death panels?
This whole time I thought the Democratic narrative until the Republicans threatened the debt limit was that the recovery was too fragile to consider deficit reduction at the moment but it was an awesome idea for the future. I'm glad you cleared up my misconception Raz.
You seem to have missed the part where I wrote "promised to block everything the President tried to do", can't reduce the debt with assholes throwing wrenches in the whole process. Nor should we trust the Republicans with the budget, after all they okay with the deficits at the time "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." -Dick Cheney
And you seem to want to downplay the role that the Dems were playing in the early part of the time period you highlighted.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 09:10:36 AM
You seem to have missed the part where I wrote "promised to block everything the President tried to do", can't reduce the debt with assholes throwing wrenches in the whole process.
You're absolutely right. And it's true that with the death of Teddy the Democrats lost their filibuster proof majority.
However when you claim that absent any Republican lawmakers we would be enjoying delicious, savory Democratic deficit reduction, it would help your case considerably if they had actually made an effort, even a pro forma one that they knew would be blocked by a filibuster. Or even talked about it as a good thing.
QuoteNor should we trust the Republicans with the budget, after all they okay with the deficits at the time "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." -Dick Cheney
See, this is the kind of argument that's actually much better suited for the proposition that we shouldn't care about the deficits, not that Democrats, if unfettered by Republican stupidity, would be doing an awesome job of deficit reduction.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2011, 09:10:01 AM
Joan, read an article in the FT a while back that enlightened me quite a bit on the composition of demand for Treasuries. It may be old hat for you, but not something I had considered before.
As long as Treasuries are accepted as collateral for central bank lending and as Tier 1 capital, then demand could become divorced from standard notions of return/risk.
If there is even a technical default, it is not clear to me whether foreign central banks could accept treasuries as collateral; Trichet's comments on Greece suggest no for the ECB, although most likely there would be an interpretation around that.
The bigger issue is the repo market, which is the principal way that banks obtain short-term financing. US treasuries are by far the most popular collateral used in repo transactions, and at any given time about $4 trillion in treasuries is collateralizing repo deals. That is a significant chunk of change. If market participants react by demanding that counterparties relying on treasuries for collateral post additional security or up margins, there is a risk of clogging up the entire market a la Lehman as financial institutions all over the planet simultaneously scramble to come up with billions in addition collateral or margin.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2011, 09:24:26 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 09:10:36 AM
You seem to have missed the part where I wrote "promised to block everything the President tried to do", can't reduce the debt with assholes throwing wrenches in the whole process.
You're absolutely right. And it's true that with the death of Teddy the Democrats lost their filibuster proof majority.
However when you claim that absent any Republican lawmakers we would be enjoying delicious, savory Democratic deficit reduction, it would help your case considerably if they had actually made an effort, even a pro forma one that they knew would be blocked by a filibuster. Or even talked about it as a good thing.
QuoteNor should we trust the Republicans with the budget, after all they okay with the deficits at the time "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." -Dick Cheney
See, this is the kind of argument that's actually much better suited for the proposition that we shouldn't care about the deficits, not that Democrats, if unfettered by Republican stupidity, would be doing an awesome job of deficit reduction.
Do you think Republican efforts have been helpful?
You know what the US should do? If this goes past August 2nd, dump their gold reserves to cover the deficit, and then pay down the debt with the estate taxes from all the goldbugs who jump out of windows as the price of gold crashes.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 09:42:20 AM
Do you think Republican efforts have been helpful?
But we're having so much fun talking about Democrat deficit reduction.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2011, 09:49:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 09:42:20 AM
Do you think Republican efforts have been helpful?
But we're having so much fun talking about Democrat deficit reduction.
Actually, this began by me pointing out that removing Republicans would be the first step. I eagerly await your tears when President Bachman forgets all about the deficit.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 27, 2011, 09:00:34 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 26, 2011, 08:36:14 PM
Default is really bad, but our default wouldn't be like a default in Argentina bad.
The markets seems to agree; treasuries keep gaining. And one possible counterintuitive result of a default would be to switch on the "risk on" trade and boost treasuries even more.
But there is a little echo of Lehman here - the reason Paulson allowed them to fall was on what seemed to be the sound assumption that Lehman was not a central player in the international financial system and had no bank deposit money at risk. What was not understood until too late what Lehman's deep interconnections with the "shadow" system - including debt they had placed with MM funds, their serial re-hypothetication of assets entrusted to their prime brokerage, and critically their counterparty relationships in huge complex webs of derivative and credit transactions.
The US Treasury securities market is the deepest, most liquid, most extensive market for securities that has ever existed in human history; it penetrates to every institution of significance in every corner of the globe. Exactly how all these holders will react to even a technical default is unknown. Many may hold tight, some may even buy. But dome will dump; some will have to dump (by mandate); and some may choose to dump out of fear that if they wait and see first they could get trampled on the way to the exit. Anyone that makes firm statements about what will happen or not happen IMO is fooling themselves, and the debt markets have been whistling in the dark by reacting to the news by bringing yields down. Maybe nothing really bad happens; probably that is the likely result. But there is real uncertainty, and a real risk of a nasty surprise.
I think there's also an assumption that the Fed will sop up excess treasuries to keep the demand up.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 27, 2011, 11:48:39 AM
I think there's also an assumption that the Fed will sop up excess treasuries to keep the demand up.
but they cant do that without simultaneously expanding money supply, and the reason the fed backed off QE3 in the first place was signs that inflation was starting to pick up . . .
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 09:59:47 AM
Actually, this began by me pointing out that removing Republicans would be the first step.
And continued by you claiming that with the Republicans gone the Democrats would be cutting spending and raising taxes.
QuoteI eagerly await your tears when President Bachman forgets all about the deficit.
I will not shed any tears when President Bachman forgets about the deficit, because (a) she will never be elected, and (b) unlike you I am actually interested in the policy of deficit reduction rather than using it as a prop in an ongoing morality tail about Republican evil and Democratic goodness.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 09:59:47 AM
I eagerly await your tears when President Bachman forgets all about the deficit.
Nobody can forget about the deficit any longer. We've passed the point where it conveniently can be ignored.
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2011, 01:09:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 09:59:47 AM
I eagerly await your tears when President Bachman forgets all about the deficit.
Nobody can forget about the deficit any longer. We've passed the point where it conveniently can be ignored.
We'll pass it back the other way once white and Republican president is sworn in.
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2011, 01:09:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 09:59:47 AM
I eagerly await your tears when President Bachman forgets all about the deficit.
Nobody can forget about the deficit any longer. We've passed the point where it conveniently can be ignored.
I bet people said that after the first Bush administration.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 09:10:36 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2011, 09:06:37 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 08:57:09 AM
There were still a lot of stupid people between 2008 and 2010. You could spot them because they were going on about death panels and promised to block everything the President tried to do and were holding big rallies.
I see. So the only thing holding the Democrats back from serious deficit reduction was Tea Party rallies and articles about death panels?
This whole time I thought the Democratic narrative until the Republicans threatened the debt limit was that the recovery was too fragile to consider deficit reduction at the moment but it was an awesome idea for the future. I'm glad you cleared up my misconception Raz.
You seem to have missed the part where I wrote "promised to block everything the President tried to do", can't reduce the debt with assholes throwing wrenches in the whole process. Nor should we trust the Republicans with the budget, after all they okay with the deficits at the time "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." -Dick Cheney
You seem to have missed the part where Obama had a majority in each house of the legislative branch through the first two years of his term, and instead of passing budgets, he passed a broken healthcare plan. Maybe, if he had passed a budget with all his political capital, there could be money to, you know, do shit.
Not that I'm judging. After all, he's really smart and handsome, and not nearly as ethnic and backwater as me. But I'll bet that barely virile fucker can't grow a beard like mine. And in the debtpocalypse, my beardiness will be worth more than His Glibness.
So wait... Scipio... budgets are passed for variable lengths of time? Obama could've passed a budget in 2009 that would've lasted to 2012 if he'd wanted to (and he'd coralled the appropriate support in Congress and the Senate)?
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2011, 01:09:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 09:59:47 AM
I eagerly await your tears when President Bachman forgets all about the deficit.
Nobody can forget about the deficit any longer. We've passed the point where it conveniently can be ignored.
Deficits don't matter. Didn't Reagan prove that?
Quote from: Scipio on July 27, 2011, 06:19:59 PM
You seem to have missed the part where Obama had a majority in each house of the legislative branch through the first two years of his term, and instead of passing budgets, he passed a broken healthcare plan...
He passed a budget for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. :huh:
Will there be - or is there already - a backlash against the Republicans for their blatant self-serving short-sighted obstructionism? Or are Americans so jaded by their shenanigans they don't care anymore?
G.
Quote from: Fate on July 27, 2011, 07:17:46 PM
He passed a budget for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. :huh:
Unless the fiscal year is weirder than I thought, he didn't pass one for 2011. That's why we were able to enjoy the theater of the four threatened government shutdowns this spring.
Quote from: Fate on July 27, 2011, 07:17:46 PM
Quote from: Scipio on July 27, 2011, 06:19:59 PM
You seem to have missed the part where Obama had a majority in each house of the legislative branch through the first two years of his term, and instead of passing budgets, he passed a broken healthcare plan...
He passed a budget for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. :huh:
He forgot to pass the tax increases.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2011, 07:24:52 PM
Quote from: Fate on July 27, 2011, 07:17:46 PM
He passed a budget for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. :huh:
Unless the fiscal year is weirder than I thought, he didn't pass one for 2011. That's why we were able to enjoy the theater of the four threatened government shutdowns this spring.
Did we pass one in 2010? Some of the Goptards were on Pdox were raving about how there was no budget passed last year or something.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2011, 07:24:52 PM
Quote from: Fate on July 27, 2011, 07:17:46 PM
He passed a budget for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. :huh:
Unless the fiscal year is weirder than I thought, he didn't pass one for 2011. That's why we were able to enjoy the theater of the four threatened government shutdowns this spring.
He did pass one. (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Public_Law_112-10) That's why the government didn't shut down.
If he passed a budget, then he alone bears responsibility for the current crisis.
Quote from: Neil on July 27, 2011, 07:43:59 PM
If he passed a budget, then he alone bears responsibility for the current crisis.
Under what principle does the Congress bear no responsibility? The Constitution requires that all spending bills must originate from the House, not the President. I agree that he shares responsibility.
Quote from: Fate on July 27, 2011, 07:35:59 PM
He did pass one. (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Public_Law_112-10) That's why the government didn't shut down.
:lol: OK, he passed a budget in April, halfway through the budget year.
Quote from: Fate on July 27, 2011, 07:48:19 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 27, 2011, 07:43:59 PM
If he passed a budget, then he alone bears responsibility for the current crisis.
Under what principle does the Congress bear no responsibility? The Constitution requires that all spending bills must originate from the House, not the President. I agree that he shares responsibility.
He's leader of his party, and his personal popularity had a lot to do with their domination of the legislature.
Quote from: Fate on July 27, 2011, 07:11:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2011, 01:09:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 09:59:47 AM
I eagerly await your tears when President Bachman forgets all about the deficit.
Nobody can forget about the deficit any longer. We've passed the point where it conveniently can be ignored.
Deficits don't matter. Didn't Reagan prove that?
I don't think Reagan, or anyone else, envisioned the kind of deficits run up by Bush 2 and Obama and their respective Congresses. Otherwise, the nation seems to be able to run just fine with a deficit, albeit a manageable one, though what is manageable differs quite a lot for different people. ;)
Quote from: KRonn on July 28, 2011, 10:24:24 AM
I don't think Reagan, or anyone else, envisioned the kind of deficits run up by Bush 2 and Obama and their respective Congresses. Otherwise, the nation seems to be able to run just fine with a deficit, albeit a manageable one, though what is manageable differs quite a lot for different people. ;)
Reagan always had a limited imagination.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 06:03:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2011, 01:09:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 09:59:47 AM
I eagerly await your tears when President Bachman forgets all about the deficit.
Nobody can forget about the deficit any longer. We've passed the point where it conveniently can be ignored.
I bet people said that after the first Bush administration.
Yeah, but only goofball Perot voters.
I seriously think the deficit and debt are going to be unignorable by whomever the President and majority parties are until they are decisively dealt with. "Deficits don't matter" (misguided a statement as it was) may well have been the political reality of 10 years ago, but that era has passed.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2011, 12:12:55 PM
Quote from: KRonn on July 28, 2011, 10:24:24 AM
I don't think Reagan, or anyone else, envisioned the kind of deficits run up by Bush 2 and Obama and their respective Congresses. Otherwise, the nation seems to be able to run just fine with a deficit, albeit a manageable one, though what is manageable differs quite a lot for different people. ;)
Reagan always had a limited imagination.
Its funny because back in the day the critics said his imagination was too vivid.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 28, 2011, 02:13:14 PM
Its funny because back in the day the critics said his imagination was too vivid.
The standards were different back in the day, Republicans didn't live in imaginary world 24/7 back then.
Quote from: derspiess on July 28, 2011, 01:23:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 06:03:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2011, 01:09:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 09:59:47 AM
I eagerly await your tears when President Bachman forgets all about the deficit.
Nobody can forget about the deficit any longer. We've passed the point where it conveniently can be ignored.
I bet people said that after the first Bush administration.
Yeah, but only goofball Perot voters.
I seriously think the deficit and debt are going to be unignorable by whomever the President and majority parties are until they are decisively dealt with. "Deficits don't matter" (misguided a statement as it was) may well have been the political reality of 10 years ago, but that era has passed.
Perot voters and Tea Party types seem to be the same types. It was a political reality because a Republican was President. If Obama loses in 2012 it'll be a political reality again and the true budget hawks will have to gnash their teeth for another four years. Unless of course Congress fucks things up in with the debt ceiling thing. Then God knows what'll happen.
Here is something I don't understand. It's obvious that the final solution has to have both Democrats and Republicans on board, to some degree. Compromise is inevitable if this is to go anywhere, one way or the other. It's also obvious that freshman teabaggers are never going to be reasonable, and will never agree to measures that Democrats find palatable.
Why aren't Democrats and less insane Republicans starting to talk? Why not cut out the idiot teabaggers altogether? Teabaggers only have veto as long as other Republicans don't move against them, but aren't they doomed to go against them anyway?
Quote from: DGuller on July 28, 2011, 08:30:37 PM
Here is something I don't understand. It's obvious that the final solution has to have both Democrats and Republicans on board, to some degree. Compromise is inevitable if this is to go anywhere, one way or the other. It's also obvious that freshman teabaggers are never going to be reasonable, and will never agree to measures that Democrats find palatable.
Why aren't Democrats and less insane Republicans starting to talk? Why not cut out the idiot teabaggers altogether? Teabaggers only have veto as long as other Republicans don't move against them, but aren't they doomed to go against them anyway?
That's what the Obama-Boehner talks were supposed to be. Excluding the fringes of both sides. Now it's the Boehner-gang of six talks. Same thing. The TP and the "volcanic" Dems (as Barbara Mikulski put it) aren't plugged in seriously is the sense I get.
I wonder what percentage of the Republican caucus is Tea Party and unreliable. Boehner can't get his own people on board for votes, it doesn't help that his own whip has stabbed him in the back and seems to be trying to usurp his position. No matter who has the majority in the House after 2012, I doubt Boehner will be speaker.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2011, 08:51:01 PM
I wonder what percentage of the Republican caucus is Tea Party and unreliable. Boehner can't get his own people on board for votes, it doesn't help that his own whip has stabbed him in the back and seems to be trying to usurp his position. No matter who has the majority in the House after 2012, I doubt Boehner will be speaker.
Well, there are 23 dissenters against the Boehner Plan this evening. That's your hardcore anti-debters.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 28, 2011, 08:54:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2011, 08:51:01 PM
I wonder what percentage of the Republican caucus is Tea Party and unreliable. Boehner can't get his own people on board for votes, it doesn't help that his own whip has stabbed him in the back and seems to be trying to usurp his position. No matter who has the majority in the House after 2012, I doubt Boehner will be speaker.
Well, there are 23 dissenters against the Boehner Plan this evening. That's your hardcore anti-debters.
I figured it would be more then that. There are 60 people in the Tea Party Caucus. A lot of them want the budget to be balanced immediately.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2011, 09:01:55 PM
I figured it would be more then that. There are 60 people in the Tea Party Caucus. A lot of them want the budget to be balanced immediately.
Yes, I was surprised too. It's a bit encouraging.
I can't be arsed to read back through 51 pages to see if anyone's posted this before, but this is fascinating:
Visualisation of the US debt
http://www.wtfnoway.com/ (http://www.wtfnoway.com/)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 28, 2011, 09:12:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2011, 09:01:55 PM
I figured it would be more then that. There are 60 people in the Tea Party Caucus. A lot of them want the budget to be balanced immediately.
Yes, I was surprised too. It's a bit encouraging.
They have been having meetings to try to scare the living shit out of them if there is a default.
And speaking of punishing naughty Republicans, Ohio republicans are talking about redistricting Jim Jordan's seat because he has been a total asshole to Speaker Boehner during the debt thingy. :nelson:
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 29, 2011, 08:26:27 AM
And speaking of punishing naughty Republicans, Ohio republicans are talking about redistricting Jim Jordan's seat because he has been a total asshole to Speaker Boehner during the debt thingy. :nelson:
Ah the American system at its best. If you dont play ball we will stop manipulating the electoral boundaries in your favour.
Quote from: DGuller on July 28, 2011, 08:30:37 PM
Why aren't Democrats and less insane Republicans starting to talk?
Modest proposal: house democrats should back the Boehner plan. It is pretty damn close to Reid's plan in the Senate and if the House dems made a show of good faith by backing the Speaker, some of the differences could be compromised in conference.
Problem is time has probably run for that.
Doesn't Congress have procedural rules to fasttrack such a vote, for example by imposing a gag motion or 24-hour long extraordinary sessions?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2011, 10:07:08 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 28, 2011, 08:30:37 PM
Why aren't Democrats and less insane Republicans starting to talk?
Modest proposal: house democrats should back the Boehner plan. It is pretty damn close to Reid's plan in the Senate and if the House dems made a show of good faith by backing the Speaker, some of the differences could be compromised in conference.
Problem is time has probably run for that.
From what I'm reading now, 8/2 may not be as hard a deadline as we once thought. I'm pretty sure we'll avoid a debt default, but I don't see how we're going to maintain our AAA rating under any plan that is likely to make it through both houses & get signed into law.
There is talk that Obama may simply usurp the power of Congress and do it himself. Not ideal, but perhaps better then face a lower credit rating. I wonder if they'll impeach him over it.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2011, 10:42:11 AM
There is talk that Obama may simply usurp the power of Congress and do it himself. Not ideal, but perhaps better then face a lower credit rating. I wonder if they'll impeach him over it.
Doesn't pass the "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors" threshold.
Quote from: Drakken on July 29, 2011, 10:55:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2011, 10:42:11 AM
There is talk that Obama may simply usurp the power of Congress and do it himself. Not ideal, but perhaps better then face a lower credit rating. I wonder if they'll impeach him over it.
Doesn't pass the "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors" threshold.
Neither does getting a blow job from a fat chick, but that never stopped them.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2011, 11:13:06 AM
Neither does getting a blow job from a fat chick, but that never stopped them.
That's not why he was impeached.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2011, 11:13:06 AM
Neither does getting a blow job from a fat chick, but that never stopped them.
Blow job wasn't the crime, but perjury about having said blow job with the fat chick.
Where did Obama perjure himself, or sell the country to the Mujahiddins?
Quote from: Drakken on July 29, 2011, 11:15:42 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2011, 11:13:06 AM
Neither does getting a blow job from a fat chick, but that never stopped them.
Blow job wasn't the crime, but perjury about having said blow job with the fat chick.
Where did Obama perjure himself, or sell the country to the Mujahiddins?
Japs named a city after him. For free?
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2011, 11:15:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2011, 11:13:06 AM
Neither does getting a blow job from a fat chick, but that never stopped them.
That's not why he was impeached.
Republicans getting elected to Congress doesn't count as an impeachable offense either.
Looks like the GOP is adding a balanced budget amendment to their bill. I hope Siege is okay not being payed this month.
The markets are surprisingly calm about the situation.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2011, 02:53:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2011, 11:15:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2011, 11:13:06 AM
Neither does getting a blow job from a fat chick, but that never stopped them.
That's not why he was impeached.
Republicans getting elected to Congress doesn't count as an impeachable offense either.
:huh:
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2011, 03:50:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2011, 02:53:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2011, 11:15:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2011, 11:13:06 AM
Neither does getting a blow job from a fat chick, but that never stopped them.
That's not why he was impeached.
Republicans getting elected to Congress doesn't count as an impeachable offense either.
:huh:
Clinton was impeached because Republican who hated him won in Congress. I mean, that's the real reason.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2011, 04:06:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2011, 03:50:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2011, 02:53:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2011, 11:15:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2011, 11:13:06 AM
Neither does getting a blow job from a fat chick, but that never stopped them.
That's not why he was impeached.
Republicans getting elected to Congress doesn't count as an impeachable offense either.
:huh:
Clinton was impeached because Republican who hated him won in Congress. I mean, that's the real reason.
:huh:
What don't you understand?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2011, 04:06:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2011, 03:50:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2011, 02:53:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 29, 2011, 11:15:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2011, 11:13:06 AM
Neither does getting a blow job from a fat chick, but that never stopped them.
That's not why he was impeached.
Republicans getting elected to Congress doesn't count as an impeachable offense either.
:huh:
Clinton was impeached because Republican who hated him won in Congress. I mean, that's the real reason.
That's the root cause, but Clinton was impeached for perjury. He was asked the question because Republicans were elected in an effort to take back the White House.
House should be voting in a couple minutes. I'm watching the after-hours tape on the Dow for kicks.
Edit: The Boehner plan just got its 218th vote.
About 16 Republicans voted no.
Final score: 218-215 with 22 GOPers voting no.
Now they're voting to name a post office.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 29, 2011, 05:27:43 PM
Final score: 218-215 with 22 GOPers voting no.
Now they're voting to name a post office.
Ronald Reagan memorial Post Office!
Was it such a good idea to get the smurfs to open trading today, with only 4 days to go ?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsnbcmedia.msn.com%2Fj%2FMSNBC%2FComponents%2FPhoto%2F_new%2F110729-smurfs-hmeda-7a.photoblog900.jpg&hash=f87caddfbc1b081fe1a6a7d48de4656e8f433c59)
edit:
besides everyone knows they'd have been more effective on Capitol Hill.
QuoteTea party role in debt bill raises GOP eyebrows
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans rode the tea party tiger to power last fall. Now it's turning on them, forcing party leaders to endure embarrassing delays and unwanted revisions to crucial debt-ceiling legislation.
This tiger did not change it stripes. When tea partyers emerged as a political phenomenon in 2009, they vowed to stand on principle and change the way Washington works. They've kept that promise despite some doubters' predictions they would succumb to the get-along, go-along crowd once they reached Capitol Hill.
That fidelity is now threatening GOP unity and causing headaches for party leaders as they try to negotiate with Democrats in a divided government. With the 2012 campaigns cranking up, some Republicans are re-evaluating the fiery movement that fueled their sweeping victories in 2010.
House Speaker John Boehner's misreading of tea partyers' doggedness this week forced his chagrined team to postpone votes twice on his debt-ceiling bill. Finally, on Friday, Boehner had to amend the bill in ways Democrats openly derided. The events proved "that while the tea party Republicans are a noisy and effective protest movement, they are unfit for governing," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.
Said Rep. Steven LaTourette, an Ohio Republican: "We've lost some leverage."
Boehner's original bill to raise the debt ceiling by Tuesday's deadline was already doomed in the Democratic-controlled Senate, where talks of a possible final-hour bipartisan deal were under way. But the House's tea party holdouts forced Boehner to push his bill even further to the right, prompting taunts that it wasn't serious, let alone viable.
Boehner could not secure the votes he needed from conservatives until he accepted an unusual condition for a second debt-limit increase, which would be necessary in a few months. Both chambers of Congress first would have to approve a constitutional amendment requiring balanced budgets, which requires a two-thirds majority in both houses. Some conservatives have long dreamed of such a change. But leaders in both parties acknowledge it is politically unachievable.
Boehner's original bill was already imperiled because it would tie the second debt-ceiling increase to huge mandatory spending cuts, which President Barack Obama rejected. The speaker's allies said the tea partyers' demands make it all the harder to argue that Democrats should seriously consider the House bill.
Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark., said Democrats will "feel like they've got a lot more power and influence in this process right now."
The political fractures are reaching into the GOP, and even the tea party movement itself. Some tea party-backed lawmakers embraced Boehner's original bill, drawing fire from the movement's most unyielding wings.
A group called The United West labeled four House Republicans "tea party defectors." One of them was first-term Rep. Allen West of Florida, a highly visible favorite of many tea party factions.
The accusation angered conservative radio host Laura Ingraham, who brought West on her show and defended him. "He understands how to declare victory, even if that victory is incremental," she said. West understands "the limits of one's power when you control one house of Congress."
West said, "One minute they're saying I'm their tea party hero, and what, three or four days later. I'm a tea party defector? That kind of tea party schizophrenia, I'm not going to get involved in it."
GOP Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia, who says he will not support a debt limit hike under any circumstances, defended the tea party movement.
"The tea party has been maligned unfairly," Broun said in an interview. "It's about limiting government according to what the Constitution says it should be."
"This is truly a reflection of the strongest political force in America," Broun said.
Even Democrats grudgingly acknowledge that the tea party has pushed national policy toward deeper spending cuts without tax increases. Obama for months insisted that higher tax revenues be part of a debt-reduction package, but Senate Democrats have dropped that bid.
The highly decentralized tea party movement was born amid the fiercely partisan fight that led to passage of Obama's health care overhaul in 2010. At public forums throughout the nation, citizens sharply criticized the plan's reach into private lives, including its requirement that everyone eventually buy health insurance.
The movement, which also decried federal bank bailouts and stimulus programs, played a huge role in last fall's elections, when Republicans regained control of the House after four years in the minority.
Now, some establishment Republicans are wondering if they got more than they bargained for. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for instance, strongly opposed the health care legislation, making common cause with the tea party. But this month the chamber swung solidly behind Boehner's original debt-ceiling bill. It suffered embarrassment with all the other groups and individuals forced to swallow the tea partyers' demands.
Republican campaign strategists are weighing the tea party's valuable energy against the possibility that it might push the party away from mainstream politics, which appeal to crucial independent voters. A Pew Research poll found that 68 percent of American voters want lawmakers to compromise on the debt ceiling and default issue, even it means striking a deal they disagree with. Fewer than one in four said lawmakers should stand by their principles even if it leads to a default on U.S. obligations.
Veteran lawmakers and congressional staffers are struck by the faith — be it admirable or naïve — that many tea party advocates seem to have in what they consider the moral rightness of their ideas. Some GOP staffers privately roll their eyes at accounts of House members insisting that Senate Democrats will suddenly come to their senses and embrace the balanced budget agreement, even though those senators have criticized the proposal for years.
"I sure hope they don't try to take out the balanced budget amendment in the Senate," said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga. He refused to vote for the House debt-ceiling bill until it was added.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., barely conceals his disdain for such thinking. The key question, Reid said in a speech Friday, is "will today's Republicans break away from the shrill voice of the tea party and return to the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan?"
When a Democratic leader praises Reagan, it's a sign of how profoundly the tea party movement has influenced the GOP.
Associated Press writers Alan Fram and Steven Ohlemacher contributed to this report.
Well, you can thank people like Caliga's wife for this mess. :lol:
I honestly am baffled this happening. It's like an economic suicide bombing.
Quote from: mongers on July 29, 2011, 06:51:37 PM
Was it such a good idea to get the smurfs to open trading today, with only 4 days to go ?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsnbcmedia.msn.com%2Fj%2FMSNBC%2FComponents%2FPhoto%2F_new%2F110729-smurfs-hmeda-7a.photoblog900.jpg&hash=f87caddfbc1b081fe1a6a7d48de4656e8f433c59)
edit:
besides everyone knows they'd have been more effective on Capitol Hill.
:)
And the senate has thrown it out :lol:
The polarisation between two parties that are both spendthrift would be highly amusing if it were not for the unpleasant consequences. They remind me of the "Big Endians" and "Little Endians" in Gulliver's Travels, which is appropriate given the Lilliputian scale of our current political class's talents.
I think most of the blame rests with the Republicans, however. As far as I understand, in the past, raising the debt limit was more or less a formality. It's only this time that suddenly the Reoublicans decided to hold the entire government finances hostage by demanding extra concessions or they will pull the trigger.
The relative reasons of each side are less relevant - what's problematic is that Republicans decided to engage in this political blackmail to get their demands met.
Quote from: Martinus on July 30, 2011, 06:39:26 AM
I think most of the blame rests with the Republicans, however. As far as I understand, in the past, raising the debt limit was more or less a formality.
And look how wonderful that has been.
Remember when Democrats were bitching about the Senate, saying it served only to obstruct the will of the people and should be abolished? Now it is the last, best hope of mankind.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2011, 08:13:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 30, 2011, 06:39:26 AM
I think most of the blame rests with the Republicans, however. As far as I understand, in the past, raising the debt limit was more or less a formality.
And look how wonderful that has been.
Sorry, garbs; can't fund the federal government at 1955 rates. That's like bitching why we can't buy a gallon of milk for .15 anymore.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2011, 08:32:00 AM
Sorry, garbs; can't fund the federal government at 1955 rates. That's like bitching why we can't buy a gallon of milk for .15 anymore.
I didn't realize that our options were either that or wild spending spree. Silly me.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2011, 08:35:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2011, 08:32:00 AM
Sorry, garbs; can't fund the federal government at 1955 rates. That's like bitching why we can't buy a gallon of milk for .15 anymore.
I didn't realize that our options were either that or wild spending spree. Silly me.
There's your Teabaggers' "Cut Cap and Balance" proposal for you in a nutshell.
America = Greece.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2011, 08:40:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2011, 08:35:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2011, 08:32:00 AM
Sorry, garbs; can't fund the federal government at 1955 rates. That's like bitching why we can't buy a gallon of milk for .15 anymore.
I didn't realize that our options were either that or wild spending spree. Silly me.
There's your Teabaggers' "Cut Cap and Balance" proposal for you in a nutshell.
My Teabaggers? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2011, 09:02:59 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2011, 08:40:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2011, 08:35:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2011, 08:32:00 AM
Sorry, garbs; can't fund the federal government at 1955 rates. That's like bitching why we can't buy a gallon of milk for .15 anymore.
I didn't realize that our options were either that or wild spending spree. Silly me.
There's your Teabaggers' "Cut Cap and Balance" proposal for you in a nutshell.
My Teabaggers? :huh:
Yeah, your Teabaggers, you GOP shill.
:yawn:
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2011, 09:25:43 AM
:yawn:
Have you signed any of the anti-fag pledges yet?
What serious person signs pledges?
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2011, 03:17:24 PM
What serious person signs pledges?
People who hold office.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2011, 08:32:00 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2011, 08:13:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 30, 2011, 06:39:26 AM
I think most of the blame rests with the Republicans, however. As far as I understand, in the past, raising the debt limit was more or less a formality.
And look how wonderful that has been.
Sorry, garbs; can't fund the federal government at 1955 rates. That's like bitching why we can't buy a gallon of milk for .15 anymore.
Maybe if the tax rates were at 1955 levels, you guys might have had a chance.
Quote from: Neil on July 30, 2011, 04:19:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2011, 08:32:00 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2011, 08:13:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 30, 2011, 06:39:26 AM
I think most of the blame rests with the Republicans, however. As far as I understand, in the past, raising the debt limit was more or less a formality.
And look how wonderful that has been.
Sorry, garbs; can't fund the federal government at 1955 rates. That's like bitching why we can't buy a gallon of milk for .15 anymore.
Maybe if the tax rates were at 1955 levels, you guys might have had a chance.
But then we'd have 1955 unemployment levels!
They say you get the government you deserve, and that seems very true here. We can't get something done here because the public doesn't have a consistent idea what they want Congress to do. People want low taxes, government services and a balanced budget. We are going to have to pick two.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 30, 2011, 05:09:45 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 30, 2011, 04:19:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2011, 08:32:00 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2011, 08:13:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 30, 2011, 06:39:26 AM
I think most of the blame rests with the Republicans, however. As far as I understand, in the past, raising the debt limit was more or less a formality.
And look how wonderful that has been.
Sorry, garbs; can't fund the federal government at 1955 rates. That's like bitching why we can't buy a gallon of milk for .15 anymore.
Maybe if the tax rates were at 1955 levels, you guys might have had a chance.
But then we'd have 1955 unemployment levels!
Although to get there it would help if you'd adopt a 1955 attitude towards mainland China.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 30, 2011, 07:36:40 PM
We can't get something done here because the public doesn't have a consistent idea what they want Congress to do.
Don't worry, the public's got nothing to do with it anymore.
I wonder if Congressmen will be allowed to wear brand ads soon, like NASCAR?
You know, I said a long while back, right here on Languish, that the Tea Party's position on the debt and spending was ridiculous in the particular, but in fact reflected a very valid and rational position. Namely, that the size of the federal government has grown ridiculously over the last few decades, and they want it to stop. holding the economy hostage is a poor way of doing that perhaps, but on the other hand, it's not like anything else has worked. No matter who is in charge over the last couple decades, the mantra from Washington is SPENDSPENDSPENDSPENDSPENDSPEND and then spend some fucking more.
The economy is doing great! Awesome, we can spend more cash!
Holy shit, the economy has gone into the shitter! Whatever shall we do? The answer is: SPEND SOME MORE!
If things are good, we should spend, but if things get bad, why, we have to quit fucking around and REALLY SPEND!
Quote from: Berkut on July 30, 2011, 10:00:36 PM
You know, I said a long while back, right here on Languish, that the Tea Party's position on the debt and spending was ridiculous in the particular, but in fact reflected a very valid and rational position. Namely, that the size of the federal government has grown ridiculously over the last few decades,
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usgovernmentspending.com%2Fusgs_line.php%3Ftitle%3DTotal%2520Spending%26amp%3Byear%3D1970_2011%26amp%3Bsname%3DUS%26amp%3Bunits%3Dp%26amp%3Bbar%3D1%26amp%3Bstack%3D1%26amp%3Bsize%3Dm%26amp%3Bcol%3Dc%26amp%3Bspending0%3D18.84_18.65_18.63_17.78_17.96_20.29_20.38_20.16_20.00_19.67_21.20_21.69_22.92_22.87_21.67_22.44_22.21_21.20_20.87_20.86_21.60_22.10_21.78_21.14_20.63_20.44_19.91_19.22_18.79_18.20_17.98_18.11_18.90_19.39_19.32_19.56_19.82_19.38_20.76_24.91_23.58_25.32%26amp%3Blegend%3D%26amp%3Bsource%3Da_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_b&hash=68a97a1ad79cb173157e9d6b6d1aa1c43df0acf0)
Don't believe everything you hear. In fact, you can't go very wrong believing that everything conservatives say about the economy is a falsehood, because it usually is.
So your chart that shows that as a share of GDP spending has increased by about 40% (from 18% to projected 25%+) since 1990 is supposed to prove...that they are exactly correct?
Quote from: Berkut on July 30, 2011, 10:20:17 PM
So your chart that shows that as a share of GDP spending has increased by about 40% (from 18% to projected 25%+) since 1990 is supposed to prove...that they are exactly correct?
The chart shows that there is no clear increasing trend over the decades that you claim. Over some periods it goes up, over other periods it goes down, with the long term trend being flat or almost flat. I did not intend to make an argument using endpoint to endpoint comparison; for one it's just a numerically illiterate thing to do with a cyclical-looking data.
The reality is actually that spending has been decreasing rather dramatically over the last 65 years, from 48% of GDP down to about 20%. Here:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usgovernmentspending.com%2Fusgs_line.php%3Ftitle%3DTotal%2520Spending%26amp%3Byear%3D1945_2008%26amp%3Bsname%3DUS%26amp%3Bunits%3Dp%26amp%3Bbar%3D1%26amp%3Bstack%3D1%26amp%3Bsize%3Dm%26amp%3Bcol%3Dc%26amp%3Bspending0%3D47.93_29.94_16.96_13.23_15.04_15.25_14.42_19.97_21.09_20.42_17.71_17.37_17.74_18.42_18.46_18.48_19.25_18.24_18.02_17.86_16.44_17.08_18.92_19.58_18.66_18.84_18.65_18.63_17.78_17.96_20.29_20.38_20.16_20.00_19.67_21.20_21.69_22.92_22.87_21.67_22.44_22.21_21.20_20.87_20.86_21.60_22.10_21.78_21.14_20.63_20.44_19.91_19.22_18.79_18.20_17.98_18.11_18.90_19.39_19.32_19.56_19.82_19.38_20.76%26amp%3Blegend%3D%26amp%3Bsource%3Di_a_i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a&hash=5749692bb9300886a820172e32241dae4ad40f85)
Golly, less than half of what we spent during WWII. :lol:
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2011, 10:23:44 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 30, 2011, 10:20:17 PM
So your chart that shows that as a share of GDP spending has increased by about 40% (from 18% to projected 25%+) since 1990 is supposed to prove...that they are exactly correct?
The chart shows that there is no clear increasing trend over the decades that you claim.
The chart shows that as a percentage of GDP the feds have increased spending by 40% over the last 20 years. How is that somehow not relevant to my point, which is that federal spending has increased dramatically over the last couple decades?
Sure, it goes up, and it goes down - but the trend that people are worried about, which is the trend over the last cycle, is a huge increase. How is that somehow not relevant to what people care about RIGHT NOW?
It is amazing that you have posted a chart to show that spending as a percentage of the GDP is at an all time high since WW2 and 40% higher than the low point since then in an effort to show that concerns about federal spending are "a falsehood".
I mean, what would we have to spend for concerns about spending to be legitimate? 50% more than the low? 100%? 200%?
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2011, 10:30:49 PM
The reality is actually that spending has been decreasing rather dramatically over the last 65 years, from 48% of GDP down to about 20%. Here:
Oh so the issue was that Berk was looking at the wrong endpoints and not that one shouldn't compare endpoints. :)
This is really baffling.
If spending goes up and down as DG claims, then shouldn't it be perfectly expected that people who care about spending would be alarmed when we reach a peak and will want to take action to stop that increase and try to drive spending back down?
I am truly at a loss here. DGs chart perfectly illustrates my point. I could not have come up with a better chart if I had just made up the numbers myself.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2011, 11:23:38 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2011, 10:30:49 PM
The reality is actually that spending has been decreasing rather dramatically over the last 65 years, from 48% of GDP down to about 20%. Here:
Oh so the issue was that Berk was looking at the wrong endpoints and not that one shouldn't compare endpoints. :)
Exactly.
It seems rather bizarre that DG would argue that looking at the previous low and comparing it to the current value would be somehow some terrible crime when talking about how much spending has increased over some period of time. Noting that the current high is higher than any other previous high seems kind of relevant as well.
Quote from: Berkut on July 30, 2011, 11:23:18 PM
It is amazing that you have posted a chart to show that spending as a percentage of the GDP is at an all time high since WW2 and 40% higher than the low point since then in an effort to show that concerns about federal spending are "a falsehood".
You're switching your assertions now. Your assertion was that spending was steadily rising decade after decade. It's that assertion that I'm calling BS on. In fact, decade over decade, the trend was flat, with periodic upward or downward movements.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2011, 11:23:38 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2011, 10:30:49 PM
The reality is actually that spending has been decreasing rather dramatically over the last 65 years, from 48% of GDP down to about 20%. Here:
Oh so the issue was that Berk was looking at the wrong endpoints and not that one shouldn't compare endpoints. :)
Sigh. The issue is that you shouldn't compare endpoints, because it's so easy to pick the convenient ones like Berkut did. I hoped that my second graph would drive the point home, evidently wrongly.
Quote from: Berkut on July 30, 2011, 11:28:36 PM
This is really baffling.
If spending goes up and down as DG claims, then shouldn't it be perfectly expected that people who care about spending would be alarmed when we reach a peak and will want to take action to stop that increase and try to drive spending back down?
I am truly at a loss here. DGs chart perfectly illustrates my point. I could not have come up with a better chart if I had just made up the numbers myself.
It illustrates the point that you made up after I posted the chart. It does not illustrate the point to which I responded, in fact it refutes it.
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2011, 11:50:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 30, 2011, 11:28:36 PM
This is really baffling.
If spending goes up and down as DG claims, then shouldn't it be perfectly expected that people who care about spending would be alarmed when we reach a peak and will want to take action to stop that increase and try to drive spending back down?
I am truly at a loss here. DGs chart perfectly illustrates my point. I could not have come up with a better chart if I had just made up the numbers myself.
It illustrates the point that you made up after I posted the chart. It does not illustrate the point to which I responded, in fact it refutes it.
Uhhh, the point that spending has increased over the last few decades? No, it confirms that point rather nicely.
It might refute some other point that I haven't made, but even you don't seem to know what that point might be.
I think I have a pretty good idea what my point was, and appreciate you posting the chart to prove it for me. Why you would claim this shows that conservatives are liars is beyond me, except perhaps to illustrate how partisan you are and ready to get all worked up over those damn purple drazi. Again.
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2011, 11:48:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2011, 11:23:38 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2011, 10:30:49 PM
The reality is actually that spending has been decreasing rather dramatically over the last 65 years, from 48% of GDP down to about 20%. Here:
Oh so the issue was that Berk was looking at the wrong endpoints and not that one shouldn't compare endpoints. :)
Sigh. The issue is that you shouldn't compare endpoints, because it's so easy to pick the convenient ones like Berkut did. I hoped that my second graph would drive the point home, evidently wrongly.
Indeed. Don't really see it as a good refutation 1) because I didn't understand it at first (blame the medium of the typed word I guess) and 2) because it fails to address how people will be concerned about trends over the "short" term - other than to say "don't worry about it."
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2011, 11:48:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2011, 11:23:38 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 30, 2011, 10:30:49 PM
The reality is actually that spending has been decreasing rather dramatically over the last 65 years, from 48% of GDP down to about 20%. Here:
Oh so the issue was that Berk was looking at the wrong endpoints and not that one shouldn't compare endpoints. :)
Sigh. The issue is that you shouldn't compare endpoints, because it's so easy to pick the convenient ones like Berkut did. I hoped that my second graph would drive the point home, evidently wrongly.
So comparing the previous low to the current value is "picking convenient endpoints" when talking about how much spending has increased?
Huh? Today is not a "convenient endpoint" when talking about politics TODAY. And the previous low spending point is certainly a rather convenient point when talking about how much spending has increased over the last couple decades. So convenient in fact that it makes rather perfect sense to show why people are concerned about spending.
Now, picking WW2 as an endpoint, THAT is a pretty good example of incredibly terrible data analysis. Why you would think that would fly is rather beyond me. Last I checekd, we were not curerntly involved in the greatest war in human history driving spending in a rather exceptional circumstance.
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2011, 12:03:49 AM
Now, picking WW2 as an endpoint, THAT is a pretty good example of incredibly terrible data analysis. Why you would think that would fly is rather beyond me. Last I checekd, we were not curerntly involved in the greatest war in human history driving spending in a rather exceptional circumstance.
I think he chose WWII as an extreme example of picking a convenient endpoint in hopes of illustrating that you can't just choose endpoints that you like.
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2011, 12:07:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2011, 12:03:49 AM
Now, picking WW2 as an endpoint, THAT is a pretty good example of incredibly terrible data analysis. Why you would think that would fly is rather beyond me. Last I checekd, we were not curerntly involved in the greatest war in human history driving spending in a rather exceptional circumstance.
I think he chose WWII as an extreme example of picking a convenient endpoint in hopes of illustrating that you can't just choose endpoints that you like.
Except that his chosen endpoint is clearly an outlier and a rather exception circumstance.
Picking the endpoint of today is not "convenient", it is the only endpoint that matters when talking about today.
And picking the previous lowpoint in the cycle is not "convenient" either when talking about how much spending has increased over the last couple of decades. It is perfectly relevant to illustrate that we have in fact been spending more - how else can you point out that in his cycle we are at the top of a slope except by comparing right now to the previous bottom of the slope?
Should we pick some date randomly to determine if we are currently trending up or down and by how much? Its not like his graph shows that spending his essentially random - it clearly cycles up and down over time as a percentage of GDP.
Well, I guess that was a good illustration why data doesn't refute conservative economic lies well. It's all too easy to engage in some innumerate counter-analysis, at which point it's just your word against theirs as to what constitutes proper analysis. I'm not in the mood for these games.
If you look at the graph of spending over decades, and see something other than essentially flat trend over the long term, then there is really no argument I can come up with, no matter how well-worded, that would change your mind. I don't see why I should waste any more time looking for that perfect argument or perfectly-put point.
I think that if government spending is higher now than at any time since WW2, it's reasonable to believe that it's too high.
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2011, 12:15:57 AM
Well, I guess that was a good illustration why data doesn't refute conservative economic lies well. It's all too easy to engage in some innumerate counter-analysis, at which point it's just your word against theirs as to what constitutes proper analysis. I'm not in the mood for these games.
If you look at the graph of spending over decades, and see something other than essentially flat trend over the long term, then there is really no argument I can come up with, no matter how well-worded, that would change your mind. I don't see why I should waste any more time looking for that perfect argument or perfectly-put point.
<boggle>
Your graph illustrates that right now spending is at an all time high since WW2. Spending, RIGHT NOW, is greater than it has EVER BEEN outside the greatest war in human history. The trend over the last two decades is a huge increase in spending - 40% increase as a percentage of GDP. You claim this is cyclical - great, no argument. And the cycle right now is that spending is increasing, and has been for 20 years.
These are facts, assuming your graph is accurate. They are not interpretations, opinions, and certianly not "lies", conservative or otherwise. This is YOUR data.
Your right, there is no argument you can come up with that can refute your own graph that shows that the Tea Party types are perfectly justified in being concerned about federal spending as a percentage of GDP right now.
You cannot get away from two simple facts:
1. Spending is at an all time high - likely it is higher right now than at any other time in US history, excepting very, very large and active wars.
2. Spending right now is on the upslope of the cycle.
Just because spending has been cyclical does not mean that we should just not worry about it when it is high because it is just augimagically going to go back down because it always has in the past. At least part of the reason it probably always has in the past is because people tend to start freaking out about it when it reaches high points and react accordingly. The fiscal conservatives get more votes, and the fiscal liberals lose power. Just like when it is at a low point, there is not nearly as much pressure against it rising, and those who want it to go higher tend to have their way. Of course, when the green drazi point this out, they are liars.
I am pretty sure that if we were in a trough, you would be perfectly happy to point out that we were at an all time low in spending, and on a downward trend, and hence we should consider spending some more - correct? The difference between me and you is that when you did that I would not close my eyes and pretend the data says something else entirely.
Or would you say "Hey, back in 1935 we were spending even less than we are now, so we really should not look at what we are spending right now, since that is just finding convenient end points!"
Quote from: Ancient Demon on July 31, 2011, 12:28:04 AM
I think that if government spending is higher now than at any time since WW2, it's reasonable to believe that it's too high.
That is crazy talk, you lying tea bagger!
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2011, 12:15:57 AM
Well, I guess that was a good illustration why data doesn't refute conservative economic lies well.
I think this sentence should be preserved for posterity.
If the data doesn't refute the lie...perhaps it wasn't a lie?
Just a thought.
Data trumps partisan hackery every time.
Ok, one last attempt.
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2011, 12:28:26 AM
Your graph illustrates that right now spending is at an all time high since WW2.
Yes, and had you said that spending had grown ridiculously in the last few years, you would be right. However, you said that "that the size of the federal government has grown ridiculously over the last few decades", and that's wrong. To recap: in the last few years, yes, over the last few decades, no.
QuoteSpending, RIGHT NOW, is greater than it has EVER BEEN.
Right now is not the last few decades.
QuoteThe trend over the last two decades is a huge increase in spending - 40% increase as a percentage of GDP.
See, this is where I just don't know what to say. As a person who analyzes trends for a living, I see this as a clearly wrong analysis, but to you that's just an argument from authority, and from a partial source. If you want to talk about the increase in spending in the last 3 years, fine. But why do you make an argument that spending has increased over the last two decades, when for the first of the two decades, spending consistently went down as percent of GDP year after year?
That's like saying in 2002 that over the last few decades, FDNY casualties drastically increased. Even if true in the most tenuous sense, it's devoid of any meaning.
Quote
You claim this is cyclical - great, no argument. And the cycle right now is that spending is increasing, and has been for 20 years.
You seem to miss the reason why I mentioned cyclicality. I mentioned cyclicality of the data because cyclical data is particularly vulnerable to abuse in analysis.
QuoteThese are facts, assuming your graph is accurate. They are not interpretations, opinions, and certianly not "lies", conservative or otherwise. This is YOUR data.
No, these are interpretations, and quite faulty interpretations at that. Saying that the trend over the last two decades is a huge increase in spending is neither fact, nor a good interpretation. Trend is not just about the start point and the end point.
For example, a sequence of numbers like 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 6, 7 is not an example of a trend of growth over the last ten years, even if the endpoint is 7 times higher than the start point. The word "trend" implies a somewhat consistent behavior from year to year. There is no trend of any kind in spending over the last two decades, because there are 3 distinct and different patterns present in that period.
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2011, 12:32:19 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2011, 12:15:57 AM
Well, I guess that was a good illustration why data doesn't refute conservative economic lies well.
I think this sentence should be preserved for posterity.
If the data doesn't refute the lie...perhaps it wasn't a lie?
Just a thought.
Data trumps partisan hackery every time.
The problem is that data by itself doesn't tell anything. Data has to be analyzed to tell something.
It's a good thing for me personally, because I make a pretty good living doing just that. However, in general, it's a bad thing, because what needs to be analyzed can also be mis-analyzed, especially if you really want to mis-analyze something, and that's how conservative myths persist.
A classic example is analyzing the effects of the tax cuts on revenue. Due to the growth of the economy and the inflation, eventually the revenue after tax cut is going to be higher than before the tax cut. Laffer Curve charlatans go "QED". How do you refute that? In the most basic sense, the data supports their assertions, because revenues are higher after the tax cut than before at some point. You need proper analysis to refute that falsehood, the data itself is not enough.
My mistake in this thread was assuming that the chart I showed was so clear-cut that analysis of it wouldn't be that difficult. Either I misjudged my audience, or my audience is being unreasonable stubborn.
Can you guys show a similar chart for tax income? I have an inkling this is where the real culprit lies, not spending.
Found this graph:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic7.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F4c62b3647f8b9a4d16500000%2Ftotal-tax-revenue.jpg&hash=6859fbfe975465fdb324594f25e8b0bee322d80d)
Tax income RIGHT NOW is lower than it has EVER BEEN SINCE 1960. Time to raise the taxes.
So these graphs show that since 2000, the US tax income has gone down by 5 percentage points of GDP and the US spending has gone up by 7 percentage points of GDP.
I fail to see how this shows excessive spending is the main culprit here.
Considering during that time you got into two wars (which I believe you supported, Berkut - when you were voicing your support for them back in 2001-2002, where did you think the money would come from?), I would be surprised if spending did not go up, to be honest.
Only an idiot would lower taxes during a time like that, and only an idiot would expect spending at the wartime/recession period to stay at the same level, GDP percentage wise as it was during peacetime/prosperity period. :huh:
Berkut, like most if not all of those who supported the war back then, thought it would be over in a couple years if not months. In fact I remember that one of the arguments brought around when Jake asked for people to convince him one way or the other was that it would be cheaper than keeping indefinitely the garrison in Kuwait. :lmfao:
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2011, 02:51:19 AM
Found this graph:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic7.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F4c62b3647f8b9a4d16500000%2Ftotal-tax-revenue.jpg&hash=6859fbfe975465fdb324594f25e8b0bee322d80d)
Tax income RIGHT NOW is lower than it has EVER BEEN SINCE 1960. Time to raise the taxes.
Obviously. It is unfortunate that US leaders do not realize the possibility of paying more debts from increased income. I think you should contact them before this crisis spirals out of control.
I find it odd that of the proposals for debt reduction I've seen in the few articles I've read, none seem to mention reducing military spending. Am I missing something, or is that really that much of a political untouchable in the US?
Quote from: Iormlund on July 31, 2011, 04:31:07 AM
Berkut, like most if not all of those who supported the war back then, thought it would be over in a couple years if not months. In fact I remember that one of the arguments brought around when Jake asked for people to convince him one way or the other was that it would be cheaper than keeping indefinitely the garrison in Kuwait. :lmfao:
That is just a straight up lie. I never made any such argument, because it is on its face idiotic.
The argument was made that we could not leave an invasion (not a garrison, an invasion) force sitting in Kuwait forever, and it was the presence of that invasion force that was forcing Saddam to at least go through the motions of cooperation. And that is true, and was true then. Nobody ever claimed that the war, or any war, would be cheap. Although nobody who supported the war prior to its beginning thought that Bush would manage to screw up the immediate aftermath as thoroughly as he did leading to the rather long insurgency phase. But I am pretty sure even the most hawkish of us have long since admitted to that error.
Which part is a lie? That you supported the war or that certain arguments were thrown around at the time?
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on July 31, 2011, 08:52:09 AM
I find it odd that of the proposals for debt reduction I've seen in the few articles I've read, none seem to mention reducing military spending. Am I missing something, or is that really that much of a political untouchable in the US?
There have been calls and speculation, but I'll believe it when it's actually cut.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-braces-for-much-deeper-military-spending-cuts-as-part-of-debt-deal/2011/07/20/gIQAdBKfQI_story.html
Boehner and Cantor both stated that they don't believe it's proper to cut the defense budget, but instead appropriations should be cut. Unfortunately I can't find the article in the Post.
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2011, 02:51:19 AM
Found this graph:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic7.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F4c62b3647f8b9a4d16500000%2Ftotal-tax-revenue.jpg&hash=6859fbfe975465fdb324594f25e8b0bee322d80d)
Tax income RIGHT NOW is lower than it has EVER BEEN SINCE 1960. Time to raise the taxes.
Just to be consistent with both the time period, the source, and the components included, I'll post my own graph as well:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usgovernmentrevenue.com%2Fusgs_line.php%3Ftitle%3DTotal%2520Direct%2520Revenue%26amp%3Byear%3D1970_2011%26amp%3Bsname%3DUS%26amp%3Bunits%3Dp%26amp%3Bbar%3D1%26amp%3Bstack%3D1%26amp%3Bsize%3Dm%26amp%3Bcol%3Dc%26amp%3Bspending0%3D18.57_16.61_16.75_16.70_17.55_17.04_16.34_17.51_17.42_18.08_18.55_19.17_18.99_16.99_16.95_17.40_17.25_18.04_17.83_18.08_17.79_17.61_17.21_17.31_17.76_18.23_18.54_18.95_19.58_19.54_20.35_19.36_17.41_16.00_15.84_17.04_17.96_18.24_17.57_14.91_14.75_14.41%26amp%3Blegend%3D%26amp%3Bsource%3Da_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_b&hash=b8d33fcea813d4d68ed17b10ea00cae271639d45)
There is no question that the decline in revenue combined with a huge increase in spending has made the debt a serious problem.
But its not like the debt is the basis of the problem from a fiscal conservative perspective. Massive spending increases without raising taxes is even worse than just massive spending increases. The problem is that what happens is that the wanna be socialists generally operate by increasing spending without increasing taxes (is it always easy to increase government programs as long as it is 'free' of course), then when the debt gets out of hand, we get this "Hey, we need to increase taxes! Why, if you conservatives are really serious about the debt, then you would support increased taxes to deal with it!"
At least, that is how it look to the fiscal conservatives. The fact that much if the recent round of increased spending happened while the Republicans were in charge just makes them that much more pissed off and willing to knife their own in the back if they are seen to waver.
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2011, 02:51:19 AM
Found this graph:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic7.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F4c62b3647f8b9a4d16500000%2Ftotal-tax-revenue.jpg&hash=6859fbfe975465fdb324594f25e8b0bee322d80d)
Tax income RIGHT NOW is lower than it has EVER BEEN SINCE 1960. Time to raise the taxes.
What is that a graph of though?
Why aren't I surprised that DG accepts this data from Marty without question, even though he doesn't even know what the graph is graphing?
It is that gross tax revenues, revenues as a percentage of something, tax rates...what?
And a fiscal conservative is not, of course, going to even agree that taxes simply being low is a valid reason to raise them. Taxes are bad, therefore there should be a good reason to raise them beyond that they are simply low.
And supporting spending that they never agreed should have been increased by 40%* to begin with is not a particularly good reason.
You can disagree with this of course, and for good reasons - but the idea that the Tea Party fiscal conservatives are just assholes who are out to destroy America out of spite is simply pathetic. It is standard demonization of those who do not agree with you, and no better than the claims of Beck and Rush that the DGs of America are radical socialists who just want to make everyone poor.
*-Actually much, much more than 40% - I keep meaning to mention this and then forgetting. My original point was that the FCs are pissed that spending has increased so much, not that spending as a ratio of GDP has increased so much (although of course that just makes it worse). Even when DGs graph shows the ratio decreasing, spending itself is likely flat or increasing in real dollars. So the point that the feds keep spending more and more and more is perfectly true - they do. It is interesting that DGs argument is that not only should the feds spend more, they should take a larger and larger and larger share, and the fact that their share today is larger than it has been since WW2 is nothing to be concerned about. I think they have a word for that view...
Finally, the view of the Tea Party are not my own - I am not trying to argue that they are right, IMO, just that their position makes sense given their viewpoints of what is important to them. It is not based on lies, irrationality, hating America and wanting to destroy it, just not being as smart as the lefties, etc., etc.
Personally, I think it is pretty obvious that we need to bump up the overall tax rate a bit, and decrease spending a LOT.
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2011, 12:21:46 PM
What is that a graph of though?
Why aren't I surprised that DG accepts this data from Marty without question, even though he doesn't even know what the graph is graphing?
Why aren't I surprised that you're making shit up about what I'm saying and what I'm thinking? The graph looks exactly like the graph I posted for the common period, which is the graph of federal revenues as percentage of GDP, so why I exactly should I question it? I know exactly what it is graphing. It's valid to question graphs without titles and labels, but it's not obligatory if you already know the answer.
Quote
*-Actually much, much more than 40% - I keep meaning to mention this and then forgetting. My original point was that the FCs are pissed that spending has increased so much, not that spending as a ratio of GDP has increased so much (although of course that just makes it worse). Even when DGs graph shows the ratio decreasing, spending itself is likely flat or increasing in real dollars. So the point that the feds keep spending more and more and more is perfectly true - they do. It is interesting that DGs argument is that not only should the feds spend more, they should take a larger and larger and larger share, and the fact that their share today is larger than it has been since WW2 is nothing to be concerned about. I think they have a word for that view...
Then we're back to the fallacy behind the Laffer Curve charlatanism. Analyzing either revenue or spending numbers without deflating by nominal GDP is just bad analysis. That's another example how data alone is meaningless, and it has to be coupled with valid analysis. The problem is that people who cannot do the valid analysis themselves have to take the word of other people on what is a valid analysis. That gives them the opportunity to take the word of someone who says what they want to hear, and not someone whose analysis will lead to the most rational long-term decision-making.
There's something I can't figure out about federal spending. So we had a stimulus program in Obama's first year that raised spending by about 800 billion. With the end of that program I would have expected the deficit to decrease by about that amount, since they haven't passed any major new spending initiatives. Yet the deficit appears to have remained roughly constant in dollar terms since then.
Anyone know the answer to this?
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2011, 12:29:40 PM
Finally, the view of the Tea Party are not my own - I am not trying to argue that they are right, IMO, just that their position makes sense given their viewpoints of what is important to them. It is not based on lies, irrationality, hating America and wanting to destroy it, just not being as smart as the lefties, etc., etc.
Personally, I think it is pretty obvious that we need to bump up the overall tax rate a bit, and decrease spending a LOT.
And I'm trying to argue that their position is based on mistaken set of assumptions and facts. If you start with mistaken set of assumptions and facts, then even if you're perfectly rational (which is a very iffy assumption by itself), you're still going to come to the wrong conclusions.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2011, 12:48:22 PM
There's something I can't figure out about federal spending. So we had a stimulus program in Obama's first year that raised spending by about 800 billion. With the end of that program I would have expected the deficit to decrease by about that amount, since they haven't passed any major new spending initiatives. Yet the deficit appears to have remained roughly constant in dollar terms since then.
Anyone know the answer to this?
Automatic stabilizers like extended unemployment insurance payments account for the big chunk of it, more than 1 percentage point of GDP above the normal level.
What exactly is a fiscal conservative, anyway?
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2011, 12:57:51 PM
Automatic stabilizers like extended unemployment insurance payments account for the big chunk of it, more than 1 percentage point of GDP above the normal level.
That still leaves quite a few percentage points of GDP unaccounted for.
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2011, 12:51:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2011, 12:29:40 PM
Finally, the view of the Tea Party are not my own - I am not trying to argue that they are right, IMO, just that their position makes sense given their viewpoints of what is important to them. It is not based on lies, irrationality, hating America and wanting to destroy it, just not being as smart as the lefties, etc., etc.
Personally, I think it is pretty obvious that we need to bump up the overall tax rate a bit, and decrease spending a LOT.
And I'm trying to argue that their position is based on mistaken set of assumptions and facts.
Which position?
The position that we should increase taxes and decrease spending?
Or the position that those who do not agree with you on this political issue really are not idiots bent on destroying America?
Meh, we are back to the basic old DG-Berkut argument. You are a True Believer in the rightness of your clan, and anyone who does not believe as you must be stupid or deluded.
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2011, 12:47:52 PM
Then we're back to the fallacy behind the Laffer Curve charlatanism. Analyzing either revenue or spending numbers without deflating by nominal GDP is just bad analysis.
No it isn't. There is no principle that demands that federal spending should somehow be tied to GDP. There are plenty of federal programs, for example, whose cost are NOT tied to the size of the overall economy, therefore there is no reason to apriori assume that any and every increase in GDP MUST see a increase in federal spending. You can argue that there should be, or that there is nothing wrong with it, but it is by no means a given that the size of the federal government MUST be tied to the size of the US economy.
The reverse, of course, is true as well. Many costs do not decline if the economy declines.
There is nothing dishonest about saying that federal spending is increasing when it is in fact increasing. It is not a lie.
Quote
That's another example how data alone is meaningless, and it has to be coupled with valid analysis.
Who are you arguing with? What is funny is that your data and your analysis lead to the inescapable conclusion that right now the federal government is consuming the greatest proportion of the GDP than it has ever since WW2, and you posted that in an effort to refute the basic claim that the feds are kind of spending a shitload of money, and this is valid cause for concern.
Quote
The problem is that people who cannot do the valid analysis themselves have to take the word of other people on what is a valid analysis.
Your problem is that you like to pretend that your "valid analysis" says things it does not, then call other people liars when they point that out. What is sad is that we do in fact know that you are smart enough to failry evaluate data, and yet choose to present it in in an inaccurate manner anyway.
Quote
That gives them the opportunity to take the word of someone who says what they want to hear, and not someone whose analysis will lead to the most rational long-term decision-making.
Right - because obviously the rational response to the feds spending more money in absolute AND relative terms than ever before is to...not worry about it,and call people who are worried about it liars and idiots being duped by others.
Purple Drazi forever! Or is it green? I forget...
Quote from: Tamas on July 31, 2011, 08:41:22 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2011, 02:51:19 AM
Found this graph:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic7.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F4c62b3647f8b9a4d16500000%2Ftotal-tax-revenue.jpg&hash=6859fbfe975465fdb324594f25e8b0bee322d80d)
Tax income RIGHT NOW is lower than it has EVER BEEN SINCE 1960. Time to raise the taxes.
Obviously. It is unfortunate that US leaders do not realize the possibility of paying more debts from increased income. I think you should contact them before this crisis spirals out of control.
You do realize that Republican position is that there would be no tax increases (including, no removal of tax breaks) whatsoever, right?
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2011, 12:20:33 PM
There is no question that the decline in revenue combined with a huge increase in spending has made the debt a serious problem.
But its not like the debt is the basis of the problem from a fiscal conservative perspective. Massive spending increases without raising taxes is even worse than just massive spending increases. The problem is that what happens is that the wanna be socialists generally operate by increasing spending without increasing taxes (is it always easy to increase government programs as long as it is 'free' of course), then when the debt gets out of hand, we get this "Hey, we need to increase taxes! Why, if you conservatives are really serious about the debt, then you would support increased taxes to deal with it!"
At least, that is how it look to the fiscal conservatives. The fact that much if the recent round of increased spending happened while the Republicans were in charge just makes them that much more pissed off and willing to knife their own in the back if they are seen to waver.
Do you really think Tea Baggers can be characterized as "fiscal conservatives" as opposed to "fiscal ignoramuses"?
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2011, 12:47:52 PM
Why aren't I surprised that you're making shit up about what I'm saying and what I'm thinking? The graph looks exactly like the graph I posted for the common period, which is the graph of federal revenues as percentage of GDP, so why I exactly should I question it? I know exactly what it is graphing. It's valid to question graphs without titles and labels, but it's not obligatory if you already know the answer.
It's especially funny considering I posted the graph with "I found this" immediately after my post in which I asked for a graph like the one you posted, but showing tax revenue instead of expenses. I wonder if Berkut can get ever more transparent with being deliberately obtuse.
So could anyone be so kind and give me a rundown on this cut cap and balance amendment the teabaggers are suggesting? And does it mean that the federal government will be banned to ever run a deficit even during individual years?
Quote from: Cecil on July 31, 2011, 02:01:00 PM
So could anyone be so kind and give me a rundown on this cut cap and balance amendment the teabaggers are suggesting? And does it mean that the federal government will be banned to ever run a deficit even during individual years?
My understanding is it could be overridden by a 2/3 supermajority in both chambers.
I know we have had this discussion before, but Berkut is throwing around the word "socialist" again in the context of American politics. Other than Berk, who didnt give a very good answer last time, are there any American posters who can help me with whether there are any actual socialists in the US political system. Or even as Berk calls them "want to be socialists" - whatever that means. I would be very surprised if this was so but you have so many people in Congress and the Senate that it might be possible. Or is Berk just using over the top rhetoric?
Berkut's just shit flinging again. And projecting, quite a bit as well. Dguller's a numbers guy, I'm going to have side with him on this. I don't understand statistics very well.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 20, 2011, 11:39:34 AM
Quote from: KRonn on July 20, 2011, 10:23:45 AMEliminate some of the tax loop holes while bringing the tax rate down. As it is now many corps pay much less than the highest tax bracket due to taking advantage of tax breaks, and something like 30% or more corps pay no taxes.
I'll repeat a post I did on the other forum about this. I don't know what the data suggests specifically, but it's a bit interesting.
On the revenue side of things, here (http://"http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/07/us-government-receipts-as-percent-of.html") is a post on CR about it:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcr4re.com%2FCRimages%2FUSReceipts.jpg&hash=08f4653f191c705b96f4af0dfb41ec8ae0bf41aa)
A couple of things stand out, looking at the linked data (except CBO, their site is still down :p ).
First of all, corporate tax receipts dropped over the same period way faster than corporate tax rates dropped. I think that's all the deductions and loopholes growing over the period in question. Almost all of the decline in receipts happened in the period of years before the significant rate reductions took place. These rates bottomed out during the Clinton Administration. There seems to be very little correlation between the actual rates and the receipts during the period, as the top marginal corporate income tax rate stayed between 45 and 55% all the way up to 1987.
Second, personal income tax seems to be primarily driven by economic factors and not by tax rate. The top marginal rate in this category was in the 80 to 94% range until 1963 (Kennedy lowered it), 70% until 1981, and dropped to 50% and then 35% where it is presently. Yet receipts don't match the rate changes here either. I suspect it would be more closely tied to a chart of the unemployment rate, or especially in later years, a chart of the Dow Jones. That suggests that tax receipts are more dependent on job creation than they are tax rates.
The purple line SSA/Medicare receipts seem somewhat more straightforward. The rates for those taxes has steadily increased (http://"http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html") over the years and so have the receipts. There are very few tax credits or exemptions for them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 31, 2011, 02:30:30 PM
I know we have had this discussion before, but Berkut is throwing around the word "socialist" again in the context of American politics. Other than Berk, who didnt give a very good answer last time, are there any American posters who can help me with whether there are any actual socialists in the US political system. Or even as Berk calls them "want to be socialists" - whatever that means. I would be very surprised if this was so but you have so many people in Congress and the Senate that it might be possible. Or is Berk just using over the top rhetoric?
Bernie Saunders I believe is a self-proclaimed Socialist, although he sought election as an independent.
I think in order to answer your question it would be helpful to know first what an actual socialist is. The US has semi-socialized pensions, socialized elementary and secondary education, semi-socialized health care, and semi-socialized higher education. Is the US socialist? Is Canada?
Reid: "Cautiously optimistic".
McConnell: "We're very close to a deal".
Hurry up fuckers. Overseas markets open really soon.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2011, 02:57:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 31, 2011, 02:30:30 PM
I know we have had this discussion before, but Berkut is throwing around the word "socialist" again in the context of American politics. Other than Berk, who didnt give a very good answer last time, are there any American posters who can help me with whether there are any actual socialists in the US political system. Or even as Berk calls them "want to be socialists" - whatever that means. I would be very surprised if this was so but you have so many people in Congress and the Senate that it might be possible. Or is Berk just using over the top rhetoric?
Bernie Saunders I believe is a self-proclaimed Socialist, although he sought election as an independent.
I think in order to answer your question it would be helpful to know first what an actual socialist is. The US has semi-socialized pensions, socialized elementary and secondary education, semi-socialized health care, and semi-socialized higher education. Is the US socialist? Is Canada?
Having socialized this or that does not make you a socialist.
Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively. I don't believe any modern Western country is socialist.
Poland, pre-1989 was socialist. Cuba is socialist. Chavez's Venezuela may be socialist (I don't know enough about it).
The main practical difference between socialism and communism is that socialism takes a much more lax view towards private property, including private ownership of small businesses or farms and the like.
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2011, 01:23:26 PM
Meh, we are back to the basic old DG-Berkut argument. You are a True Believer in the rightness of your clan, and anyone who does not believe as you must be stupid or deluded.
And you are someone who drinks half the conservative kool-aid, and declares yourself to be a rational moderate. After all, Republicans drink all the conservative kool-aid, Democrats drink none of it, therefore the truth has to be somewhere in the middle.
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2011, 01:31:10 PM
Who are you arguing with? What is funny is that your data and your analysis lead to the inescapable conclusion that right now the federal government is consuming the greatest proportion of the GDP than it has ever since WW2, and you posted that in an effort to refute the basic claim that the feds are kind of spending a shitload of money, and this is valid cause for concern.
I posted it in an effort to refute the basic claim that federal spending has been constantly growing over the last few decades (as opposed to the last few years). You know, I've repeated it so many times, only for you to come back to yet again repeat the argument you made retroactively, that I'm not willing to give you a benefit of the doubt anymore that we're just talking past each other.
Quote
Your problem is that you like to pretend that your "valid analysis" says things it does not, then call other people liars when they point that out. What is sad is that we do in fact know that you are smart enough to failry evaluate data, and yet choose to present it in in an inaccurate manner anyway.
Good, calling me dishonest, we all knew it was just a matter of time. Ironic that it comes from a guy who retroactively changed his argument from saying that spending has been always growing over the last several decades, to saying that in the last few years we're spending a lot, and pretending that my original graph was addressing the latter point. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to conclude which one of us has been more forthright here.
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2011, 03:06:06 PM
Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively.
Then the answer to Crazy's question is no, there are no socialists of importance in the US.
But it also defangs the counterargument to the accusers of Socialism that the US is already socialist.
Milwaukee was the first city in America to elect a Socialist mayor.
Quote from: Berkut on July 30, 2011, 10:00:36 PM
You know, I said a long while back, right here on Languish, that the Tea Party's position on the debt and spending was ridiculous in the particular, but in fact reflected a very valid and rational position. Namely, that the size of the federal government has grown ridiculously over the last few decades, and they want it to stop. holding the economy hostage is a poor way of doing that perhaps, but on the other hand, it's not like anything else has worked.
Hitler liked dogs and children, so he really wasn't that bad of a guy.
QuoteNo matter who is in charge over the last couple decades, the mantra from Washington is SPENDSPENDSPENDSPENDSPENDSPEND and then spend some fucking more.
The economy is doing great! Awesome, we can spend more cash!
Holy shit, the economy has gone into the shitter! Whatever shall we do? The answer is: SPEND SOME MORE!
If things are good, we should spend, but if things get bad, why, we have to quit fucking around and REALLY SPEND!
Feel better now?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 31, 2011, 03:03:35 PM
Hurry up fuckers. Overseas markets open really soon.
Don't worry, it'll collapse soon enough, and everyone will get their way and have an excuse to blame the nigger President for not fixing the entire economy in a weekend. Bachmann Uber Alles.
Reid: "We hope to get a deal done tonight."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capemaybeach.net%2FGallery%2FJimCramer.jpg&hash=1eeeea3be19a49369c53ead1e240144fca00d00e)
Buy buy buy!!!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 31, 2011, 03:47:17 PM
Feel better now?
Berkut gets worked up thinking about those black people getting his money.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2011, 01:18:09 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2011, 12:57:51 PM
Automatic stabilizers like extended unemployment insurance payments account for the big chunk of it, more than 1 percentage point of GDP above the normal level.
That still leaves quite a few percentage points of GDP unaccounted for.
OK, I've dug a little deeper on this very useful site. It seems like there are three big categories that increased in the last 3 years or so: welfare, offense, and healthcare, and all are about 1.4 or so percentages of GDP higher than recent trend. Interestingly enough, the one category that went down slightly was interest on debt.
Here is the site I was using for my analysis, with the numbers I was looking at pre-selected: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1970_2011&view=1&expand=&units=p&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=40-fed_30-fed_10-fed_90-fed_F0-fed&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s .
Is America bust yet ?
How long do I have ?
Should I be getting in hundred weight bags of flour, sugar, potatoes. etc yet? :unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2011, 03:29:01 PM
But it also defangs the counterargument to the accusers of Socialism that the US is already socialist.
Well what then is socialism in your eyes Yi. I thought the word was pretty well understood but maybe in the US it has some special meaning.
America must be the only country in the world where socialist and liberal mean something similar. :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 31, 2011, 04:41:39 PM
Well what then is socialism in your eyes Yi. I thought the word was pretty well understood but maybe in the US it has some special meaning.
I think most Americans would describe the typical European model of provision of government services as socialist.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2011, 05:03:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 31, 2011, 04:41:39 PM
Well what then is socialism in your eyes Yi. I thought the word was pretty well understood but maybe in the US it has some special meaning.
I think most Americans would describe the typical European model of provision of government services as socialist.
"Typical European"?
:D
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2011, 05:08:40 PM
"Typical European"?
:D
Yes. :)
DGuller: I took a look at your link. It sure does seem to my naked eye that there's something else driving total expenditure than the things you highlighted.
I think a statement starting with "Most Americans would describe..." has little cognitive value, beyond allowing us to establish that most Americans are morons.
Don't be like most Americans, Yi. :)
Btw, can you describe what you consider the "typical European model of provision of government services"?
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2011, 05:17:35 PM
Btw, can you describe what you consider the "typical European model of provision of government services"?
Yes. :)
The definition of socialist is a less precise than martinus allows. Is it radical to think that the ideologies of mitterand (or more recently jospin, royal, or that guy arrested with the maid) are close to obama? All those people are frequently described as socialists.
McCain is looking old as hell.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 31, 2011, 05:35:57 PM
The definition of socialist is a less precise than martinus allows. Is it radical to think that the ideologies of mitterand (or more recently jospin, royal, or that guy arrested with the maid) are close to obama? All those people are frequently described as socialists.
"There are no socialists in America" is a manufacture of both European and American memes in the political (and educational) discourse. In the US, it's because we like to think of ourselves as individualists and entrepreneurs, and not using the word makes us feel better about our social programs. In Europe, holding the US up as an example of what not to do serves a valuable purpose. In reality, we're way more similar in these respects than anyone acknowledges.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 31, 2011, 05:41:27 PM
McCain is looking old as hell.
He is old as hell. I do kind of wonder what a McCain Presidency would have been like. Probably not very different, but we wouldn't have all those Tea Party nuts running around.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 31, 2011, 05:49:07 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 31, 2011, 05:41:27 PM
McCain is looking old as hell.
He is old as hell. I do kind of wonder what a McCain Presidency would have been like. Probably not very different, but we wouldn't have all those Tea Party nuts running around.
Yeah we would. They started as a backlash against Bush and TARP. If he was too liberal, then no way McCain would appease them.
I think they first started in February, so a little after Bush. I doubt their sponsors would have put out money if the President was Republican, and while talk radio types didn't like McCain, they would have been happy to dodge the Obama bullet. Perhaps if a particularly insane and wealthy figure arose like Perot, that might provide the backlash, but I wouldn't count on it. In all likely hood most Republicans would have been blissfully ignorant of the debt and deficit, just like they were in 2002, and 2004.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 31, 2011, 05:45:07 PM
"There are no socialists in America" is a manufacture of both European and American memes in the political (and educational) discourse. In the US, it's because we like to think of ourselves as individualists and entrepreneurs, and not using the word makes us feel better about our social programs. In Europe, holding the US up as an example of what not to do serves a valuable purpose. In reality, we're way more similar in these respects than anyone acknowledges.
Sure. The word socialist serves roughly in the US as the inverse of the European use of "radical free market capitalism."
Santelli didn't have his outburst until roughly six months into the TP movement, and TARP was the thing that really made it go. So I disagree with you Raz on the timing. As for whether they would have been put to sleep by a McCain presidency, I suppose it's possible. But there are two things that make me think it's not likely. The first is that the House wasn't held by the GOP until 2010. That's two whole years of organizing time until Boehner gets in. The second is the amount of trouble they've given Boehner. With the kind of majority he has, he should be able to steamroll. Instead, he's scraping and compromising to get everything he manages to pass because of all these TP rebels who seemingly don't give a shit about re-election (or believe the rules about how to get re-elected have changed). They just stop everything.
In light of those two things, I think a President McCain would be having as much trouble with them as Boehner is now.
I'm not suggesting the Tea Party is controlled by the GOP, I'm suggesting it wouldn't have gotten the air time and money with out the Dick Armey and the Koch Brothers. They wanted the GOP to take back Congress, I don't think they expected the Tea Party types to such a problem to control. Part of it is because Boehner has shown himself to be a weak leader, and Cantor has stabbed him in the back.
Remember there were Democrats who didn't like TARP either, but they didn't go dressing up in silly costumes and march on Washington.
I bet if you ask Tea Party members, a sizable number will claim TARP came out of the Obama presidency.
It's like the Good Reagan, bad Bush thing you saw in the early 1990's. Bush raised taxes and thus was bad. Republicans by and large ignored the deficit (Which Bush's tax hike help alleviate), under Reagan. Under Bush they became a problem.
I have little respect for the Tea Party. They'll forget all about debt and deficit when talk radio and Fox News stops talking about it. Just you watch.
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2011, 01:36:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2011, 12:20:33 PM
There is no question that the decline in revenue combined with a huge increase in spending has made the debt a serious problem.
But its not like the debt is the basis of the problem from a fiscal conservative perspective. Massive spending increases without raising taxes is even worse than just massive spending increases. The problem is that what happens is that the wanna be socialists generally operate by increasing spending without increasing taxes (is it always easy to increase government programs as long as it is 'free' of course), then when the debt gets out of hand, we get this "Hey, we need to increase taxes! Why, if you conservatives are really serious about the debt, then you would support increased taxes to deal with it!"
At least, that is how it look to the fiscal conservatives. The fact that much if the recent round of increased spending happened while the Republicans were in charge just makes them that much more pissed off and willing to knife their own in the back if they are seen to waver.
Do you really think Tea Baggers can be characterized as "fiscal conservatives" as opposed to "fiscal ignoramuses"?
Of course - that has been my entire point. The world does not divide into "people who agree with you" and "people who are stupid/ignormauses or malicious".
So, the Senate can't vote until tomorrow. Anybody still want to give me 100:1 odds on an Aug 2 deal? :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2011, 05:12:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2011, 05:08:40 PM
"Typical European"?
:D
Yes. :)
DGuller: I took a look at your link. It sure does seem to my naked eye that there's something else driving total expenditure than the things you highlighted.
How is that possible? The three items I mentioned explain 4 percents of GDP, and that's about the size of the spike. What exactly is your naked eye looking at? :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2011, 07:47:30 PM
How is that possible? The three items I mentioned explain 4 percents of GDP, and that's about the size of the spike. What exactly is your naked eye looking at? :huh:
You understand it's a stacked-bar graph, right? I'm just not seeing very noticeable increases in those categories.
Speaking of end games, I wonder what Geitner has set up for a blitz Treasury auction when/if the bill gets passed.
Took another look at your graph and I see it better now.
Little curious what exactly is meant by welfare.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2011, 07:55:15 PM
You understand it's a stacked-bar graph, right? I'm just not seeing very noticeable increases in those categories.
Look at the raw numbers below. Bar graphs are useless for anything other than quick visualization, looking at raw numbers is what I always do.
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2011, 12:03:49 AM
Last I checekd, we were not curerntly involved in the greatest war in human history driving spending in a rather exceptional circumstance.
War on Terrah?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 31, 2011, 03:53:43 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 31, 2011, 03:03:35 PM
Hurry up fuckers. Overseas markets open really soon.
Don't worry, it'll collapse soon enough, and everyone will get their way and have an excuse to blame the nigger President for not fixing the entire economy in a weekend. Bachmann Uber Alles.
Well, that's what you get for not putting the deficit ahead of the economy. Have fun living in Jesusland.
Boehner's powerpoint. (http://www.speaker.gov/UploadedFiles/3-7-31-11-Debt-Framework-Boehner.pdf")
7 Slides.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 31, 2011, 09:37:44 PM
Boehner's powerpoint. (http://"http://www.speaker.gov/UploadedFiles/3-7-31-11-Debt-Framework-Boehner.pdf")
7 Slides.
That is a very broken link.
Quote from: Berkut on July 31, 2011, 07:17:34 PM
Of course - that has been my entire point. The world does not divide into "people who agree with you" and "people who are stupid/ignormauses or malicious".
The hard core Tea Party people that voted against Boehner have conclusively demonstrated themselves to be ignoramuses at best.
Quote from: sbr on July 31, 2011, 09:50:13 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 31, 2011, 09:37:44 PM
Boehner's powerpoint. (http://"http://www.speaker.gov/UploadedFiles/3-7-31-11-Debt-Framework-Boehner.pdf")
7 Slides.
That is a very broken link.
Damn GOP. Try this.
http://www.speaker.gov/UploadedFiles/3-7-31-11-Debt-Framework-Boehner.pdf
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 31, 2011, 09:53:24 PM
http://www.speaker.gov/UploadedFiles/3-7-31-11-Debt-Framework-Boehner.pdf
Terrible power point technique. Just awful.
The content isn't so hot either.
Meh, could be much worse, presentation-wise.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 31, 2011, 09:55:57 PM
Terrible power point technique.
Agreed. If you want to give a Word handout, give a Word handout. Don't use PowerPoint as word processor.
That's some people's speed. I'd rather see them use powerpoint like that than have a deck full of grainy, overstretched images found on google. :bleeding:
Summary of the deal here: http://www.vancouversun.com/Debt+ceiling+deal+breakdown/5187205/story.html (no vouching for the quality of the reporting)
So for whom is this a victory?
Quote from: Jacob on July 31, 2011, 11:26:04 PM
So for whom is this a victory?
Democratic minor victory, overwhelming victory for AARP.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2011, 11:59:46 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 31, 2011, 11:26:04 PM
So for whom is this a victory?
Democratic minor victory, overwhelming victory for AARP.
Wut?
American association of retired people or something?
Quote from: Jacob on July 31, 2011, 11:26:04 PM
So for whom is this a victory?
Who do you think? Tebaggers and Berkut, and everyone else who hates the concept of a black man in the White House.
Quote from: Cecil on August 01, 2011, 12:03:13 AM
Wut?
American association of retired people or something?
Yup.
Quote from: Cecil on August 01, 2011, 12:03:13 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2011, 11:59:46 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 31, 2011, 11:26:04 PM
So for whom is this a victory?
Democratic minor victory, overwhelming victory for AARP.
Wut?
American association of retired people or something?
That's waht AARP means, not sure waht Yi meant though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2011, 12:05:29 AM
Quote from: Cecil on August 01, 2011, 12:03:13 AM
Wut?
American association of retired people or something?
Yup.
Alright thanks.
No I didnt google it beforehand, merely a guess.
Quote from: sbr on August 01, 2011, 12:05:44 AM
That's waht AARP means, not sure waht Yi meant though.
Did you read Yakie's link? Social Security and Medicare don't get touched.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2011, 12:14:28 AM
Quote from: sbr on August 01, 2011, 12:05:44 AM
That's waht AARP means, not sure waht Yi meant though.
Did you read Yakie's link? Social Security and Medicare don't get touched.
I hadn't when I posted that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 01, 2011, 12:04:46 AM
Quote from: Jacob on July 31, 2011, 11:26:04 PM
So for whom is this a victory?
Who do you think? Tebaggers and Berkut, and everyone else who hates the concept of a black man in the White House.
There's been so much back and forth and so much posturing that it's hard to tell.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2011, 12:14:28 AM
Quote from: sbr on August 01, 2011, 12:05:44 AM
That's waht AARP means, not sure waht Yi meant though.
Did you read Yakie's link? Social Security and Medicare don't get touched.
Don't get touched means an overwhelming victory? :lol: You crazy GOPers.
RAISE YOUR GODDAMN FUCKING TAXES ALREADY.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 01, 2011, 12:51:17 AM
Don't get touched means an overwhelming victory? :lol: You crazy GOPers.
RAISE YOUR GODDAMN FUCKING TAXES ALREADY.
Damn good point.
Without trying to reignite that pointless debate, I would like to point out that the DGuller vs. Berkut match was as a good indication as any that indeed the US political life has escalated so much that stances on issues like imminent bankrupcy have become a matter of political faith and bandwagons.
The Tea Party position of a kind of totally needless shock terapy is retarded and borders on treason (in terms of how they attempt to held the country at hostage without compromise), but stuff like dissing Berkut as "drinking the conservative cool aid" for pointing out that deficit is a huge issue is not exactly wise either.
When you guys have to take huge loans every half year just to stay afloat, then deficit IS a big problem, and the problem does not go away just because right-wing retards try to push through retarded solutions to it.
Quote from: Jacob on August 01, 2011, 12:35:41 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 01, 2011, 12:04:46 AM
Quote from: Jacob on July 31, 2011, 11:26:04 PM
So for whom is this a victory?
Who do you think? Tebaggers and Berkut, and everyone else who hates the concept of a black man in the White House.
There's been so much back and forth and so much posturing that it's hard to tell.
The Teabaggers managed to make a procedural issue become the Line of Death, holding the US and the world's economy hostage. TEABAGGERY = EMPOW3RED.
Wait until something really important comes up, like flag burning or family values.
I wonder what would have happened if Democrats had dome something similar back in 2007 about the war.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2011, 04:36:54 AM
I wonder what would have happened if Democrats had dome something similar back in 2007 about the war.
Then the White House and both houses of Congress would be GOP right now. Political criticism about any war is = communist anti-Americanism. You know that.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2011, 04:36:54 AM
I wonder what would have happened if Democrats had dome something similar back in 2007 about the war.
They tried, several times. First they passed a supplemental appropriation for Iraq and Afghanistan that would have required all US combat troops to leave Iraq in 18 months. That would have been before the surge began, as McCain pointed out during the presidential debates. Bush vetoed that bill. Then they tried not passing any more supplemental appropriations. Gates jiggled some funds for training and ammunition around to keep the war going. Eventually the Democratic leadership came to a conclusion similar to Seedy's: if they didn't fund the war it was no longer going to be an unpopular war that Bush got us in to, it was going to be a war that the Democrats lost on purpose. So they caved and passed the appropriations.
It never rose to crisis levels.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2011, 05:19:21 AM
It never rose to crisis levels.
well because in those cases, crisis would have been to do something. Which could be prevented by the veto.
Inaction, relative to what the dems wanted, was a form of solution.
In this case however, you can't veto a tea party "solution" because inaction equals disaster
Dems still had to pass a budget.
Quote from: Tamas on August 01, 2011, 03:21:21 AM
Without trying to reignite that pointless debate, I would like to point out that the DGuller vs. Berkut match was as a good indication as any that indeed the US political life has escalated so much that stances on issues like imminent bankrupcy have become a matter of political faith and bandwagons.
The Tea Party position of a kind of totally needless shock terapy is retarded and borders on treason (in terms of how they attempt to held the country at hostage without compromise), but stuff like dissing Berkut as "drinking the conservative cool aid" for pointing out that deficit is a huge issue is not exactly wise either.
When you guys have to take huge loans every half year just to stay afloat, then deficit IS a big problem, and the problem does not go away just because right-wing retards try to push through retarded solutions to it.
Indeed. The funny part about that latest round is that my basic point was not that the Tea Baggers were right to do what they were doing, but simply that fiscal conservatives had good cause to be concerned about the debt level and spending, and that I had said that earlier.
Even the suggestion that the non-frothing liberals might have a point that is not motivated by them being utterly stupid or actively evil is enough to get DG/Seedy/Raz raving about what a complete asshole I must be, and no, there is no possible way the "others" can possibly have a legitimate stance.
After all, the fact that the feds are spending more now by their own data than ever before is simply a statistical fluke, and really should just be ignored.
We mentioned you are asshole because you are being an assshole, like accusing Iormlund of being a liar. You viciously lash out then project that back at everyone else.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2011, 07:43:49 AM
We mentioned you are asshole because you are being an assshole, like accusing Iormlund of being a liar. You viciously lash out then project that back at everyone else.
How uprising that you concern about other "viciousness" does not apply to anyone in your tribes accusations that others are lying.
As far as Iorm though, if you don't want to be labeled a liar, don't state things that are simply not true. At the very least, throw in a "I think I remember..." or something to give you an out. I never made the claims he stated outright that I made. Again, it seems odd that me pointing out that someone claimed I said something I did not is "vicious", yet you make the original claim (which you knew was as false as I did, of course, what with your excellent memory and all) pass without comment. I guess this is rather illustrative of the point about partisan loyalty and lack of objective thinking.
Quote from: Tamas on August 01, 2011, 03:21:21 AM
The Tea Party position of a kind of totally needless shock terapy is retarded and borders on treason (in terms of how they attempt to held the country at hostage without compromise),
:yes: You are a wise man.
It seems like the default is averted. Yi, how do you want your $5 to be sent?
Quote from: Berkut on August 01, 2011, 08:01:48 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2011, 07:43:49 AM
We mentioned you are asshole because you are being an assshole, like accusing Iormlund of being a liar. You viciously lash out then project that back at everyone else.
How uprising that you concern about other "viciousness" does not apply to anyone in your tribes accusations that others are lying.
As far as Iorm though, if you don't want to be labeled a liar, don't state things that are simply not true. At the very least, throw in a "I think I remember..." or something to give you an out. I never made the claims he stated outright that I made. Again, it seems odd that me pointing out that someone claimed I said something I did not is "vicious", yet you make the original claim (which you knew was as false as I did, of course, what with your excellent memory and all) pass without comment. I guess this is rather illustrative of the point about partisan loyalty and lack of objective thinking.
You're projecting again. The only one thinking about tribes is you.
Iorm statement is difficult to prove correct or incorrect. He said that you did support the war (which is true as far as I know), and that certain arguments were made (which may or may not be true, but is almost impossible to conclude is incorrect. In all likely hood, someone somewhere made that argument). He did not say you made that argument.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2011, 05:19:21 AM
It never rose to crisis levels.
Because the Democrats were smart. If they had cut the purse strings, the Republicans would have had a 'This death brought to you by Barrack Obama and the Democratic Party' sign at every military funeral from then until the election. Palin would be vice-president right now, for heaven's sake.
I don't like many Democrats that aren't Andrew Jackson or Harry Truman, but you have to admit that whoever makes their decisions for them isn't stupid.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2011, 08:40:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 01, 2011, 08:01:48 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2011, 07:43:49 AM
We mentioned you are asshole because you are being an assshole, like accusing Iormlund of being a liar. You viciously lash out then project that back at everyone else.
How uprising that you concern about other "viciousness" does not apply to anyone in your tribes accusations that others are lying.
As far as Iorm though, if you don't want to be labeled a liar, don't state things that are simply not true. At the very least, throw in a "I think I remember..." or something to give you an out. I never made the claims he stated outright that I made. Again, it seems odd that me pointing out that someone claimed I said something I did not is "vicious", yet you make the original claim (which you knew was as false as I did, of course, what with your excellent memory and all) pass without comment. I guess this is rather illustrative of the point about partisan loyalty and lack of objective thinking.
You're projecting again. The only one thinking about tribes is you.
I know, tribe members rarely think about it in those terms, that is the nature of tribalism. Pretty obvious to those of us not in the tribe though. Your uncritical acceptance of DG calling people liars while calling non-tribe members assholes, for example, is not exactly subtle to those not wearing the purple headband.
Quote
Iorm statement is difficult to prove correct or incorrect.
Not to me. I know I never made any such claim, so it is rather easy for me to state unequivocally that I did not say any such thing.
If you are saying that Iorm thinks I made that claim, but was wrong - then ok, I would withdraw my accusation of him lying about it - if he actually said something like that. For the moment, I am going to assume he knows what he said until he states otherwise. At the least, he made a pretty obvious effort to slander my position with something that was simply not true.
Quote
He said that you did support the war (which is true as far as I know), and that certain arguments were made (which may or may not be true, but is almost impossible to conclude is incorrect. In all likely hood, someone somewhere made that argument). He did not say you made that argument.
Then he should not have brought me up in his post, if I had nothing to do with the argument. Of course, he is part of your little tribe, so ou make excuses for him while accusing those not in your partisan group of being assholes, which is more to the point.
Or rather, the better point is...why am I arguing with Raz again?
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2011, 08:12:05 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 01, 2011, 03:21:21 AM
The Tea Party position of a kind of totally needless shock terapy is retarded and borders on treason (in terms of how they attempt to held the country at hostage without compromise),
:yes: You are a wise man.
I don't think I would call it treason of course - they did what they did because they think it was the right thing to do, not because they hate America, but the basic sentiment is valid.
Man, if this deal is really no revenue increases at all, that is going to suck. And not only because there aren't any revenue increases, but because it is going to empower the nutbar wing of the Republican party that much more.
Quote from: Berkut on August 01, 2011, 08:59:19 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2011, 08:12:05 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 01, 2011, 03:21:21 AM
The Tea Party position of a kind of totally needless shock terapy is retarded and borders on treason (in terms of how they attempt to held the country at hostage without compromise),
:yes: You are a wise man.
I don't think I would call it treason of course - they did what they did because they think it was the right thing to do, not because they hate America, but the basic sentiment is valid.
Heh, contrary to fairy tales, it is extremely rare that people do something because they think it is evil. Usually, evil is done because the perpetrators think it is the right thing.
Quote from: Berkut on August 01, 2011, 09:05:51 AM
Man, if this deal is really no revenue increases at all, that is going to suck. And not only because there aren't any revenue increases, but because it is going to empower the nutbar wing of the Republican party that much more.
The test is going to be what happens when the old Bush cuts sunset at the end of next year.
Fundamental tax reform would be ideal but it is not going to happen pre-Nov 2012. The last reform required a lot of cross-aisle cooperation. The best scenario to make it happen would be Obama being a re-elected and small GOP majorities in the House and Senate, which would mirror (in reverse) the situation c. 1986, but a pre-requisite would be a reduction in the size of the blocking nutbar bloc.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2011, 09:25:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 01, 2011, 09:05:51 AM
Man, if this deal is really no revenue increases at all, that is going to suck. And not only because there aren't any revenue increases, but because it is going to empower the nutbar wing of the Republican party that much more.
The test is going to be what happens when the old Bush cuts sunset at the end of next year.
Fundamental tax reform would be ideal but it is not going to happen pre-Nov 2012. The last reform required a lot of cross-aisle cooperation. The best scenario to make it happen would be Obama being a re-elected and small GOP majorities in the House and Senate, which would mirror (in reverse) the situation c. 1986, but a pre-requisite would be a reduction in the size of the blocking nutbar bloc.
I think you are right. The deal as it stands actually has some potential to harm the nutbar wing. 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.
So it appears that after a few hours of optimism, panis ensued, and the euro and the dollar is dropped in favour of the CHF.
Which sucks big time because the citizens of my country happen to be in major private debts in that particular currency.
Quote from: Tamas on August 01, 2011, 09:10:00 AM
Heh, contrary to fairy tales, it is extremely rare that people do something because they think it is evil. Usually, evil is done because the perpetrators think it is the right thing.
Do you need a lesson in what treason means?
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2011, 09:35:42 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 01, 2011, 09:10:00 AM
Heh, contrary to fairy tales, it is extremely rare that people do something because they think it is evil. Usually, evil is done because the perpetrators think it is the right thing.
Do you need a lesson in what treason means?
Not sure you are the right guy for that. I mean, a black gay joining a party harboring the tea baggers? Epic.
Quote from: Tamas on August 01, 2011, 09:36:41 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2011, 09:35:42 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 01, 2011, 09:10:00 AM
Heh, contrary to fairy tales, it is extremely rare that people do something because they think it is evil. Usually, evil is done because the perpetrators think it is the right thing.
Do you need a lesson in what treason means?
Not sure you are the right guy for that. I mean, a black gay joining a party harboring the tea baggers? Epic.
I know that English can be difficult for non-native speakers, so I was just offering to help you out. :)
Quote from: Berkut on August 01, 2011, 09:05:51 AM
Man, if this deal is really no revenue increases at all, that is going to suck. And not only because there aren't any revenue increases, but because it is going to empower the nutbar wing of the Republican party that much more.
I'm not sure about this latest deal, but previous deals had some decent tax reforms which would bring in revenue, along with other aspects as I recall, though some had no tax increases per say.
Part of this deal is that further changes/reforms, etc would be done over the rest of the year. If these guys can actually get any real reform done. Though I'm partly glad they didn't try to do too much given the hurry they were putting together a debt deal. But more will be needed, a lot more apparently.
As for this deal, seems like a third or more of Congress hates it, among both parties. So I'm not sure if that should mean I should like the deal, or not. :unsure:
Quote from: Berkut on August 01, 2011, 08:49:42 AM
I know, tribe members rarely think about it in those terms, that is the nature of tribalism. Pretty obvious to those of us not in the tribe though. Your uncritical acceptance of DG calling people liars while calling non-tribe members assholes, for example, is not exactly subtle to those not wearing the purple headband.
Here is the problem with you. You are the fallacy of middle ground embodied.
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. If you assume that everyone who's calling out the other side as liars is an necessarily an extremist, then you're just writing a blank check for people to keep lying.
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."
Does this apply to Tea Party? Yes, it does. Virtually no positions of theirs are based on reason or reality, and virtually all of them are based on both misinformation and a violent rejection of reason (not to mention just simple bigotry). I don't care if some guy on the Internet who annointed himself the arbitrator of tribe conflicts considers me a die-hard tribe extremist because I'm saying this outright; somebody who decides on what the truth is by looking in the middle is a superficial thinker, so I'll evaluate their opinions accordingly.
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2011, 10:05:03 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2011, 10:10:05 AM
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?
Quote from: Jacob on August 01, 2011, 10:17:36 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2011, 10:10:05 AM
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?
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2011, 10:05:03 AM
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. :P
Here's a question for those who think Obama could have done better. How should he have held the line?
Quote from: Berkut on August 01, 2011, 09:30:42 AM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2011, 10:23:06 AM
...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.
Quote from: Martinus on August 01, 2011, 10:21:14 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2011, 10:05:03 AM
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. :P
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.
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2011, 10:47:44 AM
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?
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2011, 10:49:33 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2011, 10:47:44 AM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2011, 10:47:44 AM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2011, 11:23:08 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2011, 10:47:44 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2011, 10:10:05 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2011, 10:05:03 AM
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".
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2011, 11:42:26 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2011, 11:23:08 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2011, 10:47:44 AM
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.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 01, 2011, 12:08:00 PM
Which, by the way, is better english than "saying nothing".
I wasn't recently playing the grammar game, just the "words have definitions so let's use their actual definitions" bit. :)
Awww, widdle garby is mad. Here's your pacifier. It's cock-shaped, just how you like them. :thumbsup:
Nice edit btw.
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2011, 12:15:50 PM
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.
I might agree if the baseline were tied to, say, inflation. But as it is, it's extremely misleading to the public and helps enable and conceal politicians' (on both sides of the aisle) spending addicition.
Debate happening. Word is the House has the support to pass. So we could see it soon.
http://www.cspan.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/
Okay, Berkut. I'll bite. Which tribe are you suppose to be? And please point me to exactly which sentence in Iormlund post that was untrue, and prove that it is untrue.
I am not in a tribe, of course*. Tribalism/partisanship is bad, that is my point. The world would be a better place if people made more of an effort to think objectively instead of just spouting off comments about how everyone in the "other" trbe is stupid/ignorant/deluded/whatever.
And why in the world would I care to try to "prove" anything to you? I know I never made the claim ascribed to me, whether YOU accept that or not is not really very important to me,.
*At least not in reference to this discussion. Of course I have my own groups I identify with and tend to agree with due to that identification (for example, I am an American, and hence tend to look on our actions with more favor than non-Americans), but this is an attriubte that should be recognized and minimized as much as possible. When it comes to politics, I make a very conscious effort to understand what motivates people and why they take the positions they take, even if I do not agree with them. Of course, it is much more intellectually simple to just decide that everything the other guy says is just lies and crazy talk, and then you can quit thinking.
Boehner just told Diane Sawyer he's got the votes to pass the compromise.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2011, 10:21:19 AM
Here's a question for those who think Obama could have done better. How should he have held the line?
I don't think he could have unless Republicans were willing to split. My view is that, as with TARP, raising the debt ceiling may be unpopular but it is, in every way, the right thing to do. The people who are playing with it or using it as a negotiating tool or trying to vote it down are wrong.
What's really worrying is I'm begining to be one of those guys who think your system's broke. I don't think you need spending cuts in the short-term - except for natural ones in defence as the wars wind down. But you do need to be able to credibly set out medium to long term fiscal consolidation that will involve tax, Medicare and Social Security reform plus spending cuts. I don't know that your systemright now is capable of that or anything else medium to long term.
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2011, 12:28:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2011, 12:15:50 PM
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.
I might agree if the baseline were tied to, say, inflation. But as it is, it's extremely misleading to the public and helps enable and conceal politicians' (on both sides of the aisle) spending addicition.
Yeah, when an increase in spending is presented as a cut, that's just doublespeak.
I love the combined rhetoric of forcing a balanced budget amendment along with the "no tax hikes" party line. Are these guys completely unaware that taxes are going to have to be raised to balance the budget?
Quote from: dps on August 01, 2011, 03:12:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2011, 12:28:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2011, 12:15:50 PM
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.
I might agree if the baseline were tied to, say, inflation. But as it is, it's extremely misleading to the public and helps enable and conceal politicians' (on both sides of the aisle) spending addicition.
Yeah, when an increase in spending is presented as a cut, that's just doublespeak.
As long as the increased spending does not represent an increase in federal share of GDP, then it isn't actually an increase at all. Apparently.
And when it is an increase, say a 40% increase since the previous low ratio, and the highest peacetime rate ever, then we should ignore that as well, since it is probably just a fluke anyway.
Quote from: dps on August 01, 2011, 03:12:51 PM
Yeah, when an increase in spending is presented as a cut, that's just doublespeak.
No, it's not. Economically speaking, the baseline is not the current numbers, the baseline are the reasonable projections of the future. After all, a dollar saved is a dollar earned. Comparing numbers without factoring in the projected growth is how Laffer Curve myths are supported.
Quote from: Berkut on August 01, 2011, 02:45:02 PM
I am not in a tribe, of course*. Tribalism/partisanship is bad, that is my point. The world would be a better place if people made more of an effort to think objectively instead of just spouting off comments about how everyone in the "other" trbe is stupid/ignorant/deluded/whatever.
And why in the world would I care to try to "prove" anything to you? I know I never made the claim ascribed to me, whether YOU accept that or not is not really very important to me,.
*At least not in reference to this discussion. Of course I have my own groups I identify with and tend to agree with due to that identification (for example, I am an American, and hence tend to look on our actions with more favor than non-Americans), but this is an attriubte that should be recognized and minimized as much as possible. When it comes to politics, I make a very conscious effort to understand what motivates people and why they take the positions they take, even if I do not agree with them. Of course, it is much more intellectually simple to just decide that everything the other guy says is just lies and crazy talk, and then you can quit thinking.
I see that you are delusional then.
Quote from: Berkut on August 01, 2011, 03:15:05 PM
As long as the increased spending does not represent an increase in federal share of GDP, then it isn't actually an increase at all. Apparently.
And when it is an increase, say a 40% increase since the previous low ratio, and the highest peacetime rate ever, then we should ignore that as well, since it is probably just a fluke anyway.
Still continuing the repeat the same line, even after I addressed it time after time?
The original statement that I responded to, and that you repeatedly try to sweep under the carpet and pretend you said something else, is that size of government has been increasing over the last several decades. How else are you going to define size of government, if not by the share of GDP that it consumes?
Alternatively, what you can say that you meant to say that in the last three years, the size of government shot up, after staying relatively constant over the last several decades. Or you can choose the most honest of routes, and just admit that your impression of the size of government over the last several decades turned out to not be borne out by facts.
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2011, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 01, 2011, 03:15:05 PM
As long as the increased spending does not represent an increase in federal share of GDP, then it isn't actually an increase at all. Apparently.
And when it is an increase, say a 40% increase since the previous low ratio, and the highest peacetime rate ever, then we should ignore that as well, since it is probably just a fluke anyway.
Still continuing the repeat the same line, even after I addressed it time after time?
As long as you continue to pretend that a 40% increase in spending as a percentage of GDP and the largest government in US history doesn't give the tea baggers a valid beef not motivated by being liars and scoundrels, why would I stop?
Whether your graph shows that government over time is sometimes larger as a percentage of GDP and sometimes smaller is not material to the point that RIGHT NOW it is larger than it has ever been, and has grown by over 40% since its previous low.
Whether or not that low was lower at some other time is immaterial. But you know that, which is why you keep harping on about the laffer curve and what liars people who do not agree with you are...
Quote from: dps on August 01, 2011, 03:12:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2011, 12:28:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2011, 12:15:50 PM
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.
I might agree if the baseline were tied to, say, inflation. But as it is, it's extremely misleading to the public and helps enable and conceal politicians' (on both sides of the aisle) spending addicition.
Yeah, when an increase in spending is presented as a cut, that's just doublespeak.
Those who say that increasing spending is in fact increasing spending are all liars. Turns out that only increasing spending by a LOT counts as increasing spending, and even then sometimes that is not actually increasing spending.
I'm late in posting this because I lost the email that contained the link, but here's a "Feminist Economist" take on running budget deficits. Who knew that our debt gets paid by a few clicks on a keyboard-- just like the one I'm typing on right now!
http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/07/14/a-woman-economist-speaks-out-deficits-are-a-grrrls-best-friend/
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2011, 08:20:10 AM
It seems like the default is averted. Yi, how do you want your $5 to be sent?
I propose the same terms offered Josephus (?) earlier on a bet: hold on to that 5, and the other three fives you owe me, until the balance reaches 50.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 01, 2011, 03:14:59 PM
I love the combined rhetoric of forcing a balanced budget amendment along with the "no tax hikes" party line. Are these guys completely unaware that taxes are going to have to be raised to balance the budget?
You're stating a preference (one that I happen to support) as if it were some law of mathematics.
Quote from: Berkut on August 01, 2011, 04:01:29 PM
As long as you continue to pretend that a 40% increase in spending as a percentage of GDP and the largest government in US history doesn't give the tea baggers a valid beef not motivated by being liars and scoundrels, why would I stop?
When have I pretended that? You're attributing to me something I didn't say. I never denied that the last three years saw a big spending spike, the issue was with claims over how big the government was over the last few decades.
Quote
Whether your graph shows that government over time is sometimes larger as a percentage of GDP and sometimes smaller is not material to the point that RIGHT NOW it is larger than it has ever been, and has grown by over 40% since its previous low.
Of course it's not material to this point; however, it's material to the point that it was originally addressing, and the point you keep pretending you never made.
Quote
Whether or not that low was lower at some other time is immaterial. But you know that, which is why you keep harping on about the laffer curve and what liars people who do not agree with you are...
I'm harping on those people because they're being disingenous, and the Laffer Curve lie is actually related to the lie about constant growth of government over the last few decades, and not just in the bogus analysis tricks employed.
When conservatives say that government has been growing over the last few decades, and that they were partially guilty of this as well, they're not being as contrite as it sounds. What they're actually doing is deflecting attention from the fact that lots of tax cuts were enacted in the last few decades, and deficits exploded in the last few decades. Flogging themselves for "spending too much" serves a dual disingenous purpose: pretending that it wasn't tax cuts that increased deficits, and building a case that stuff like Social Security and Medicare should be cut.
When you repeated their mantra that government has been growing in size over the last several decades, you just regurgitated a conservative propaganda point that created to misdirect. I don't think you intended to mislead with it; you probably at some point just uncritically took that talking point as a factual given. Now that I pointed out your error and you dug your feet in, you can't concede that you mistook conservative talking point for a fact, so you keep trying to change the issue from what happened over the last few decades, to what happened in the last three years.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2011, 04:18:44 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2011, 08:20:10 AM
It seems like the default is averted. Yi, how do you want your $5 to be sent?
I propose the same terms offered Josephus (?) earlier on a bet: hold on to that 5, and the other three fives you owe me, until the balance reaches 50.
Nothing slips past you. :blush:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2011, 04:26:10 PM
You're stating a preference (one that I happen to support) as if it were some law of mathematics.
Fair enough, but my
suspicion is that balancing the budget without a tax increase is a mathematical impossibility.
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2011, 04:38:29 PM
Nothing slips past you. :blush:
I studied your people very carefully for two years during grad school.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 01, 2011, 04:40:27 PM
Fair enough, but my suspicion is that balancing the budget without a tax increase is a mathematical impossibility.
:huh:
i dunno, berkut. i get what you're saying about the whole tribal/group mindset, but i don't think it can apply to condemnations of the tea party. when you get right down to it, at its core, there are a lot of stupid people involved with that movement who have no idea what they're talking about. that they might be accidentally right on some level is no surprise, what with stopped watches and all, but that doesn't mean they're any less ignorant of the world around them
Quote from: Berkut on August 01, 2011, 04:01:29 PM
As long as you continue to pretend that a 40% increase in spending as a percentage of GDP and the largest government in US history doesn't give the tea baggers a valid beef not motivated by being liars and scoundrels, why would I stop?
Could you stop using idiotic phrases like "big government", "largest government" etc. in the context of public spending? Waging two wars (probably the most basic function of even the "smallest" of governments) does not make your government "big" - at the same time, internal overregulation (the sign of a "big" government) probably is not that costly.
I wouldn't bother with him, DG. He's going into full defensive mode and can't be reasoned with at this point. Good indicator is when he goees on about Purple Dragxis, calling people liars and insisting that he's some kind of paragon of neutrality and he's just looking at things reasonably and rationally. I've heard that, before.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg837.imageshack.us%2Fimg837%2F6996%2Fasshole.jpg&hash=0f82df664e703818dc8bff2a36175ff17644c4d4) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/837/asshole.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 01, 2011, 04:40:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2011, 04:26:10 PM
You're stating a preference (one that I happen to support) as if it were some law of mathematics.
Fair enough, but my suspicion is that balancing the budget without a tax increase is a mathematical impossibility.
I know that you're wrong. It's a political impossibility, but if I were to reduce social security to zero, then that would do it.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2011, 04:47:45 PM
I wouldn't bother with him, DG. He's going into full defensive mode and can't be reasoned with at this point. Good indicator is when he goees on about Purple Dragxis, calling people liars and insisting that he's some kind of paragon of neutrality and he's just looking at things reasonably and rationally. I've heard that, before.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg837.imageshack.us%2Fimg837%2F6996%2Fasshole.jpg&hash=0f82df664e703818dc8bff2a36175ff17644c4d4) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/837/asshole.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Another good indicator is the prodigious use of histrionic sarcasm when replying to third parties.
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2011, 04:17:47 PM
I'm late in posting this because I lost the email that contained the link, but here's a "Feminist Economist" take on running budget deficits. Who knew that our debt gets paid by a few clicks on a keyboard-- just like the one I'm typing on right now!
http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/07/14/a-woman-economist-speaks-out-deficits-are-a-grrrls-best-friend/
This is great! Dick Cheney was right, deficits don't matter. Hell, why do we even have to pay taxes at all when we can just keep clicking?
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2011, 04:51:30 PM
I know that you're wrong. It's a political impossibility, but if I were to reduce social security to zero, then that would do it.
The cost of twice-weekly cleanup crews to remove unsightly old, homeless people would more than offset any savings. :P
It's about to pass...
And that's it. The Senate will vote tomorrow (ON THE DAY WTF DID I TELL YOU). :lol:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 01, 2011, 06:01:03 PM
The cost of twice-weekly cleanup crews to remove unsightly old, homeless people would more than offset any savings. :P
That's a state or local responsibility, not federal.
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2011, 03:24:46 PM
Quote from: dps on August 01, 2011, 03:12:51 PM
Yeah, when an increase in spending is presented as a cut, that's just doublespeak.
No, it's not. Economically speaking, the baseline is not the current numbers, the baseline are the reasonable projections of the future. After all, a dollar saved is a dollar earned. Comparing numbers without factoring in the projected growth is how Laffer Curve myths are supported.
Of course it's doublespeak if you say you've cut government spending when you've actually increased government spending. Now, if you say you've cut government spending relative to the size of the economy or something to that affect, it may be perfectly true, but when you just flatly call a spending increase a spending cut, well, I was being generous in calling it doublespeak. The more blunt terminology is to call it an outright lie.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2011, 06:41:43 PM
That's a state or local responsibility, not federal.
No, but the block grants to keep them running to save the tourism industry would be a federal responsibility. Also, why the hell do people take me seriously?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 01, 2011, 06:58:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2011, 06:41:43 PM
That's a state or local responsibility, not federal.
No, but the block grants to keep them running to save the tourism industry would be a federal responsibility. Also, why the hell do people take me seriously?
Perhaps you should be asking yourself why you don't take yourself seriously.
Quote from: dps on August 01, 2011, 06:57:03 PM
Of course it's doublespeak if you say you've cut government spending when you've actually increased government spending. Now, if you say you've cut government spending relative to the size of the economy or something to that affect, it may be perfectly true, but when you just flatly call a spending increase a spending cut, well, I was being generous in calling it doublespeak. The more blunt terminology is to call it an outright lie.
If that's a lie, then I'm constantly lying at work.
For example, we do an analysis, and we estimate that the average premium would go from $50 today to $60 some time in the future, solely due to the fact that policyholders increase the insured amounts over time. We also look at projected losses, and decide in the future, policyholders would only need to pay $54 in premiums to cover for the expected losses.
Does that qualify as a 10% cut in premiums ($60 to $54), or an 8% hike ($50 to $54)? Everybody, on all sides, whether they are company actuaries, regulators, or consumer advocates, regard it as a 10% cut. The reason is simple: if we didn't change anything, policyholders would be paying $60 instead of $54.
The same exact thinking applies to a budget debate. It may be counter-intuitive to the lay person to start with the projected budget as the baseline, especially a cynical lay person just looking for a reason to rag on the government, but it's absolutely the right way to think about it. The baseline should be a number that you would have without having implemented any unusual action.
Quote from: LaCroix on August 01, 2011, 04:43:24 PM
i dunno, berkut. i get what you're saying about the whole tribal/group mindset, but i don't think it can apply to condemnations of the tea party. when you get right down to it, at its core, there are a lot of stupid people involved with that movement who have no idea what they're talking about. that they might be accidentally right on some level is no surprise, what with stopped watches and all, but that doesn't mean they're any less ignorant of the world around them
Berkut's one of those guys that predicates each argument with "ZOMG BOTH SIDES ARE IN TEH WRONG", yet votes Republican 90% of the time anyway. Plausible deniability. Makes him feel good. :P
Quote from: LaCroix on August 01, 2011, 04:43:24 PM
i dunno, berkut. i get what you're saying about the whole tribal/group mindset, but i don't think it can apply to condemnations of the tea party. when you get right down to it, at its core, there are a lot of stupid people involved with that movement who have no idea what they're talking about. that they might be accidentally right on some level is no surprise, what with stopped watches and all, but that doesn't mean they're any less ignorant of the world around them
Oh, there is not question that the Tea Party as a group is chock full of partisan idiocy at its finest. It is hard to beat the Republican radicals when it comes to willful ignorance.
But they would never have gotten the power they have if there was not a core of perfectly valid concepts that non-Tea Party types find resonates with them.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 01, 2011, 07:20:30 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 01, 2011, 04:43:24 PM
i dunno, berkut. i get what you're saying about the whole tribal/group mindset, but i don't think it can apply to condemnations of the tea party. when you get right down to it, at its core, there are a lot of stupid people involved with that movement who have no idea what they're talking about. that they might be accidentally right on some level is no surprise, what with stopped watches and all, but that doesn't mean they're any less ignorant of the world around them
Berkut's ... votes Republican 90% of the time...
:lmfao:
Your as crazy as Raz and as hackish as DG.
Actually, that isn't really right - DG is actually not nearly as much a hack as you are...
Quote from: Berkut on August 01, 2011, 07:45:13 PM
But they would never have gotten the power they have if there was not a core of perfectly valid concepts that non-Tea Party types find resonates with them.
A black man in the White House is not a perfectly valid concept.
Face it, Berk: they never would've materialized if it wasn't for the prospect of a nigger winning it all. Not Hillary, not Biden, not anybody else.
Quote from: Berkut on August 01, 2011, 07:48:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 01, 2011, 07:20:30 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 01, 2011, 04:43:24 PM
i dunno, berkut. i get what you're saying about the whole tribal/group mindset, but i don't think it can apply to condemnations of the tea party. when you get right down to it, at its core, there are a lot of stupid people involved with that movement who have no idea what they're talking about. that they might be accidentally right on some level is no surprise, what with stopped watches and all, but that doesn't mean they're any less ignorant of the world around them
Berkut's ... votes Republican 90% of the time...
:lmfao:
Your as crazy as Raz and as hackish as DG.
Actually, that isn't really right - DG is actually not nearly as much a hack as you are...
At least I
know I'm full of shit most of the time. What's your excuse?
Quote from: Berkut on August 01, 2011, 07:48:30 PM
:lmfao:
Your as crazy as Raz and as hackish as DG.
Actually, that isn't really right - DG is actually not nearly as much a hack as you are...
I may be openly a liberal, but I bet my conservative bashing is fundamentally more objective than your "tribal thinking" bashing. You don't need to equivocate to be objective.
Quote from: Berkut on August 01, 2011, 07:45:13 PM
But they would never have gotten the power they have if there was not a core of perfectly valid concepts that non-Tea Party types find resonates with them.
What concepts are these?
Quote from: Berkut on August 01, 2011, 07:45:13 PMBut they would never have gotten the power they have if there was not a core of perfectly valid concepts that non-Tea Party types find resonates with them.
that sounds suspiciously like an appeal to popularity to me. those non-tp types that find the concepts espoused by the tea party could just as easily fall in the same boat of not knowing the best course. if the tp has any power, it's because they seem like they have power--as you mentioned earlier in this thread. they -look- to be a popular movement within the republican party, and so senators and representatives will pander to their demands regardless of whether they're right or not.
there are those (grover norquist, etc) who believe the government is too large and should be cut down in size to the point where it can be
drowned in a bathtub. the tp clings to this idea by and large, and together they channel their collective voice to the point where we now have a gross majority of republican representatives in the house pledging to never raise taxes. while there might be some legitimate argument that the government could function just as adequately and maintain the nation's international standing if it spent a certain measure less than it currently does (5%? 10%?), by no means does this offer credibility to the widely moronic views held by those certain individuals and movements that call for extreme action. in fact, i would think to even suggest they have
basically the gist of a good argument (or "they were right to do what they were doing") is harmful as it lends support to their way of thinking when in reality they are way off base
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2011, 07:18:35 PMIf that's a lie, then I'm constantly lying at work.
For example, we do an analysis, and we estimate that the average premium would go from $50 today to $60 some time in the future, solely due to the fact that policyholders increase the insured amounts over time. We also look at projected losses, and decide in the future, policyholders would only need to pay $54 in premiums to cover for the expected losses.
Does that qualify as a 10% cut in premiums ($60 to $54), or an 8% hike ($50 to $54)? Everybody, on all sides, whether they are company actuaries, regulators, or consumer advocates, regard it as a 10% cut. The reason is simple: if we didn't change anything, policyholders would be paying $60 instead of $54.
The same exact thinking applies to a budget debate. It may be counter-intuitive to the lay person to start with the projected budget as the baseline, especially a cynical lay person just looking for a reason to rag on the government, but it's absolutely the right way to think about it. The baseline should be a number that you would have without having implemented any unusual action.
I think the problem is that basic actuarial and accounting principles are inconvenient in the current US political climate and thus are dealt with by labelling them "lies".
How else could it be controversial that the baseline of the budget is adjusted to the GDP? Is it really "out of control budget growth" to keep pace with inflation and a growth in GDP and population? If it isn't, then you have to accept that the baseline is in fact moving.
Quote from: Jacob on August 01, 2011, 09:18:12 PM
How else could it be controversial that the baseline of the budget is adjusted to the GDP? Is it really "out of control budget growth" to keep pace with inflation and a growth in GDP and population? If it isn't, then you have to accept that the baseline is in fact moving.
If .14 cents for a loaf of bread was good enough for Ike, it should good enough for us.
On the same day HSBC announces its half-year earnings at $11.5 billion (with a B), it also announces it is getting rid of 35,000 jobs.
Just tossing it out there.
[Berkutstockanswer]
So?
[/Berkutstockanswer]
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 01, 2011, 09:35:02 PM
On the same day HSBC announces its half-year earnings at $11.5 billion (with a B), it also announces it is getting rid of 35,000 jobs.
Just tossing it out there.
[Berkutstockanswer]
So?
[/Berkutstockanswer]
Okay.
Yeah, I expected that from you too, Sarah.
Maybe stop reading the news for a bit? You seem to be wigging out.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 01, 2011, 09:35:02 PM
On the same day HSBC announces its half-year earnings at $11.5 billion (with a B), it also announces it is getting rid of 35,000 jobs.
Just tossing it out there.
[Berkutstockanswer]
So?
[/Berkutstockanswer]
Can you blame them? If I employed a bunch of Chinese and people who voted Labour, I'd fire them too.
Can we all agree that Berkut going on about tribes impresses no one?
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2011, 09:41:24 PM
Maybe stop reading the news for a bit? You seem to be wigging out.
You know garbon, you know who you remind me of? A Jew Kapo. Selling out for a few trinkets and extra rations, when in the end you're just going to get the same shitty deal.
So go ahead, Uncle Teom, keep supporting the politics of the fucks that would put you first up against the wall for being a minority fag.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 01, 2011, 09:51:32 PM
You know garbon, you know who you remind me of? A Jew Kapo. Selling out for a few trinkets and extra rations, when in the end you're just going to get the same shitty deal.
So go ahead, Uncle Teom, keep supporting the politics of the fucks that would put you first up against the wall for being a minority fag.
You're the one suddenly railing against HSBC.
Does it suck that all those people are being put out of work? Yeah, of course it does. Should it be illegal for HSBC to lay off employees? Should we tax the shit out of HSBC so it doesn't matter if they layoff those employees, as we'll have a safety net to protect them? Is this some rant against capitalism and the state of the world today? I've honestly no idea where your head is at.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2011, 09:48:52 PM
Can we all agree that Berkut going on about tribes impresses no one?
You and your tribe will certainly agree on that. No one else will.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 01, 2011, 07:49:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 01, 2011, 07:45:13 PM
But they would never have gotten the power they have if there was not a core of perfectly valid concepts that non-Tea Party types find resonates with them.
A black man in the White House is not a perfectly valid concept.
Face it, Berk: they never would've materialized if it wasn't for the prospect of a nigger winning it all. Not Hillary, not Biden, not anybody else.
Face it, Obama is half white, no full blooded nigger would have the mental faculty to be able to recite the oath of office let alone run for the Presidency.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2011, 09:48:52 PM
Can we all agree that Berkut going on about tribes impresses no one?
I think it's fairly apt.
Yikes, The Daily Show tonight delivered a nasty blow to Barrack Obama's empty sack.
Quote from: grumbler on August 01, 2011, 10:05:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2011, 09:48:52 PM
Can we all agree that Berkut going on about tribes impresses no one?
You and your tribe will certainly agree on that. No one else will.
Okay, so Americans then.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2011, 10:58:36 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 01, 2011, 10:05:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2011, 09:48:52 PM
Can we all agree that Berkut going on about tribes impresses no one?
You and your tribe will certainly agree on that. No one else will.
Okay, so Americans then.
Okay. :D
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2011, 10:58:36 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 01, 2011, 10:05:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2011, 09:48:52 PM
Can we all agree that Berkut going on about tribes impresses no one?
You and your tribe will certainly agree on that. No one else will.
Okay, so Americans then.
Americans who don't want to destroy America would be more accurate.
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2011, 11:05:07 PM
Americans who don't want to destroy America would be more accurate.
Sorry, "American" has already been defined as people who despise America. You cannot have it back. :showoff:
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2011, 09:41:24 PM
Maybe stop reading the news for a bit? You seem to be wigging out.
:lol:
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2011, 09:56:37 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 01, 2011, 09:51:32 PM
You know garbon, you know who you remind me of? A Jew Kapo. Selling out for a few trinkets and extra rations, when in the end you're just going to get the same shitty deal.
So go ahead, Uncle Teom, keep supporting the politics of the fucks that would put you first up against the wall for being a minority fag.
You're the one suddenly railing against HSBC.
Does it suck that all those people are being put out of work? Yeah, of course it does. Should it be illegal for HSBC to lay off employees? Should we tax the shit out of HSBC so it doesn't matter if they layoff those employees, as we'll have a safety net to protect them? Is this some rant against capitalism and the state of the world today? I've honestly no idea where your head is at.
It's probably related to some conspiracy involving future Pres. Pal-- er, Bachmann :o
Quote from: LaCroix on August 01, 2011, 04:43:24 PM
i dunno, berkut. i get what you're saying about the whole tribal/group mindset, but i don't think it can apply to condemnations of the tea party. when you get right down to it, at its core, there are a lot of stupid people involved with that movement who have no idea what they're talking about. that they might be accidentally right on some level is no surprise, what with stopped watches and all, but that doesn't mean they're any less ignorant of the world around them
Yeah, they're idiots because they don't know "how things get done" in Washington. Given how the establishment from both parties managed to screw things up so badly, I'd take my chances on the idiots.
Actually, a federal parallel to NJ's unemployment system would be helpful: there's a special "Mass Layoff Unit" in NJ Unemployment that steps in anytime a single company is laying off more than 25 employees. It would be very helpful if there was a federal unit that dealt with interstate companies, reviewing supermassive layoffs and helping minimize additions to state unemployment programs that are already strained to the max (NJ's already had an automatic tax hike triggered by insufficient funds in the UI program- the law forbids a zero balance in the UI account).
i wouldn't say that's why they're idiots :P
Quote from: derspiess on August 01, 2011, 11:43:16 PM
Yeah, they're idiots because they don't know "how things get done" in Washington. Given how the establishment from both parties managed to screw things up so badly, I'd take my chances on the idiots.
No, they're idiots for obstructing the necessary legislation as well as the bad. Call that naive or idealistic, I call that dangerous. We're rushing through patchwork legislation with more flaws than a third-grader's English tests because they wanted to show how hardcore they were. The legislation from this Congress so far is... well, it's idiotic.
Quote from: LaCroix on August 01, 2011, 11:48:19 PM
i wouldn't say that's why they're idiots :P
You did before re: some lobbyists or constituents you had to deal with.
nay, nay. you might have misunderstood me then. the flood of letters and emails received by the tp people were full of anger and just plain.. stupidity. some were mass letters with messages in bold that were like, "VOTE CAP AND TRADE. WE ARE WATCHING YOU," that arrived every day. the others, however, the ones handwritten by people or just generally personalized, were full of comments that contained some really ignorant and misinformed points. they had no idea what they were talking about. many simply vomited buzzphrases/words they heard from glenn beck or whoever else. the voice messages weren't any better. you could watch fox news and know exactly what people would call in the next day to bitch about. there was no critical thinking, no thoughtful arguments, it was all just garbage they kept throwing at you every single day. it got a little depressing
Of course. What did you expect? :P
hadn't really thought of it before going in. it wasn't all bad. every once in awhile the system would surprise you with a letter that made some really good and insightful points (i don't recall any from the tp crowd..), but of course since it couldn't be immediately branded as belonging to a certain category, it had to end in the recycling bin alongside the many petitions and capitalization/exclamation mark fiends
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 01, 2011, 09:51:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2011, 09:41:24 PM
Maybe stop reading the news for a bit? You seem to be wigging out.
You know garbon, you know who you remind me of? A Jew Kapo. Selling out for a few trinkets and extra rations, when in the end you're just going to get the same shitty deal.
So go ahead, Uncle Teom, keep supporting the politics of the fucks that would put you first up against the wall for being a minority fag.
While Seedys ranting is kind of funny, I am always wondering exactly what point it is he is trying to make. I think we all get that he is an anti-capitalism communist or something like that, some sort of red of one kind or another...but WHAT kind?
I mean...what is it he is advocating for?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 01, 2011, 09:35:02 PM
On the same day HSBC announces its half-year earnings at $11.5 billion (with a B), it also announces it is getting rid of 35,000 jobs.
Just tossing it out there.
[Berkutstockanswer]
So?
[/Berkutstockanswer]
So?
My new job is working for the company that just bought a bunch of HSBcs retail bank branches today.
But you know CdRed, we are all rather aware that corporations really only care about their bottom lines and are perfectly willing to lay people off. That isn't news.
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2011, 07:56:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 01, 2011, 07:48:30 PM
:lmfao:
Your as crazy as Raz and as hackish as DG.
Actually, that isn't really right - DG is actually not nearly as much a hack as you are...
I may be openly a liberal, but I bet my conservative bashing is fundamentally more objective than your "tribal thinking" bashing. You don't need to equivocate to be objective.
No, buy you do need to think about things on their merits, rather than on their presence in one set or another.
Constant comments along the lines of "You can assume that anything a Conservative says about the economy is a lie" are pretty clearly non-objective. You will never get that though, because you have a profound faith in your infallibility and superiority to all others. I get that - I can't argue against faith.
I have pipe bombs to make brb
Quote from: Berkut on August 02, 2011, 01:41:55 AM
No, buy you do need to think about things on their merits, rather than on their presence in one set or another.
Constant comments along the lines of "You can assume that anything a Conservative says about the economy is a lie" are pretty clearly non-objective. You will never get that though, because you have a profound faith in your infallibility and superiority to all others. I get that - I can't argue against faith.
Why is you assume that Dguller and I don't? From what I can tell you refuse to identify with a major political party, and for some reason this makes you somehow more objective then those who do. I have no idea why you think this to be true.
Quote from: Berkut on August 02, 2011, 01:41:55 AM
Constant comments along the lines of "You can assume that anything a Conservative says about the economy is a lie" are pretty clearly non-objective.
This is why it's pointless to debate anything with you. You constantly put words in other poster's mouths and decide to rant against what you think people said. When and where did DG say that?
Anyways. Cue the "Zoupa is part of your tribe LOL euro cryptocommies".
Quote from: Berkut on August 02, 2011, 01:41:55 AM
No, buy you do need to think about things on their merits, rather than on their presence in one set or another.
But the thing is that I do think on merits. After all, of the two of us, I've been the one doing the bulk of the work actually looking up the data and analyzing it. Just because you don't give me credit for thinking about things on merit doesn't mean that I don't. It can, and does, mean that you just like to discount the depth of the thought process of others to exaggerate the depth of your own thought process, while in fact your thought process is just a variation of the highly lazy "pox on both houses" (or "pox on both tribes") thinking.
QuoteConstant comments along the lines of "You can assume that anything a Conservative says about the economy is a lie" are pretty clearly non-objective.
I disagree. If you keep analyzing the economic issues, and keep finding that one side bends the truth to the point of snapping it like a twig, time and time again, on issue after issue, it isn't non-objective to say that "In fact, you can't go very wrong believing that everything conservatives say about the economy is a falsehood, because it usually is." Equivocation or using weasel words does not equal objectivity. The reason I'm saying that conservatives are almost always spouting falsehoods about economic issues is not because I'm a liberal, it's because time and again I have looked at the issues, and found conservatives pushing ideology to the absolute exclusion of properly interpreted facts.
Quote
You will never get that though, because you have a profound faith in your infallibility and superiority to all others. I get that - I can't argue against faith.
If you want to prick my faith in myself, don't use superficial arguments like "You say that conservatives almost always lie, you're not using neutral language, therefore you can't be objective." Put some thought into it, besides the tired "tribe" bullshit. Debates like the ones we had over the last 5 pages just reinforce my faith in my ability to analyze economic facts better than conservatives, or their moderate and rational apologists.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 02, 2011, 03:17:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 02, 2011, 01:41:55 AM
Constant comments along the lines of "You can assume that anything a Conservative says about the economy is a lie" are pretty clearly non-objective.
This is why it's pointless to debate anything with you. You constantly put words in other poster's mouths and decide to rant against what you think people said. When and where did DG say that?
Anyways. Cue the "Zoupa is part of your tribe LOL euro cryptocommies".
No, he actually said that further up the thread.
Besides, as a Quebecois, you already have a tribe. You don't need the Tribe of the Strident, Hostile Democrat to accept you.
Quote from: Neil on August 02, 2011, 05:09:13 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 02, 2011, 03:17:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 02, 2011, 01:41:55 AM
Constant comments along the lines of "You can assume that anything a Conservative says about the economy is a lie" are pretty clearly non-objective.
This is why it's pointless to debate anything with you. You constantly put words in other poster's mouths and decide to rant against what you think people said. When and where did DG say that?
Anyways. Cue the "Zoupa is part of your tribe LOL euro cryptocommies".
No, he actually said that further up the thread.
Besides, as a Quebecois, you already have a tribe. You don't need the Tribe of the Strident, Hostile Democrat to accept you.
I didn't quite say exactly that. As usual, Berkut's paraphrasing misses the nuances of the people he's paraphrasing, to the point of attributing to them things that they didn't say.
My statement didn't imply that conservatives are always lying about economic matters, it implied that they do it so often that it's safer to assume that what they say about economics is a lie rather than the truth. Of course, if you analyze the issue yourself, you should come to a conclusion based on your analysis rather than based on what conservatives say about it, but that's not always practical.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 02, 2011, 03:17:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 02, 2011, 01:41:55 AM
Constant comments along the lines of "You can assume that anything a Conservative says about the economy is a lie" are pretty clearly non-objective.
This is why it's pointless to debate anything with you. You constantly put words in other poster's mouths and decide to rant against what you think people said. When and where did DG say that?
Anyways. Cue the "Zoupa is part of your tribe LOL euro cryptocommies".
Quote from: DGuller
In fact, you can't go very wrong believing that everything conservatives say about the economy is a falsehood
Quote from: Berkut on August 02, 2011, 07:28:03 AM
"You can assume that anything a Conservative says about the economy is a lie"
/=
Quote from: DGuller
In fact, you can't go very wrong believing that everything conservatives say about the economy is a falsehood
[/quote]
Close but not quite.
It has nothing to do with the neitrality of language - the actual words used are not nearly as important as the belief system that motivates the words.
You are trying to sell the idea that your party is so right that it is actually safe to just assume that you are right and the other guys are not just wrong, why they are actually lying about literally everything (or so close that it is better to just assume they are lying about everything). Sorry, that fails any possible objectivity test. You cannot argue that you evaluate on the merits while demanding that people not evaluate anything at all, because it is better if they just assume you are right, and the other guy is lying.
And this happens over and over and over again on almost every single nominally partisan subject.
Not being a partisan hack is not about any fallacy of the middle, it is about actually thinking about issues instead of just assuming "my party is right, and the other party is full of liars and cheats" in place of thinking. The funny thing is you keep claiming that I am always in the middle, yet my posting record pretty clearly disproves that. In fact, on any particular issue, my position is almost never in the middle. Hell, on THIS issue, I would have been much happer with Obamas 1:3 ratio plan than just about anything else I've heard. We probably actually agree. The entire debate hasn't even been about the issue, but my audacity at suggesting that the Tea Baggers MIGHT have a point worthy of not simply dismissing as a bunch of ignorance and lies. Oh, the heresy!
To the extent that you do any analysis, it is like a YEC spending time "proving" that the Earth is 6000 years old. They start with the a conclusion, and then work from there. That is not real analysis. The goal is not to learn the truth, but rather to prove the already known Truth.
Quote from: sbr on August 02, 2011, 07:40:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 02, 2011, 07:28:03 AM
"You can assume that anything a Conservative says about the economy is a lie"
/=
Quote from: DGuller
In fact, you can't go very wrong believing that everything conservatives say about the economy is a falsehood
Close but not quite.
[/quote]
Close enough certainly.
Quote from: sbr on August 02, 2011, 07:40:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 02, 2011, 07:28:03 AM
"You can assume that anything a Conservative says about the economy is a lie"
/=
Quote from: DGuller
In fact, you can't go very wrong believing that everything conservatives say about the economy is a falsehood
Close but not quite.
[/quote]
That's pretty much the same. After all when you assume something their is always a slight chance that it was wrong to assume just like DGul's statement which suggests that there is only a small chance that you'll be wrong in "believing" what they say is a lie.
Quote from: Berkut on August 02, 2011, 07:40:19 AM
You are trying to sell the idea that your party is so right
I do? Care to point it out where I say that?
Here's an extremely frustrating issue that almost always comes up in such debates with you. You lose track of what I say, and what you think I think, and don't remember which idea I expressed, and which idea you assume I believe in but didn't express.
QuoteYou cannot argue that you evaluate on the merits while demanding that people not evaluate anything at all, because it is better if they just assume you are right, and the other guy is lying.
Again, you're just completely making stuff up. Nowhere do I demand that people not evaluate anything. That's a fabrication out of the left field. I just provided guidance in cases where you want to go with the talking points, like you went with the talking point about the growing government over the last several decades.
What I did say is that you can't go too wrong assuming that conservatives are lying about economic matters. That is, if you are to evaluate objectively conservative statements, you will find that more often than not your evaluations will be very different from the point the conservatives are driving. How that can be interpreted as demand to not evaluate anything at all, I have no idea, I'm not an expert in dyslexia.
QuoteNot being a partisan hack is not about any fallacy of the middle, it is about actually thinking about issues instead of just assuming "my party is right, and the other party is full of liars and cheats" in place of thinking.
And yet that didn't save you from inadvertently parrotting a dishonest conservative talking point. At the same time, an allegedly partisan hack like me had enough critical thinking skills to look at the data, and see through the fluff. This particular example doesn't speak well of the might of your reasonable moderate thinking, does it?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.icanhascheezburger.com%2Fcompletestore%2F2008%2F7%2F21%2Fboooring128611517980731969.jpg&hash=87ce2ed5b6fd2cd6aa4bc5b7e15326fb12e4e894)
Quote from: Berkut on August 02, 2011, 01:36:58 AM
While Seedys ranting is kind of funny, I am always wondering exactly what point it is he is trying to make. I think we all get that he is an anti-capitalism communist or something like that, some sort of red of one kind or another...but WHAT kind?
I mean...what is it he is advocating for?
He is advocating for the punishment of people he considers evil.
Actually, it does rather nicely, since my basic point was rather borne out by YOUR data, while you got lost in your ranting about what liars conservatives are.
Quote
Again, you're just completely making stuff up. Nowhere do I demand that people not evaluate anything.
Of course you did - you said people should just assume that the conservatives are always lying, because that is a safe assumption. It is simply not true that conservatives "lie" anymore than liberals. We can both trot out plenty of examples of conservatives AND liberals lying about economic matters, and plenty of examples where neither of them do so. There is no objective measure by which any reasonable person can assume that one side lies so much more than the other that said rational person would conclude that one ought to just assume that all conservatives lie. Of course, you being the one making the claim, the onus of responsibility to prove it is on you - go right ahead and prove that not only do conservatives lie on economic matter more than liberals, they do so to such an overwhelming extent that simply assuming that any conservative speaking about any economic issue is a lying is actually a rational position.
Of course, any non-partisan hack can see that both parties have elements that lie their asses off when it suits them, and elements that do not. The conservatives are not defined by Glenn Beck, and the liberals are not defined by Michael Moore. The vast majority of both parties operate on good faith.
Quote from: Berkut on August 02, 2011, 08:20:41 AM
Actually, it does rather nicely, since my basic point was rather borne out by YOUR data, while you got lost in your ranting about what liars conservatives are.
Except that it wasn't, as I explained countless times before, as many times as you ignored it. You know, at some point I may get tired of correcting you, but that wouldn't make your assertion less incorrect.
Here is an example of a trend that has been increasing over decades:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1970_2011&view=1&expand=&units=p&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=10-fed&bar=1&stack=1&size=1001_541&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s&show=
Notice how different that looks from the essentially flat trend with a spike in the end that is the total spending graph?
I don't know whether you honestly think that you have a point, or whether you're just trying to tire me out, but in either case, the assertion that the size of government has been growing over the last several decades is unarguably wrong. The last few years may be an important event of its own, but what happened in the last few years does not make for a trend over the last few decades.
The fact that you keep trying to change the subject to just the present level of spending, and how much higher it is now than at some arbitrary point in the past, even though this debate started about trend over the last several decades, is an indication that you do indeed understand the difference, even if your official talking point implies that you do not.
No, the debate is that the fiscal conservatives do in fact have a legitimate gripe, and your data shows that rather nicely, no matter how much you bleat about how everyone not in your group are all liars and CANNOT have a legitimate point.
That is not a change of subject, that IS the subject - or rather, that is the point that illustrates the subject which is that they have a perfectly reasonable bitch. And your graph nicely proves that no, they are NOT lying when they say the federal government is larger than it has ever been. Whether that is over 1, 2, or 3 decades changes the point not one bit.
It is pretty amusing that you whine and cry about people putting words in your mouth, yet at the same time no matter how many times I tell you what MY point is, you insist that I am wrong, and you actually know what point I was making better than I do. Curious, that. Rather ironic considering your basic point is that all conservatives always lies about economics.
Question:
If there was no tea party, what would the liberal Dem budget look like?
Would it have spending cuts at all? Would the Blue Dogs have any influence in keeping spending in check for another round?
Quote from: Berkut on August 02, 2011, 09:24:12 AM
That is not a change of subject, that IS the subject - or rather, that is the point that illustrates the subject which is that they have a perfectly reasonable bitch. And your graph nicely proves that no, they are NOT lying when they say the federal government is larger than it has ever been. Whether that is over 1, 2, or 3 decades changes the point not one bit.
It actually changes the point quite substantially. If the federal government has been growing over the last several decades, then it's a clear indication that something in the system is out of balance. If the federal government has been considerably larger than in recent history only during the years of the worst recession in 70 years, then their point is significantly diluted. The difference in implications between the two assertions is enormous.
Quote
It is pretty amusing that you whine and cry about people putting words in your mouth, yet at the same time no matter how many times I tell you what MY point is, you insist that I am wrong, and you actually know what point I was making better than I do. Curious, that. Rather ironic considering your basic point is that all conservatives always lies about economics.
The difference is that I'm actually not putting words in your mouth. Here are your own words:
QuoteYou know, I said a long while back, right here on Languish, that the Tea Party's position on the debt and spending was ridiculous in the particular, but in fact reflected a very valid and rational position. Namely, that the size of the federal government has grown ridiculously over the last few decades,
I can see why you would want to retrospectively change your point, and repeat that retrospectively changed point numerous times, but that doesn't cancel out the original point that you made. The original point on which you based your whole argument was wrong, and that was the point debunked by my graph.
You could've just retracted that point, and directly switched the focus to the last several years, instead of indirectly switching the focus and pretending that's what you were talking about all along. That would've been more honest, and saved us both needless aggravation.
Show of hands - who is still following the Berkut - DGuller debate?
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2011, 09:38:00 AM
Show of hands - who is still following the Berkut - DGuller debate?
It's a debate? Yikes.
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2011, 09:38:00 AM
Show of hands - who is still following the Berkut - DGuller debate?
I do. :blush:
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2011, 09:38:00 AM
Show of hands - who is still following the Berkut - DGuller debate?
Spot-reading.
I still don't get why DG claims that conservatives always lie.
Quote from: The Brain on August 02, 2011, 09:46:32 AM
I still don't get why DG claims that conservatives always lie.
And after I've explained it so thoroughly to you? Sigh.
I kinda liked this Economist cartoon ...
http://www.economist.com/node/21524951?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/kalscartoonjune28th
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2011, 11:07:21 AM
I kinda liked this Economist cartoon ...
http://www.economist.com/node/21524951?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/kalscartoonjune28th
:P
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2011, 09:38:00 AM
Show of hands - who is still following the Berkut - DGuller debate?
I am, though they seem to just be repeating themselves now. At this point I've decided who's most reasonable on the different points of contention, obviously.
If I was Obama I wouldn't want a second term having to deal with that kind of chronic grief.
Perhaps you people should elect Republicans both in Congress and the White House come next year - they'll finish their demolition job and then you can move on to rebuilding - hopefully without them.
G.
Senate vote starting.
Pass it bitchez!
Quote from: Grallon on August 02, 2011, 11:13:03 AM
If I was Obama I wouldn't want a second term having to deal with that kind of chronic grief.
I'm not sure what sane person would ever want to be president.
Where the fuck is Obama? The White House live feed has been staring at an empty podium for 20 minutes.
Meanwhile the market is tanking...
30 minutes...
Finally...
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2011, 11:07:21 AM
I kinda liked this Economist cartoon ...
http://www.economist.com/node/21524951?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/kalscartoonjune28th
The Tea Party has neither the time nor the inclination to explain itself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom it provides, then questions the manner in which it provides it! It'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way.
The dollar is crashing against the Swiss Franc and gold has hit an all-time high. :lmfao:
We're teh best! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!
Quote from: Grallon on August 02, 2011, 11:13:03 AM
If I was Obama I wouldn't want a second term having to deal with that kind of chronic grief.
Perhaps you people should elect Republicans both in Congress and the White House come next year - they'll finish their demolition job and then you can move on to rebuilding - hopefully without them.
G.
Yeah, we seem to go in cycles like that. The Dems took heavy political losses last election for going too far perhaps, and next election it may be the Repubs taking the losses for the same thing. Seems to be the problem that when ever either party gains a decent amount of power, they use that as a mandate to ram through their agenda. While in reality, usually voters are just saying they're tired of one party going too far, so voted that one out, not intending it as a mandate. :hmm:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 02, 2011, 12:19:46 PM
The dollar is crashing against the Swiss Franc and gold has hit an all-time high. :lmfao:
We're teh best! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!
My annual income has just gone up $10k without even getting a single zloty of a payraise. :lol:
I also pity the fools who took mortgage in CHF back when it was cash-efficient. :bleeding:
Quote from: KRonn on August 02, 2011, 02:18:11 PM
Yeah, we seem to go in cycles like that. The Dems took heavy political losses last election for going too far perhaps, and next election it may be the Repubs taking the losses for the same thing.
I'm not sure how that will happen, unless voters can be led to believe that the GOP controls both houses.
QuoteSeems to be the problem that when ever either party gains a decent amount of power, they use that as a mandate to ram through their agenda. While in reality, usually voters are just saying they're tired of one party going too far, so voted that one out, not intending it as a mandate. :hmm:
That's true. I remember Fireblade proclaiming in November 2008 that we had become a "center-left nation." Then 2010 happened :lol:
That was pretty much point in wondering what kind of budget we would be looking at without the Tea Party holding the country hostage. I suspect it would be new taxes on the wealthy that probably do not even cover the increase in spending as the Dems explore that happy land of seeing what they can do with even more than 25% of the GDP.
Quote from: derspiess on August 02, 2011, 12:11:45 PMThe Tea Party has neither the time nor the inclination to explain itself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom it provides, then questions the manner in which it provides it! It'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way.
To whom does the Tea Party provide a blanket of freedom? Malthus? The cartoonist?
Quote from: Jacob on August 02, 2011, 03:05:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 02, 2011, 12:11:45 PMThe Tea Party has neither the time nor the inclination to explain itself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom it provides, then questions the manner in which it provides it! It'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way.
To whom does the Tea Party provide a blanket of freedom? Malthus? The cartoonist?
I want my freedom blanket. :(
Rougher and yet more comforting than a security blanket.
I wouldn't call what Tea Party provides a blanket. It's more of a sheet.
Quote from: Jacob on August 02, 2011, 03:05:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 02, 2011, 12:11:45 PMThe Tea Party has neither the time nor the inclination to explain itself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom it provides, then questions the manner in which it provides it! It'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way.
To whom does the Tea Party provide a blanket of freedom? Malthus? The cartoonist?
You can't handle the truth! :angry:
Quote from: DGuller on August 02, 2011, 03:19:58 PM
I wouldn't call what Tea Party provides a blanket. It's more of a sheet.
http://www.answers.com/topic/winding-sheet
:hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2011, 11:07:21 AM
I kinda liked this Economist cartoon ...
http://www.economist.com/node/21524951?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/kalscartoonjune28th
I hit on KAL's daughter in line at a Starbucks once. ACCESS: DENIED
Was she hot?
36% of Alabamans are on food stamps.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 02, 2011, 09:26:51 PM
36% of Alabamans are on food stamps.
So? They choose to live that way. GOD BLESS MURRICA
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 02, 2011, 10:46:55 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 02, 2011, 09:26:51 PM
36% of Alabamans are on food stamps.
So? They choose to live that way. GOD BLESS MURRICA
They chose Alabama. :bleeding:
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2011, 10:55:15 PM
They chose Alabama. :bleeding:
You wouldn't last 10 minutes there, Pinky LaRue.
Quote from: derspiess on August 02, 2011, 02:43:26 PM
Quote from: KRonn on August 02, 2011, 02:18:11 PM
Yeah, we seem to go in cycles like that. The Dems took heavy political losses last election for going too far perhaps, and next election it may be the Repubs taking the losses for the same thing.
I'm not sure how that will happen, unless voters can be led to believe that the GOP controls both houses.
Hmmm, maybe so, since the Tea Party faction is just a smaller part of the Repubs. But my thinking is if they become seen as over reaching, and the cause of problems by many voters, there could be a back lash against the Repubs. Although, if they're seen as bringing some needed ideas on restraining govt spending then maybe it'll help the Repubs instead. :hmm: Remains to be seen how this budget deal and deals going forward are seen by Independent voters, apart from the left and right of each party who have their agendas anyway.
I don't think there is any question that the TP will be able to lay claim to having forced some restraint on Congress. Whether that is able to counter the perception that they took the country to the brink of disaster doing so remains to be seen. I suspect that the story that "Hey, we had to take drastic action to force an out of control Congress and President to show some restraint" will resonate rather well. And in respects to the Congress, it has the advantage of actually being true.
What I find rather fucked up is that the Republicans are trying really hard to sell the idea that the out of control person was the President. When from where I was sitting, it seemed to me like Obama was the most sane of all the major Dems when it came to the budget. But hurting the President is almost certainly more politically valuable than hurting Congress - after all, could approval ratings for Congress in general get any lower anyway? So this is going to be sold as the TP vs. Obama.
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2011, 08:50:09 AM
I suspect that the story that "Hey, we had to take drastic action to force an out of control Congress and President to show some restraint" will resonate rather well. And in respects to the Congress, it has the advantage of actually being true.
I find your tribal narrative to be as amusing as DG's.
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2011, 09:37:00 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2011, 08:50:09 AM
I suspect that the story that "Hey, we had to take drastic action to force an out of control Congress and President to show some restraint" will resonate rather well. And in respects to the Congress, it has the advantage of actually being true.
I find your tribal narrative to be as amusing as DG's.
Fallacy of the middle!
But wait! I am sure that I am a "conservative" and I just said something about the economy, so you know that I am lying anyway.
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2011, 09:37:00 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2011, 08:50:09 AM
I suspect that the story that "Hey, we had to take drastic action to force an out of control Congress and President to show some restraint" will resonate rather well. And in respects to the Congress, it has the advantage of actually being true.
I find your tribal narrative to be as amusing as DG's.
On a more serious note however, do you think that absent the Tea Party, Congress would have even made an attempt to address spending at all?
I get the impression that Obama may have tried something, but Pelosi and Co would pretty much just laugh at him and blow him off and keep the gravy train rolling like it did for the last couple of years.
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2011, 09:43:50 AM
I get the impression that Obama may have tried something, but Pelosi and Co would pretty much just laugh at him and blow him off and keep the gravy train rolling like it did for the last couple of years.
I get the impression that you think the "gravy train" is a recent phenomenon.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 03, 2011, 09:46:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2011, 09:43:50 AM
I get the impression that Obama may have tried something, but Pelosi and Co would pretty much just laugh at him and blow him off and keep the gravy train rolling like it did for the last couple of years.
I get the impression that you think the "gravy train" is a recent phenomenon.
Not at all. The gravy train is about as old as politics.
The real question for my hypothesis, is what would the Blue Dogs be doing? They've been pretty quiet lately, but that is mostly because (I think) they are no longer what is holding the liberal Dems back, so there is no need for them to be there pissing off their fellow Democrats like they did prior to the rise of the Tea Party. Now the Tea Party does a fine job pissing everyone off, and the Blue Dogs aren't even notices.
Hell, we haven't heard the Truly Faithful rail against the evil of the Blue Dogs in months and months!
Why wouldn't they address spending (albeit in an entirely cosmetic and ineffective way)? They'd just do it in a way that took effect in a few years, so that another Congress could refute it.
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2011, 09:43:50 AM
On a more serious note however, do you think that absent the Tea Party, Congress would have even made an attempt to address spending at all?
Yes. I cannot recall anyone who has ever talked about the stimulus spending as anything other than temporary. While Congress does many things I dislike, I believe that those measures are motivated by the congressmen's desire to get re-elected, rather than by Congress being "out of control."
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2011, 09:39:36 AM
Fallacy of the middle!
But wait! I am sure that I am a "conservative" and I just said something about the economy, so you know that I am lying anyway.
To be clear, I was not trying to say that every time a conservative says something about economics, they're lying. I'm just saying that the economic arguments that are often repeated and passed around were almost always created by a liar or a moron, and are thus based on falsehoods. The argument about the growth of government over the last several decades was one such argument, and it is designed to create an urgency among the population to slash and burn spending.
Repeating the talking point that was invented with the intent to mislead does not make one a liar, although it may make someone an uncritical participant in the political debate.
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2011, 09:43:50 AM
I get the impression that Obama may have tried something, but Pelosi and Co would pretty much just laugh at him and blow him off and keep the gravy train rolling like it did for the last couple of years.
I doubt Obama would've done anything on the spending side. He came out with guns blazing just yesterday talking about all the new spending we need to do. I heard him mention "infrastructure" a few times-- I thought that was supposed to be taken care of last year.
Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 10:33:40 AM
I heard him mention "infrastructure" a few times-- I thought that was supposed to be taken care of last year.
Yeah, isn't infrastructure in a country like US supposed to be a one year project?
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2011, 10:00:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2011, 09:43:50 AM
On a more serious note however, do you think that absent the Tea Party, Congress would have even made an attempt to address spending at all?
Yes. I cannot recall anyone who has ever talked about the stimulus spending as anything other than temporary. While Congress does many things I dislike, I believe that those measures are motivated by the congressmen's desire to get re-elected, rather than by Congress being "out of control."
You have more faith in the Dems than I do. I suspect Congress would be talking about "holding the line" on spending...at the 25% of GDP level. Or maybe even talking about "incremental" increases, say to just the 26% of GDP level...you know, purely temporary, I am sure.
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2011, 10:00:31 AM
Yes. I cannot recall anyone who has ever talked about the stimulus spending as anything other than temporary.
Yeah, but lots of "temporary" expansions of the size & cost of government have become permanent.
QuoteWhile Congress does many things I dislike, I believe that those measures are motivated by the congressmen's desire to get re-elected, rather than by Congress being "out of control."
But very often out of control spending helps them get re-elected.
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2011, 10:40:31 AM
You have more faith in the Dems than I do. I suspect Congress would be talking about "holding the line" on spending...at the 25% of GDP level. Or maybe even talking about "incremental" increases, say to just the 26% of GDP level...you know, purely temporary, I am sure.
I have no more faith in the Democrats than I do the Republicans. It is true that the Democrats wouldn't be talking about reducing spending this year, but then pretty much every economist I have read thinks that spending cuts this year would be a bad idea.
The Tea Party seems to feel that the first way to try to slow a cart is to shoot the horse in the head, for fear the brakes might not work.
Quote from: DGuller on August 03, 2011, 10:37:34 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 10:33:40 AM
I heard him mention "infrastructure" a few times-- I thought that was supposed to be taken care of last year.
Yeah, isn't infrastructure in a country like US supposed to be a one year project?
Not necessarily. But I'm having trouble seeing any results from last year's "investments" in infrastructure & I doubt we'll see any next year if we do the same.
Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 10:42:47 AM
Yeah, but lots of "temporary" expansions of the size & cost of government have become permanent.
Yeah, but lots of them don't.
QuoteBut very often out of control spending helps them get re-elected.
But even more often, it doesn't. I haven't heard a single person claim the virtues of "out of control spending" while on the stump... or off it.
In fact, I cannot remember hearing that term outside of tribal narratives.
Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 10:47:28 AM
Not necessarily. But I'm having trouble seeing any results from last year's "investments" in infrastructure & I doubt we'll see any next year if we do the same.
Well, then we need to stop investing! Any investment that doesn't give you untroubled visions of results within a few months should be scrapped. Long-term investments are for losers.
Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 10:47:28 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 03, 2011, 10:37:34 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 10:33:40 AM
I heard him mention "infrastructure" a few times-- I thought that was supposed to be taken care of last year.
Yeah, isn't infrastructure in a country like US supposed to be a one year project?
Not necessarily. But I'm having trouble seeing any results from last year's "investments" in infrastructure & I doubt we'll see any next year if we do the same.
A large part of money ended up going directly to the States which they used to plug holes in their budgets.
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2011, 10:45:23 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2011, 10:40:31 AM
You have more faith in the Dems than I do. I suspect Congress would be talking about "holding the line" on spending...at the 25% of GDP level. Or maybe even talking about "incremental" increases, say to just the 26% of GDP level...you know, purely temporary, I am sure.
I have no more faith in the Democrats than I do the Republicans. It is true that the Democrats wouldn't be talking about reducing spending this year, but then pretty much every economist I have read thinks that spending cuts this year would be a bad idea.
The Tea Party seems to feel that the first way to try to slow a cart is to shoot the horse in the head, for fear the brakes might not work.
I agree about the TP, but don't trust the Dems to not extend their "temporary" increase into something permanent absent someone like the TP to stop them. Like I said, I would be very interested in what role the Blue Dogs would take if the TP was not around.
To borrow your analogy, my suspicion is that the Dems would ackowledge that there was a break, maybe even pretend to think about planning to pull it some day in the future, all the while they grease up the cart wheels, feed the horse some Red Bull, and see just how fast they can get this cart moving "to save the economy" of course if there wasn't someone sitting there threatening to shoot the horse in the head.
Note that I am not trying to give the TP credit for a well executed bluff - they really would actually shoot the horse in the head.
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2011, 10:45:23 AM
The Tea Party seems to feel that the first way to try to slow a cart is to shoot the horse in the head, for fear the brakes might not work.
Whereas the Democrats & a lot of establishment Republicans seem willing to believe that speeding up will somehow slow the cart. IIRC the deficit is projected to grow by $7 trillion over 10 years despite these "cuts".
Quote from: Razgovory on August 03, 2011, 10:51:58 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 10:47:28 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 03, 2011, 10:37:34 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 10:33:40 AM
I heard him mention "infrastructure" a few times-- I thought that was supposed to be taken care of last year.
Yeah, isn't infrastructure in a country like US supposed to be a one year project?
Not necessarily. But I'm having trouble seeing any results from last year's "investments" in infrastructure & I doubt we'll see any next year if we do the same.
A large part of money ended up going directly to the States which they used to plug holes in their budgets.
Temporarily preserving bloated state budgets = infrastructure investment then, I guess.
Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 10:47:28 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 03, 2011, 10:37:34 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 10:33:40 AM
I heard him mention "infrastructure" a few times-- I thought that was supposed to be taken care of last year.
Yeah, isn't infrastructure in a country like US supposed to be a one year project?
Not necessarily. But I'm having trouble seeing any results from last year's "investments" in infrastructure & I doubt we'll see any next year if we do the same.
Maybe because the bridges you drive across weren't ones that needed repaired? Or maybe because the maintenance done was things that you wouldn't notice?
But hey, because you didn't see any improvements, clearly we should stop spending on infrastructure. Even though the number of structurally deficient bridges has been in slow decline (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/bridges), so some of the money must be going to repair them. Or maybe they heal on their own.
Hey, I've never personally noticed any impact from our spending on the military. Clearly it's all been ineffective and we should stop spending on the military immediately.
Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 10:53:42 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2011, 10:45:23 AM
The Tea Party seems to feel that the first way to try to slow a cart is to shoot the horse in the head, for fear the brakes might not work.
Whereas the Democrats & a lot of establishment Republicans seem willing to believe that speeding up will somehow slow the cart. IIRC the deficit is projected to grow by $7 trillion over 10 years despite these "cuts".
A lot of democrats and a lot of establishment Republicans do believe that the best thing is to get the cart to the destination as fast as possible, this is true. I don't agree with them. I think the problem with US job growth isn't that taxes are too high or too low, or that the government is spending too much or too little, but rather that business owners and consumers have no confidence that the decision-makers in government are going to become more rational. In times of uncertainty, it is folly to use cash hiring or buying when you may need that cash just to stay solvent.
Republican promises to wreck the country if necessary to avoid making some lobbyist cry are no more attractive to me than Democratic promises that, if we just borrow a few more trillion from our kids, everything will be great and we can easily pay back the money with the prosperity we buy. I think that the only thing that will restore confidence is, paradoxically, to restore some of the pain. Allowing all the temporary tax cuts to expire, and cutting spending deeply in both domestic and defense will, I think, be the fastest road to recovery. I think people don't trust sweet-tasting medicine, and I think that, in this case, they are right not to.
I think the more fundamental problem with the economy is that recessions caused by financial disasters don't go away quickly. Just like an economy overheated from speculative bubbles can go on for many years before busting, economy with an over-leveredged financial sector can suffer setback after setback just as it seems like things are getting better.
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2011, 11:06:53 AM
Republican promises to wreck the country if necessary to avoid making some lobbyist cry are no more attractive to me than Democratic promises that, if we just borrow a few more trillion from our kids, everything will be great and we can easily pay back the money with the prosperity we buy. I think that the only thing that will restore confidence is, paradoxically, to restore some of the pain. Allowing all the temporary tax cuts to expire, and cutting spending deeply in both domestic and defense will, I think, be the fastest road to recovery. I think people don't trust sweet-tasting medicine, and I think that, in this case, they are right not to.
I agree completely, which is why I think the TP is a rather necessary evil right now. Absent them, the "solution" we would be hearing is "Everything will be great if we just borrow/print up a few more trillion dollars!" or "There is plenty of money in America, if only we tax those corporate jet owners!" or some combination of the two.
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2011, 12:11:56 PM
I agree completely, which is why I think the TP is a rather necessary evil right now. Absent them, the "solution" we would be hearing is "Everything will be great if we just borrow/print up a few more trillion dollars!" or "There is plenty of money in America, if only we tax those corporate jet owners!" or some combination of the two.
Lacking both of your tribal narratives, I don't see the Tea Party as anything but destructive. Petulance as a debating tactic only alienates and polarizes; it never illuminates.
You could be right, though; what we are arguing is as hypothetical as hypothetical gets.
Not really. We can simply look back at what the Dems did *before* the TP became powerful. It is hypothetical, to be sure (after all, the TP came to power as a result of those actions in large part), but it is hardly that far out to speculate on.
Even if the Tea Party people had never been elected, wouldn't the Democrats try and whore themselves out once the polling numbers showed that Americans were turning against the deficit?
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2011, 01:41:41 PM
Not really. We can simply look back at what the Dems did *before* the TP became powerful. It is hypothetical, to be sure (after all, the TP came to power as a result of those actions in large part), but it is hardly that far out to speculate on.
The Dems had a budget surplus far more recently than the Republicans. The Budget Act of 1993, which started the process of turning a deficit into a surplus, was passed without a single Republican vote.
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2011, 02:10:06 PM
Even if the Tea Party people had never been elected, wouldn't the Democrats try and whore themselves out once the polling numbers showed that Americans were turning against the deficit?
Yeah, certainly the Blue Dogs would have continued to have quite a lot of influence. And they had enough to really piss off the tax and spend crowd before, so no reason to think they would not do so again.
Whether they would be enough to actually make a significant difference, I do not know. It does seem like we would have ended up with a much better compromise, like Obama's 1:3 plan (assuming that was a real plan rather than just smoke and mirrors).
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2011, 02:10:06 PM
Even if the Tea Party people had never been elected, wouldn't the Democrats try and whore themselves out once the polling numbers showed that Americans were turning against the deficit?
No, because that's not their base. Their base largely consists of people who benefit from, or are entirely dependent upon deficit spending.
Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 02:22:19 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2011, 02:10:06 PM
Even if the Tea Party people had never been elected, wouldn't the Democrats try and whore themselves out once the polling numbers showed that Americans were turning against the deficit?
No, because that's not their base. Their base largely consists of people who benefit from, or are entirely dependent upon deficit spending.
Racist.
Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 02:22:19 PM
No, because that's not their base. Their base largely consists of people who benefit from, or are entirely dependent upon deficit spending.
Ah, another of the amusing tribal narratives! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2011, 02:20:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2011, 01:41:41 PM
Not really. We can simply look back at what the Dems did *before* the TP became powerful. It is hypothetical, to be sure (after all, the TP came to power as a result of those actions in large part), but it is hardly that far out to speculate on.
The Dems had a budget surplus far more recently than the Republicans. The Budget Act of 1993, which started the process of turning a deficit into a surplus, was passed without a single Republican vote.
And if we can arrange another dot com bubble, maybe we can have a surplus again!
I think it is probably *less*speculative to look at what the Dems did in recent years under similar to today's circumstances than it is to try to compare them to the Dems of 20 year ago under very different political and economic circumstances. Although it is interesting that the period when the Blue Dogs had the most power was also the period during which we came closest to a balanced budget...
It is rather too bad that when the overall voting patterns shifted enough to bring the TPers in it was at the expense of the Blue Dog coalition.
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2011, 02:20:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2011, 01:41:41 PM
Not really. We can simply look back at what the Dems did *before* the TP became powerful. It is hypothetical, to be sure (after all, the TP came to power as a result of those actions in large part), but it is hardly that far out to speculate on.
The Dems had a budget surplus far more recently than the Republicans. The Budget Act of 1993, which started the process of turning a deficit into a surplus, was passed without a single Republican vote.
Fine-- so the Dems showed that they can raise taxes and benefit from the tech bubble to balance the budget. How about we revert to Clinton-era tax rates *and* spending levels?
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2011, 02:20:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2011, 01:41:41 PM
Not really. We can simply look back at what the Dems did *before* the TP became powerful. It is hypothetical, to be sure (after all, the TP came to power as a result of those actions in large part), but it is hardly that far out to speculate on.
The Dems had a budget surplus far more recently than the Republicans. The Budget Act of 1993, which started the process of turning a deficit into a surplus, was passed without a single Republican vote.
Which would you say was more important in turning the deficit into a surplus: The Budget Act of 1993 or the dot-com bubble?
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2011, 02:28:16 PM
It is rather too bad that when the overall voting patterns shifted enough to bring the TPers in it was at the expense of the Blue Dog coalition.
I think you're putting too much faith in the Blue Dogs to vote their conscience. I mean, it's not like they stood bravely against Obama, Pelosi, & Reid on Obamacare.
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2011, 02:10:06 PM
Even if the Tea Party people had never been elected, wouldn't the Democrats try and whore themselves out once the polling numbers showed that Americans were turning against the deficit?
If the Tea Party had never been elected then they would have continued with their party line of the previous two years, which is that while the deficit is a very important issue to address in the future, right now unemployment is too high and the recovery is too fragile to reduce spending or to raise taxes on the Schumer classes.
Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 02:31:44 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2011, 02:28:16 PM
It is rather too bad that when the overall voting patterns shifted enough to bring the TPers in it was at the expense of the Blue Dog coalition.
I think you're putting too much faith in the Blue Dogs to vote their conscience. I mean, it's not like they stood bravely against Obama, Pelosi, & Reid on Obamacare.
Were they opposed to Obamacare?
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2011, 02:51:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 02:31:44 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2011, 02:28:16 PM
It is rather too bad that when the overall voting patterns shifted enough to bring the TPers in it was at the expense of the Blue Dog coalition.
I think you're putting too much faith in the Blue Dogs to vote their conscience. I mean, it's not like they stood bravely against Obama, Pelosi, & Reid on Obamacare.
Were they opposed to Obamacare?
They were until they got strong-armed into voting for it. And IIRC, the subsequent 2010 elections cut their ranks almost in half.
Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 03:02:03 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2011, 02:51:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 02:31:44 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 03, 2011, 02:28:16 PM
It is rather too bad that when the overall voting patterns shifted enough to bring the TPers in it was at the expense of the Blue Dog coalition.
I think you're putting too much faith in the Blue Dogs to vote their conscience. I mean, it's not like they stood bravely against Obama, Pelosi, & Reid on Obamacare.
Were they opposed to Obamacare?
They were until they got strong-armed into voting for it. And IIRC, the subsequent 2010 elections cut their ranks almost in half.
I wonder how one strong-arms a Congressman?
Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 03:02:03 PM
They were until they got strong-armed into voting for it.
Where are you getting this from? I heard reservations expressed about certain parts of the original proposal, but not the entire concept.
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2011, 03:05:33 PM
I wonder how one strong-arms a Congressman?
Plenty of ways. Withhold election funds from the national committeee. Withhold presidential drive bys during the campaign. Withhold choice committee assignments. Give him a shitty office.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 03, 2011, 03:07:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 03:02:03 PM
They were until they got strong-armed into voting for it.
Where are you getting this from? I heard reservations expressed about certain parts of the original proposal, but not the entire concept.
On a certain level, everyone on both sides of the aisle favored some sort of "health care reform".
But anyway:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124865363472782519.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/08/blue-dogs-backsliding-on_n_212730.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-10/politics/house.health.care_1_blue-dogs-public-option-medicare-rates?_s=PM:POLITICS
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 03, 2011, 03:16:21 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2011, 03:05:33 PM
I wonder how one strong-arms a Congressman?
Plenty of ways. Withhold election funds from the national committeee. Withhold presidential drive bys during the campaign. Withhold choice committee assignments. Give him a shitty office.
Do the Democrats treat the Blue Dogs especially well vis-a-vis committees? And would they want Obama showing up to glad-hand them in their districts?
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2011, 03:20:19 PM
Do the Democrats treat the Blue Dogs especially well vis-a-vis committees? And would they want Obama showing up to glad-hand them in their districts?
I know Pelosi threw Blue Dogs under the bus wholesale, but I think things are handled differently in the Senate. For example the chairman of the Senate committee (Budget? Health and Human Services?) that handled Obamacare is a Blue Dog. So maybe you're right, that's not a useful whip.
Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 03:20:09 PM
On a certain level, everyone on both sides of the aisle favored some sort of "health care reform".
But anyway:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124865363472782519.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/08/blue-dogs-backsliding-on_n_212730.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-10/politics/house.health.care_1_blue-dogs-public-option-medicare-rates?_s=PM:POLITICS
Only managed to slug my way through your first link, but the concerns mentioned in that article appear to have been accomodated. No public option. Revenue neutral (sort of). Too onerous for small business (don't really know about this one).
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2011, 02:30:06 PM
Which would you say was more important in turning the deficit into a surplus: The Budget Act of 1993 or the dot-com bubble?
The budget act; the dot-com bubble is over-rated as a revenue enhancer, IMO, though it certainly had an effect (amplified by the increased taxes on top earners).
The whole economy was growing in this period, not just the dot-coms. I'd say welfare reform (which came after the Democrats lost both houses of Congress, but still supported by many Democrats) was also more important than the dot-com bubble in allowing for budget surpluses.
This isn't to argue that we can "trust the Democrats" today, since the character of the Democratic Party appears to have shifted to the left since then (at least amongst elected Federal representatives). It is just to argue that the argument that Democrats
always want to increase spending faster than the economy is growing doesn't seem to be true.
Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 02:29:45 PM
Fine-- so the Dems showed that they can raise taxes and benefit from the tech bubble to balance the budget. How about we revert to Clinton-era tax rates *and* spending levels?
I would certainly support that. There is no question in my mind that spending is a problem today; the question is whether or not spending cuts should be the only solution attempted (and whether or not unemployment is a bigger problem than spending). I don't believe so on the former, and am undecided on the latter.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 03, 2011, 03:27:21 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2011, 03:20:19 PM
Do the Democrats treat the Blue Dogs especially well vis-a-vis committees? And would they want Obama showing up to glad-hand them in their districts?
I know Pelosi threw Blue Dogs under the bus wholesale, but I think things are handled differently in the Senate. For example the chairman of the Senate committee (Budget? Health and Human Services?) that handled Obamacare is a Blue Dog. So maybe you're right, that's not a useful whip.
IIRC, in the Senate, senoirity is still pretty important when it comes to chairmanships and committee assignments. In the House, not so much.
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2011, 04:04:15 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 02:29:45 PM
Fine-- so the Dems showed that they can raise taxes and benefit from the tech bubble to balance the budget. How about we revert to Clinton-era tax rates *and* spending levels?
I would certainly support that. There is no question in my mind that spending is a problem today; the question is whether or not spending cuts should be the only solution attempted (and whether or not unemployment is a bigger problem than spending). I don't believe so on the former, and am undecided on the latter.
It seems like a reasonable option, but all but politically impossible. Nobody is that keen on tax increases, the Dems have made it a point not to raise taxes on the middle class. Republicans are anathema to the idea of any tax increase.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 03, 2011, 08:03:08 PM
It seems like a reasonable option, but all but politically impossible. Nobody is that keen on tax increases, the Dems have made it a point not to raise taxes on the middle class. Republicans are anathema to the idea of any tax increase.
Taxes aren't what makes it impossible-- cutting spending from 3.8 trillion (projected for 2011) to 1.8 trillion (2000 budget) is what would be politically impossible :lol:
But hell, if we simply froze (in real terms) federal spending at the 2011 amount without doing anything about revenue, we'd have the budget balanced by 2015 or 2016.
Quote from: derspiess on August 04, 2011, 10:07:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 03, 2011, 08:03:08 PM
It seems like a reasonable option, but all but politically impossible. Nobody is that keen on tax increases, the Dems have made it a point not to raise taxes on the middle class. Republicans are anathema to the idea of any tax increase.
Taxes aren't what makes it impossible-- cutting spending from 3.8 trillion (projected for 2011) to 1.8 trillion (2000 budget) is what would be politically impossible :lol:
But hell, if we simply froze (in real terms) federal spending at the 2011 amount without doing anything about revenue, we'd have the budget balanced by 2015 or 2016.
Heh, they're debating about getting the budget balanced in 5 to 10 years! Then there will be the need to start paying off a by then 15-20 trillion dollar deficit! Staggering sums of money. :huh:
The US is a staggeringly wealthy nation, to be able to rack up such massive debt! :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on August 04, 2011, 10:07:30 AM
But hell, if we simply froze (in real terms) federal spending at the 2011 amount without doing anything about revenue, we'd have the budget balanced by 2015 or 2016.
I actually have no problem with doing that. I don't see why it must go up 7% a year as a baseline at all. Inflation isn't anywhere near that.
Quote from: derspiess on August 04, 2011, 10:07:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 03, 2011, 08:03:08 PM
It seems like a reasonable option, but all but politically impossible. Nobody is that keen on tax increases, the Dems have made it a point not to raise taxes on the middle class. Republicans are anathema to the idea of any tax increase.
Taxes aren't what makes it impossible-- cutting spending from 3.8 trillion (projected for 2011) to 1.8 trillion (2000 budget) is what would be politically impossible :lol:
But hell, if we simply froze (in real terms) federal spending at the 2011 amount without doing anything about revenue, we'd have the budget balanced by 2015 or 2016.
:yeahright: I am skeptical.
Note that Democrats
did agree to spending cuts. Where are the Republicans agreeing to tax increases?
Quote from: derspiess on August 04, 2011, 10:07:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 03, 2011, 08:03:08 PM
It seems like a reasonable option, but all but politically impossible. Nobody is that keen on tax increases, the Dems have made it a point not to raise taxes on the middle class. Republicans are anathema to the idea of any tax increase.
Taxes aren't what makes it impossible-- cutting spending from 3.8 trillion (projected for 2011) to 1.8 trillion (2000 budget) is what would be politically impossible :lol:
But hell, if we simply froze (in real terms) federal spending at the 2011 amount without doing anything about revenue, we'd have the budget balanced by 2015 or 2016.
We're going to have to freeze population growth too. :ph34r:
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2011, 11:06:53 AM
Allowing all the temporary tax cuts to expire, and cutting spending deeply in both domestic and defense will, I think, be the fastest road to recovery. I think people don't trust sweet-tasting medicine, and I think that, in this case, they are right not to.
Even the modest plan adopted by Congress anticipates cutting defense + discretionary domestic spending to under 5.5% of GDP within a decade. You would have to go back a long time to get to that low a spending figure. I don't think it is feasible, even if the international security situation improves over the next 10 years (and IMO the opposite is more likely).
Willie Sutton said he robbed banks because that is where the money is. In the federal budget, the money is the "mandatory" spending categories, and entitlements in particular.
Quote from: derspiess on August 04, 2011, 10:07:30 AM
Taxes aren't what makes it impossible-- cutting spending from 3.8 trillion (projected for 2011) to 1.8 trillion (2000 budget) is what would be politically impossible :lol:
If we simply spent FY2000 dollars (to which you make the comparison) today, we'd reduce the deficit by almost a trillion dollars. If we spent 1985 dollars, we'd have the same government expenditure as 2000 without cutting a thing.
I think it is politically possible to cut spending from 25% of GDP to the 2000 level of 18% of GDP. What is probably much more difficult is getting federal revenues from 14% of GDP to 18%, since the wackos have sworn to not allow this, and I don't think the Republicans can pass any laws with the six Congressman who didn't take the oath. :lol:
QuoteBut hell, if we simply froze (in real terms) federal spending at the 2011 amount without doing anything about revenue, we'd have the budget balanced by 2015 or 2016.
I very much doubt that. The economy would have to grow much, much faster than inflation for that to happen, and no such growth is forecast.
Quote from: KRonn on August 04, 2011, 10:19:29 AM
Heh, they're debating about getting the budget balanced in 5 to 10 years! Then there will be the need to start paying off a by then 15-20 trillion dollar deficit! Staggering sums of money. :huh:
The US is a staggeringly wealthy nation, to be able to rack up such massive debt! :hmm:
Of course, inflation will be causing a sizable chunk of that debt, but you are correct to note that the total debt will come within striking range of the greatest level of total debt the US faced (WW2). The country paid down that debt, but I don't think there will be the same will to pay down this one. That is what staggers me.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 04, 2011, 10:37:16 AM
Willie Sutton said he robbed banks because that is where the money is. In the federal budget, the money is the "mandatory" spending categories, and entitlements in particular.
Agreed. Talking about ending the deficits without addressing the entitlement programs is a waste of breath. Rolling back the retirement age and rethinking medical provisions for the dying will almost certainly be needed, IMO, along with some less drastic measures.
Quote from: Yahoo News
US borrowing tops 100% of GDP: Treasury
US debt shot up $238 billion to reach 100 percent of gross domestic project after the government's debt ceiling was lifted, Treasury figures showed Wednesday.
Treasury borrowing jumped Tuesday, the data showed, immediately after President Barack Obama signed into law an increase in the debt ceiling as the country's spending commitments reached a breaking point and it threatened to default on its debt.
The new borrowing took total public debt to $14.58 trillion, over end-2010 GDP of $14.53 trillion, and putting it in a league with highly indebted countries like Italy and Belgium.
Public debt subject to the official debt limit -- a slightly tighter definition -- was $14.53 trillion as of the end of Tuesday, rising from the previous official cap of $14.29 trillion a day earlier.
Treasury had used extraordinary measures to hold under the $14.29 trillion cap since reaching it on May 16, while politicians battled over it and over addressing the country's bloating deficit.
The official limit was hiked $400 billion on Tuesday and will be increased in stages over the next 18 months.
The last time US debt topped the size of its annual economy was in 1947 just after World War II. By 1981 it had fallen to 32.5 percent.
Ratings agencies have warned the country to reduce its debt-to-GDP ratio quickly or facing losing its coveted AAA debt rating.
Moody's said Tuesday that the government needed to stabilize the ratio at 73 percent by 2015 "to ensure that the long-run fiscal trajectory remains compatible with a AAA rating."
They had to recapitalize all the government worker pension funds they drained to run current accounts between May 18th and now.
Hrmm. The market isn't impressed with this deal, I guess, and a double dip recession looks certain.
I guess soon President Perry will rickroll us.
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2011, 11:09:25 AM
Quote from: KRonn on August 04, 2011, 10:19:29 AM
Heh, they're debating about getting the budget balanced in 5 to 10 years! Then there will be the need to start paying off a by then 15-20 trillion dollar deficit! Staggering sums of money. :huh:
The US is a staggeringly wealthy nation, to be able to rack up such massive debt! :hmm:
Of course, inflation will be causing a sizable chunk of that debt, but you are correct to note that the total debt will come within striking range of the greatest level of total debt the US faced (WW2). The country paid down that debt, but I don't think there will be the same will to pay down this one. That is what staggers me.
Agreed that we won't likely have the will to pay down the debt as we did after WW2. And maybe we don't have to be committed to paying it all down quickly. I figure the US will be, and is quite able to be, carrying some heavy debt for a while, even after, or if, the budget is balanced. But I'm hoping the debt can be brought down and made a lot more manageable. As it is now it's just damn scary.
The moment the budget is balanced, it'll be tax cut time again! That surplus belongs to the people, not the government.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 04, 2011, 01:50:37 PM
The moment the budget is balanced, it'll be tax cut time again! That surplus belongs to the people, not the government.
It will be pretty hard to ignore all the interest we're paying on outstanding debt.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 04, 2011, 11:19:10 AM
Hrmm. The market isn't impressed with this deal, I guess, and a double dip recession looks certain.
Hey, oil prices dropped at least. And the dollar apparently surged today.
At this point I think it's more driven by concern over Italy and Spain than the US situation.
Yes. Italy = dead man walking.
Quote from: derspiess on August 04, 2011, 02:13:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 04, 2011, 01:50:37 PM
The moment the budget is balanced, it'll be tax cut time again! That surplus belongs to the people, not the government.
It will be pretty hard to ignore all the interest we're paying on outstanding debt.
Why? We had interest on the debt in 2001, we could ignore it then. We'll ignore it again, just you watch.
l
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2011, 11:14:28 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 04, 2011, 10:37:16 AM
Willie Sutton said he robbed banks because that is where the money is. In the federal budget, the money is the "mandatory" spending categories, and entitlements in particular.
Agreed. rethinking medical provisions for the dying will almost certainly be needed, IMO, along with some less drastic measures.
ZOMG DEATH PANELS!! :o
Give it up for Berlusconi--for the first time in over 1500 years, he has the world terrified of what the Italian people might unleash on them.
:lmfao:
Quote from: alfred russel on August 04, 2011, 08:02:26 PM
Give it up for Berlusconi--for the first time in over 1500 years, he has the world terrified of what the Italian people might unleash on them.
:lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on August 04, 2011, 08:02:26 PM
Give it up for Berlusconi--for the first time in over 1500 years, he has the world terrified of what the Italian people might unleash on them.
You mean aside from "Bunga Bunga"? :P
Oh hell. Here we go again. (http://"http://www.businessinsider.com/its-falling-apart-senator-already-threatening-the-super-committee-2011-9#ixzz1XNhFeBOz")
Quote
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) threatened to quit the Super Committee Thursday morning Bloomberg reports — hours after the deficit cutting group's first meeting — telling DC conference that he would leave the committee before accepting any cuts to defense spending.
Bloomberg is reporting Kyl said the committee can find the required $1.5 trillion in savings without further cuts to defense spending.
Proposition 1: The US federal fiscal position is precarious, and the US risks default if it does not take immediate strong action to take deficits under control.
Proposition 2: Markets are reasonably efficient in the semi-strong efficient sense of asset prices reflecting publicly available information in an unbiased way.
Fact: Yields on US federal government treasury securities are 0.20% for 2-year bonds, 0.91% for 5-year, and 2.04% for 10 years. The fact is from the newspaper, reporting yesterdays rates.
Given that fact, at least one of Proposition 1 or 2 must be false.
I would be curious to ask the GOP Presidential candidates which one they think is wrong, but I suspect fewer than half of them would understand the question.
[NOTE: edited to fix slight errors in yields as reported in the OP, main impact was 2-yr is sightly higher, the longer maturities lower)]
Proposition 3: the US is running annual deficits that put it on the path to unsustainibility in the medium term.
This is consistent with proposition (fact) 2.
Unless you think the model of debt/GDP that determines risk premiums for every other country in the world somehow doesn't apply to the US.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2011, 12:52:22 PM
Proposition 3: the US is running annual deficits that put it on the path to unsustainibility in the medium term.
This is consistent with proposition (fact) 2.
Unless you think the model of debt/GDP that determines risk premiums for every other country in the world somehow doesn't apply to the US.
Is medium term further than 10 years out? Otherwise I would expect the 10 year yield to be going up.
US debt is still the safest crap investment out there with Europe imploding. That's why the rates are low. We have to take our turn in the bankruptcy line, you see.
Quote from: frunk on September 08, 2011, 12:58:27 PM
Is medium term further than 10 years out? Otherwise I would expect the 10 year yield to be going up.
Medium term is maybe 3 to 5ish.
Take a look at the historical PIIGS yields before the shit hit the fan.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2011, 12:52:22 PM
Proposition 3: the US is running annual deficits that put it on the path to unsustainibility in the medium term.
That would imply a much higher yield on the 10 year if the market efficiency hypothesis holds.
Also the 30 year is at 3.35%. By way of historical context, average inflation rates in the US over the past 75-100 years are in the vicinity of 3.5 percent.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 08, 2011, 12:02:47 PM
Oh hell. Here we go again. (http://"http://www.businessinsider.com/its-falling-apart-senator-already-threatening-the-super-committee-2011-9#ixzz1XNhFeBOz")
Quote
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) threatened to quit the Super Committee Thursday morning Bloomberg reports — hours after the deficit cutting group's first meeting — telling DC conference that he would leave the committee before accepting any cuts to defense spending.
Bloomberg is reporting Kyl said the committee can find the required $1.5 trillion in savings without further cuts to defense spending.
Of course. We can solve the debt problem by just cutting Planned Parenthood and PBS - once we are proper conservatives, God will shower us with money!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fuser5%2Fimageroot%2F2011%2F09%2FTotal%2520Debt%25209.8.jpg&hash=d3231e1d8bb838064a92fb3f7539d45b19c57226)
The next treasury auction will breach the new debt ceiling.
Another $500 billion kicks in this month unless there is a disapproval vote.
Well, if Jon Kyl is on the committee, I think it's pretty much doomed to failure.
Quote from: Neil on September 08, 2011, 06:46:48 PM
Well, if Jon Kyl is on the committee, I think it's pretty much doomed to failure.
Take him off and the probability of agreement would skyrocket to zero.
Quote from: Neil on September 08, 2011, 06:46:48 PM
Well, if Jon Kyl is on the committee, I think it's pretty much doomed to failure.
That was the idea.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2011, 07:02:04 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 08, 2011, 06:46:48 PM
Well, if Jon Kyl is on the committee, I think it's pretty much doomed to failure.
Take him off and the probability of agreement would skyrocket to zero.
Well, if the Republicans intend to torpedo an agreement, then what's the point?
Quote from: Neil on September 08, 2011, 10:04:32 PM
Well, if the Republicans intend to torpedo an agreement, then what's the point?
:lol:
If 3 guys don't agree with 3 other guys, who's torpedoing whom?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2011, 10:10:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 08, 2011, 10:04:32 PM
Well, if the Republicans intend to torpedo an agreement, then what's the point?
:lol:
If 3 guys don't agree with 3 other guys, who's torpedoing whom?
Depends on who is more insane. If Jon Kyl is in the room, he's the one torpedoing.
Quote from: Neil on September 08, 2011, 10:04:32 PM
Well, if the Republicans intend to torpedo an agreement, then what's the point?
The point is that the Republicans will be torpedoing an agreement that, under any conditions, is better for them than the default, no-agreement result (which still cuts spending, but not in ways the Republicans will like). Hopefully, Kyle and his fellow morons will prevent an agreement, and their owners (who will be badly hurt by the default cuts Kyle and Co. will have forced) will fire them and buy themselves some sane Republican Senators and Congressmen.
The only path to sanity for the country, it seems to me, is for the newly-empowered business owners of US politicians to realize that creating batshit-crazy pawns in Congress is a losing proposition, and they switch to creating and emplacing saner ones. It is sure the Democratic legislators, who are just as wacky, will not be replaced by
their owners.
Actually, I see them torpedoing any agreement superior to most agreements they could come up with. The Torpedoing will result in across the board cuts which are more fair then what many of the things could happen.
Quote from: grumbler on September 09, 2011, 12:01:38 PM
The only path to sanity for the country, it seems to me, is for the newly-empowered business owners of US politicians to realize that creating batshit-crazy pawns in Congress is a losing proposition, and they switch to creating and emplacing saner ones. It is sure the Democratic legislators, who are just as wacky, will not be replaced by their owners.
The problem is that Republican legislators have to be wacky to get the wacky Republican voters to vote against their economic interests, and in favor of the interests of the owners. You can't get peasants to support oligarchy without significant misdirections.