Shocking! Fucking no compromise morons. <_<
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45381699/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/#.TspbsHJ9ZDQ
QuoteLawmakers trade blame as deficit talks crumble
Failure to reach a deal could trigger $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts over 10 years
related
47
Advertise | AdChoices
By ERIC LIPTON
updated 11/20/2011 11:33:03 PM ET
WASHINGTON — With the hours ticking away toward a self-imposed deadline, Congressional leaders conceded Sunday that talks on a sweeping deficit agreement were near failure and braced for recriminations over their inability to reach a deal.
The stalemate was the latest sign of partisan deadlock in Washington, which members of both parties do not expect to lift until the 2012 election has clarified which party has the upper hand.
Barring an unexpected turnaround before Monday's deadline, the failure of the special Congressional deficit committee will be the third high-profile effort to fall short of a deal in the last 12 months, including a bipartisan deficit commission and talks last summer between President Obama and Speaker John A. Boehner.
Story: Deficit supercommittee on the brink of failure
By law, the special Congressional committee's inability to reach an agreement will trigger $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts over 10 years to the military and domestic programs, to start in 2013.
As time wound down to a Monday night deadline for an agreement, Capitol Hill lacked the frenzied negotiation typical of a Congressional race to beat the clock. Instead, many members — well aware that Congressional approval ratings are near historic lows in polls — seemed resigned to the fact that Democrats and Republicans remained far apart on major budget issues, especially tax increases on the affluent, which Democrats insist must be part of any deficit solution and that Republicans oppose.
The White House called on the 12 members of the special committee to finish their work, but lawmakers on the panel, which is evenly divided between the two parties, instead blamed each other for its failure.
Advertise | AdChoices
Many outside Washington, including on Wall Street, had low expectations for the committee, and some analysts predicted that the breakdown might not have a major effect on financial markets. But the developments added to the air of uncertainty at a time when the world economy is coping with Europe's debt problems and a sluggish recovery from the 2008 financial crisis. Some members of Congress were vowing to repeal the automatic cuts, locked in by the law that raised the debt ceiling in August, with new legislation.
Once they return from their Thanksgiving recess, members of Congress face another set of decisions with the potential to hamstring the economy. A temporary payroll-tax cut for nearly all households and jobless benefits for many long-term unemployed are scheduled to expire at year's end, and many economists predict that growth and hiring will slow further if such measures are not renewed.
On Sunday, in the halls of the Capitol and on television talk shows, Democrats and Republicans offered strikingly different post-mortems for the process.
Democrats blamed the Republicans for their unwillingness to yield on a no-new-taxes pact they signed at the request of a conservative antitax group, arguing that the American public realizes that no grand deal could be reached without a combination of spending cuts and new tax revenue.
"As long as we have some Republican lawmakers who feel more enthralled with a pledge they took to a Republican lobbyist than they do to a pledge to the country to solve the problems, this is going to be hard to do," Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, the committee's co-chairwoman said on CNN's "State of the Union."
But Representative Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, the other co-chairman, said it was inflexibility on the part of the Democrats that had caused the impasse, particularly when it came to agreeing to major money-saving changes in social programs like Medicare and Social Security.
Video: Kyl: One way or another, cuts will happen (on this page)
"Unfortunately, what we haven't seen in these talks from the other side is any Democrats willing to put a proposal on the table that actually solves the problems," Mr. Hensarling said on "Fox News Sunday."
At the White House, officials made a final effort to spur the committee on to a conclusion. "Avoiding accountability and kicking the can down the road is how Washington got into this deficit problem in the first place," a White House spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said in a statement. "So Congress needs to do its job here and make the kind of tough choices to live within its means that American families make every day."
The apparent failure of the panel already became a topic in the 2012 presidential campaign. Mitt Romney, speaking in New Hampshire on Sunday, blamed President Obama for the failure, saying that he should have been more involved in pushing for a deal.
"He hasn't had any role. He's done nothing," Mr. Romney said. "This is another example of failed leadership."
But another committee member, Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said on "Meet the Press," that President Obama and White House budget officials "were asked to be hands off."
Video: Kerry: We're a deficit cutting committee, not a tax cutting one (on this page)
"The Republicans said, 'Don't let Obama come into this, because if he does, it will make it political,' " Mr. Kerry said, adding, "They've been intimately involved, but carefully so that they didn't politicize it. I think they did the right thing.
A deal effectively needs to be reached by Monday night, if the committee is going to approve it by Wednesday, the legal deadline for an agreement before the automated cuts are supposed to be imposed. Automated cuts would not start until January 2013.
Republicans have already begun plans to reconfigure the automatic cuts because about half would come from the Pentagon; Democrats and President Obama are likely to resist those efforts since some domestic spending programs are exempted from the cuts. As of Sunday evening, aides on Capitol Hill said no meeting among all 12 members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction has been set for Monday.
The aides also said that as far as they knew, no significant process had been made over the weekend, although it was possible that there have been private conversations between a few individual members of the committee that could represent an offer of compromise.
"But at this point it looks unlikely that that offer will come," one aide to a Democratic member on the committee said, asking that he not be named, as he was not authorized to discuss the negotiations publicly.
The focus instead now is mostly on placing blame.
Video: Kerry: 'Republican unwillingness' the only thing stopping a deal (on this page)
"Members went into this more than hopeful," Representative Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland who sat on the panel, said in an interview Sunday. "The question from Day 1 was whether or not Republicans would be serious about a balanced plan. That was always the question, and the answer at least appears to be no."
Republicans late last week sent Democrats a proposal to save $643 billion over a decade—about half the goal. But the proposal was quickly rejected as unacceptable, as the Democrats said it included only a small amount of new revenue.
Stock and bond market experts on Sunday said Wall Street markets likely would not react in a major way on Monday, as the so-called sequesters — budget terminology for automatic spending cuts — still provide an insurance policy that the annual deficit could be curtailed.
"I don't think the markets had a lot of expectation that they would reach a deal," said Ajay Rajadhyaksha, a managing director at Barclays Capital. "What matters far more is what happens in Europe over the next week or two."
Among legislators on Sunday, there was even disagreement about what the primary stumbling block had been to reaching an accord.
The Democrats said that the refusal of the Republicans on the bipartisan committee to agree to allow tax cuts first passed during the Bush administration to expire at the end of 2012— which would be one way to raise new revenue, to match spending cuts the Democrats have agreed to accept — was to blame.
"If they will give up their insistence on the Bush tax cuts, we can get this done," Mr. Kerry said on "Meet the Press."
Advertise | AdChoices
But Republicans countered that with the economy already weak, Congress would do more harm if it agreed to a deal that would significantly increase federal revenue, implying that the package that the Democrats had pushed called for at least $1 trillion in new taxes.
"You can't grow if you raise taxes in the middle of a recession," Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, a committee member and the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, said, also on "Meet the Press."
With failure looming, the focus was increasingly turning to how to perhaps change the mix of automated budget cuts before they take effect in January 2013.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that domestic programs — including education, transportation and immigration — would be cut by 7.8 percent in 2013 and that Medicare spending would fall by about 2 percent. The biggest cut would be to defense programs, which would be reduced by about 10 percent.
But several large programs would be exempt from automatic cuts, including Social Security, Medicaid, veterans' benefits and various antipoverty programs, based on the agreement Congress and the White House reached in the summer. This is part of the reason why certain Democrats in recent weeks have become less willing to compromise — the automated cuts, they concluded, may be better than anything they could negotiate.
Jackie Calmes and Jennifer Steinhauer contributed reporting.
This article, "Lawmakers trade blame Congressional budget talks crumble," first appeared in The New York Times.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2011, 09:22:02 AM
Shocking! Fucking no compromise morons. <_<
Dems of Repubs?
Quote from: Faeelin on November 21, 2011, 09:29:43 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2011, 09:22:02 AM
Shocking! Fucking no compromise morons. <_<
Dems of Repubs?
Republicans. The Dems have offered big slashes in spending several times in the last few years in return for tax increases.
How the fuck should it not fail when they can't even agree on wether pizza is a vegetable or not?
Raz is impressed with our vitality and confidence.
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2011, 09:53:26 AM
Raz is impressed with our vitality and confidence.
Don't go overboard in the other direction, we've had worse times in the past and recovered.
1.2 trillion sounds like more than has been proposed - so why not just wait for that?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2011, 09:54:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2011, 09:53:26 AM
Raz is impressed with our vitality and confidence.
Don't go overboard in the other direction, we've had worse times in the past and recovered.
I bet some Romans were saying the same thing in 454 'Eh so what Valentinian murdered Aetius, we have had worse times in the past and recovered'. But seriously I am aware we will be fine in the end.
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2011, 10:00:08 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2011, 09:54:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2011, 09:53:26 AM
Raz is impressed with our vitality and confidence.
Don't go overboard in the other direction, we've had worse times in the past and recovered.
I bet some Romans were saying the same thing in 454 'Eh so what Valentinian murdered Aetius, we have had worse times in the past and recovered'. But seriously I am aware we will be fine in the end.
I love historical references. :)
It wasn't suppose to "succeed". It was designed to solve the debt ceiling crisis and give time for the GOP to bring the Tea Party clowns to heel.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2011, 09:54:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2011, 09:53:26 AM
Raz is impressed with our vitality and confidence.
Don't go overboard in the other direction, we've had worse times in the past and recovered.
Well, we had one particularly worse time that we're still recovering from, 150 years later. In fact, our current political fractures can be traced back to that worse time.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 10:04:54 AM
It wasn't suppose to "succeed". It was designed to solve the debt ceiling crisis and give time for the GOP to bring the Tea Party clowns to heel.
Tea Party wasn't the enemy, Grover Norquist is the enemy. In fact, he's probably the most dangerous political terrorist US has to deal with.
The funny thing is that Norquist is one organized revolt away from completely losing his power, but Republicans have even less balls than Democrats when it comes to clipping his wings. I find it a little surprising, given how I imagine politicians don't appreciate bowing down to some blowhard.
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2011, 10:09:08 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 10:04:54 AM
It wasn't suppose to "succeed". It was designed to solve the debt ceiling crisis and give time for the GOP to bring the Tea Party clowns to heel.
Tea Party wasn't the enemy, Grover Norquist is the enemy. In fact, he's probably the most dangerous political terrorist US has to deal with.
The funny thing is that Norquist is one organized revolt away from completely losing his power, but Republicans have even less balls than Democrats when it comes to clipping his wings. I find it a little surprising, given how I imagine politicians don't appreciate bowing down to some blowhard.
The GOP leadership doesn't intend to oppose Norquist. They don't' want to raise taxes, but they really couldn't care less about debt. That' something for the far future. But the Tea Party goons stopping up the works and not following orders really frightened the leadership. It's one thing for the US to go bankrupt in 2060. They'll all be dead by then, not their problem. If a bunch of amateurs bring down the system right
now, then that's a problem.
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2011, 10:06:12 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2011, 09:54:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2011, 09:53:26 AM
Raz is impressed with our vitality and confidence.
Don't go overboard in the other direction, we've had worse times in the past and recovered.
Well, we had one particularly worse time that we're still recovering from, 150 years later. In fact, our current political fractures can be traced back to that worse time.
Great Depression was worse, the 70s about as bad.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2011, 10:37:28 AM
Great Depression was worse, the 70s about as bad.
What the fuck? Ok Tim you are going full retard here.
Quote from: Tamas on November 21, 2011, 09:40:34 AM
How the fuck should it not fail when they can't even agree on wether pizza is a vegetable or not?
:lol: Is that how it sounded when it worked its way down the beetvine to you?
Reminds me of the old game, "telephone."
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2011, 10:38:55 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2011, 10:37:28 AM
Great Depression was worse, the 70s about as bad.
What the fuck? Ok Tim you are going full retard here.
As we are now, not worse than the Civil War. Duh
Unless you're arguing that our present situation is worse than the Great Depression? :huh:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 10:16:40 AMThey don't' want to raise taxes, but they really couldn't care less about debt. That' something for the far future.
Except it's not. As our European friends are discovering.
I feel that this super committee was an abdication of Congress's responsibilities. Congress should be doing what's needed, but instead they appoint a committee to an onery task. Worst of all for what they did legislate if this committee fails are the possibly draconian budget cuts that kick in at some point if nothing is resolved. Plus the possible downgrading of the US' credit rating, again.
Fuck it. Let it happen.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2011, 10:51:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2011, 10:38:55 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2011, 10:37:28 AM
Great Depression was worse, the 70s about as bad.
What the fuck? Ok Tim you are going full retard here.
As we are now, not worse than the Civil War. Duh
Unless you're arguing that our present situation is worse than the Great Depression? :huh:
The 1970's were not nearly as bad as the Great Depression. Even with the ugly fashion.
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2011, 10:00:08 AM
I bet some Romans were saying the same thing in 454 'Eh so what Valentinian murdered Aetius, we have had worse times in the past and recovered'.
Things did improve after 455.
Whether we'll recover or not is only partially the point. What's more concerning is that our country can fracture politically so decisively without any serious reason to do so. What happens when we face problems of slavery's magnitude?
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2011, 12:43:35 PM
Whether we'll recover or not is only partially the point. What's more concerning is that our country can fracture politically so decisively without any serious reason to do so. What happens when we face problems of slavery's magnitude?
If history is any guide, decades of political gridlock followed by death and destruction on an epic scale and the military occupation of 1/3 of the country.
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2011, 10:09:08 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 10:04:54 AM
It wasn't suppose to "succeed". It was designed to solve the debt ceiling crisis and give time for the GOP to bring the Tea Party clowns to heel.
Tea Party wasn't the enemy, Grover Norquist is the enemy. In fact, he's probably the most dangerous political terrorist US has to deal with.
The funny thing is that Norquist is one organized revolt away from completely losing his power, but Republicans have even less balls than Democrats when it comes to clipping his wings. I find it a little surprising, given how I imagine politicians don't appreciate bowing down to some blowhard.
It does seem bizarre that one of the two major parties has allowed themselves to be hamstrung by this one issue wonder.
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2011, 12:43:35 PM
Whether we'll recover or not is only partially the point. What's more concerning is that our country can fracture politically so decisively without any serious reason to do so. What happens when we face problems of slavery's magnitude?
Slavery wasn't a problem until it was made a problem.
Quote
Have they gone nuts in Washington?
By David Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analyst
Editor's note: David Gergen is a senior political analyst for CNN and has been an adviser to four presidents. He is a professor of public service and director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Follow him on Twitter: @David_Gergen.
Cambridge, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Have they gone nuts in Washington?
Last summer, as the debt ceiling debacle ended, our political leaders held out high hope that a "super committee" would meet for 10 weeks this fall and forge a bipartisan agreement that would do far more to bring down the nation's deficits.
Everyone knew that members of the committee had deep differences.
Republicans complain that federal spending under President Obama has gone up dramatically and cuts should come there before any new taxes.
Democrats say that the rich have increased their wealth much more rapidly than the other 99% of Americans, while their taxes have gone down, so that the first order of business is to raise taxes on them. Both sides have valid points, worthy of debate.
But such contentious disagreements have characterized our politics since the dawn of the republic, and in almost all crises of the past, political leaders have worked out compromises. As Thomas Jefferson put it in 1790, "In general I think it necessary to give as well as take in a government like ours." George Washington agreed and pushed continually for what he called "a spirit of accommodation."
Our "leaders" of today, however, have tossed aside the wisdom of the Founders. The super committee is now hours away from abject failure on what should have been relatively easy work. Some tell us not to worry: A breakdown will automatically trigger "sequestration" -- automatic cuts in defense and domestic programs starting in January 2013. But there are already efforts within Congress to void the sequestration process.
A related concern is how financial markets will react. Some economists tell us not to worry about that, either: They say the markets have long assumed failure and have baked that into their investment decisions. But who knows for sure? Who can tell how a volatile mixture of political failure in Europe and in the U.S. will play out in coming weeks? The truth is nobody knows for sure.
If super committee fails, what's next?
That's why this failure of the super committee represents a reckless, irresponsible gamble by our "leaders" in Washington. It's difficult to remember a Congress that has put the nation so much at risk in the service of ideology and to hold onto office. Partisans on both sides are grievously failing the country.
An honest assessment would lay blame on the White House doorstep, too. Yes, the president finally put up a plan a few weeks back and made a few phone calls. But he has been exercising the most passive leadership imaginable. Nor have the Republican candidates for president been any more engaged. Why are their campaigns so focused only on 2013 and so detached from a crisis that continues to deepen in D.C. right now?
It is not as if Congress and the White House are working productively together to solve other problems. They have done almost nothing in recent months to create more jobs and to shore up most homeowners. Hope is not a strategy, as we know, but it seems to be ours right now.
Even as the president promises a larger military presence in the Pacific (how are we going to afford it?), some businessmen are coming home from Shanghai and privately saying China has already won the economic rivalry.
Meanwhile, the White House has played politics with a proposed oil pipeline from Canada. And few raised a peep a few days ago when the chief economist of the International Energy Agency warned, based upon a serious study, that the world would face "irreversible climate change in five years" unless we change course on new energy infrastructure.
Sorry, our noble leaders tell us, we have to focus now on election 2012. What was it that Louis XV used to say? "Après moi, le déluge"?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 12:30:05 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2011, 10:51:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2011, 10:38:55 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2011, 10:37:28 AM
Great Depression was worse, the 70s about as bad.
What the fuck? Ok Tim you are going full retard here.
As we are now, not worse than the Civil War. Duh
Unless you're arguing that our present situation is worse than the Great Depression? :huh:
The 1970's were not nearly as bad as the Great Depression. Even with the ugly fashion.
Good thing I never said that. I said the 70s were about as bad as things are now.
The music was way better.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 21, 2011, 03:09:13 PM
The music was way better.
I never thought it would come to this but my son was playing some dub-step "music". He asked me what I thought. I told him in the voice of my father - "That is not music"
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 21, 2011, 03:11:12 PMI never thought it would come to this but my son was playing some dub-step "music". He asked me what I thought. I told him in the voice of my father - "That is not music"
:lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 21, 2011, 03:11:12 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 21, 2011, 03:09:13 PM
The music was way better.
I never thought it would come to this but my son was playing some dub-step "music". He asked me what I thought. I told him in the voice of my father - "That is not music"
:)
QuoteAt the White House, officials made a final effort to spur the committee on to a conclusion. "Avoiding accountability and kicking the can down the road is how Washington got into this deficit problem in the first place," a White House spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said in a statement. "So Congress needs to do its job here and make the kind of tough choices to live within its means that American families make every day."
:lol: Chutzpah.
How is this chutzpah? Obama made a significant, serious proposal which the GOP walked away from, and supported the formation of a Super Committee.
Now we find out that the GOP yet again refuses to agree to any tax increases, but their initial agreement to put defense cuts on the table was a joke.
I think the Republicans are pretty much screwed, and screwing the rest of us in the bargain.
The perception is that they CANNOT actually make a deal. Any deal is going to involve tax increases along with spending cuts. I think the fear is that even if the deal is as reasonable as the Republicans can possibly hope, they will get lynched by the Grover wing if they make it.
So they are making a lot of noise about making deals, but cannot actually come through. The Dems should rape them over this, but will likely screw it up instead.
I'm not sure if the GOP actually wants things to get better. They are more concerned with beating Obama then anything else.
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2011, 07:02:00 PM
I think the Republicans are pretty much screwed, and screwing the rest of us in the bargain.
The perception is that they CANNOT actually make a deal. Any deal is going to involve tax increases along with spending cuts. I think the fear is that even if the deal is as reasonable as the Republicans can possibly hope, they will get lynched by the Grover wing if they make it.
So they are making a lot of noise about making deals, but cannot actually come through. The Dems should rape them over this, but will likely screw it up instead.
You mean like when they had complete control over everything and managed to squander the opportunity? It's been three years since we passed a budget, and the deficit could have been fixed then. Instead, they just kept spending even more without new revenue. A lot more. So, it is a bit silly to have the White House scolding the Congress now, but it's obvious why they have to do it. Rules of the game.
Honestly, we're to the point where everyone is working under the assumption that compromising will cause them to lose their job and the only way to stay in place is to show they stood up to the other guy and held their ground. While Congress has a huge incentive to fix it, every individual congressperson has a bigger disincentive to do so.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 21, 2011, 06:55:10 PM
How is this chutzpah? Obama made a significant, serious proposal which the GOP walked away from, and supported the formation of a Super Committee.
I could swear we've had this exact conversation about four times already.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2011, 07:29:21 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on November 21, 2011, 06:55:10 PM
How is this chutzpah? Obama made a significant, serious proposal which the GOP walked away from, and supported the formation of a Super Committee.
I could swear we've had this exact conversation about four times already.
Yeah, but you never learn.
If they can't manage to cut an insignificant drop in the bucket, there's no chance they'll actually be able to balance the budget ever again.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2011, 09:39:25 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on November 21, 2011, 09:29:43 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2011, 09:22:02 AM
Shocking! Fucking no compromise morons. <_<
Dems of Repubs?
Republicans. The Dems have offered big slashes in spending several times in the last few years in return for tax increases.
I disagree. The Dems are the ones that do not want to compromise.
They will not compromise, because the idea is that Obama, since he cannot compete agains the Tea Party, runs against "That congress that cannot compromise and does not have the willingness to act and solve our economic problems".
That doesn't even make sense.
Why have you guys become so Lefty?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 07:47:07 PM
I can't teach you everything grasshopper.
I understand that in your own mind this line of dialogue seems really clever, but to me and I suspect others it just sounds like tired old bullshit without any point.
A poll from last year.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/144359/democrats-republicans-differ-views-compromise.aspx
Republicans are less likely to desire compromise then Democrats. The problem I think lies in the GOP voters.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2011, 07:56:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 07:47:07 PM
I can't teach you everything grasshopper.
I understand that in your own mind this line of dialogue seems really clever, but to me and I suspect others it just sounds like tired old bullshit without any point.
Cause I explained it to your four times before. I'm tired of it.
ossum
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2011, 07:57:55 PM
ossum
You were the one keeping count. Just go look through those old threads. You keep making remarks that come strait out of the Conservative echo chamber. Now while your faith in the GOP is admirable, most of us don't share these absurd presumptions so when you say the President has "Chutzpah" for blaming congress it comes off as silly, quaint and after a while annoying.
I'm very disappointed with both parties.
As a neutral and unbiased observer, I'm going to have to rule in Raz's favor. Yi is known for attempting to tire out his opponents by getting them to repeat the same arguments again and again.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 07:56:39 PM
A poll from last year.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/144359/democrats-republicans-differ-views-compromise.aspx
Republicans are less likely to desire compromise then Democrats. The problem I think lies in the GOP voters.
There are some historical reasons for that. The Reagan and Bush I budget deals both ended up with the GOP later losing the parts they thought they had gained (spending cuts mostly). The trust is gone. That's why the BBA is such a big topic for them. They want a mechanism that forces their gains to be kept in place. Personally, I wonder how much of that ground they lost was Bush II's fault, but hey.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2011, 07:38:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 07:30:15 PM
Yeah, but you never learn.
Learn what Raz?
You pretend to forget about Obama's offer and then act surprised when anyone ever brings it up.
I'm not an unbiased observer. I'm a member of the Republican party and have voted GOP in the last three elections.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 21, 2011, 08:08:03 PM
There are some historical reasons for that. The Reagan and Bush I budget deals both ended up with the GOP later losing the parts they thought they had gained (spending cuts mostly). The trust is gone. That's why the BBA is such a big topic for them. They want a mechanism that forces their gains to be kept in place. Personally, I wonder how much of that ground they lost was Bush II's fault, but hey.
I think it has to do with the way Conservatives have been portraying the world. They keep portraying their opponents not as wrong, but evil. The Democrats are not blunderers or incompetent, or out of touch bleeding hearts. They're actively trying to destroy America. You don't compromise with the devil. You don't meet someone halfway who is trying to kill you. This is why I think conservatives are likely to engage in violence. If you are convinced that someone is going to kill you, striking out against them first is a rational decision. So those who believe in Death Panels and other nonsense may find they have no choice but resort to violence.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 08:18:30 PM
I think it has to do with the way Conservatives have been portraying the world. They keep portraying their opponents not as wrong, but evil. The Democrats are not blunderers or incompetent, or out of touch bleeding hearts. They're actively trying to destroy America. You don't compromise with the devil. You don't meet someone halfway who is trying to kill you. This is why I think conservatives are likely to engage in violence. If you are convinced that someone is going to kill you, striking out against them first is a rational decision. So those who believe in Death Panels and other nonsense may find they have no choice but resort to violence.
Yes, and that reminds me of this video from 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5_x_-v-k9w
:lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2011, 08:17:59 PM
You pretend to forget about Obama's offer and then act surprised when anyone ever brings it up.
I'm not an unbiased observer. I'm a member of the Republican party and have voted GOP in the last three elections.
I have never once forgotten about Obama's offer and never once acted surprised when anyone brings it up. You have your facts wrong.
People like Faeelin act as if history began on the day Obama made that offer. People like Raz act as if the three consecutive years of 10% of GDP deficits, one year with absolute Democratic control of all the levers, and two with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, are GOP talking points. Everybody conveniently forgets that up until the GOP landslide all the talk was about Stimulus III and "long term deficit reduction."
It's the purest chutzpah to be responsible for an increase in the national debt by 30% of GDP and blame a supercommittee which was designed to fail and which
at best was going to deliver an additional $30 billion a year of deficit reduction of "kicking the can down the road."
Is anyone seriously talk about "Short term deficit reduction"? I mean, your precious Ryan plan was pretty long term.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 08:58:01 PM
Is anyone seriously talk about "Short term deficit reduction"? I mean, your precious Ryan plan was pretty long term.
Raz: Yi, what exactly does "long term deficit reduction mean?"
Yi: It means we don't even start addressing the deficit until 4 or 5 years from now.
Raz: Oh, thanks.
I suppose this is much easier for you if you just talk to yourself.
ossum
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2011, 08:28:08 PM
It's the purest chutzpah to be responsible for an increase in the national debt by 30% of GDP
Come again?
Can you narrow it down a little Joan?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2011, 09:58:21 PM
Can you narrow it down a little Joan?
This doesn't look like Obama was responsible for a bigger deficit than Obama:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Frf%2Fimage_606w%2F2010-2019%2FWashingtonPost%2F2011%2F07%2F25%2FBlogs%2Fezra-klein%2FStandingArt%2Fdebt%2520changes%2520under%2520bush%2520obama.jpg%3Fuuid%3DqZCizrbZEeCYzBMQCYwsyQ&hash=a1d007168ddf7f407743f35e59603ad7de3604a3)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/obamas-and-bushs-effect-on-the-deficit-in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html
What am I missing?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2011, 09:58:21 PM
Can you narrow it down a little Joan?
Trying to figure out who is supposed to responsible for the 30% GDP increase in the national debt and how that was determined.
Look at all those disastrous tax cuts.
Quote from: Neil on November 21, 2011, 10:01:44 PM
Look at all those disastrous tax cuts.
Yep. Ugly as fuck, isn't it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2011, 08:28:08 PM
People like Faeelin act as if history began on the day Obama made that offer. People like Raz act as if the three consecutive years of 10% of GDP deficits, one year with absolute Democratic control of all the levers, and two with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, are GOP talking points. Everybody conveniently forgets that up until the GOP landslide all the talk was about Stimulus III and "long term deficit reduction."
It's the purest chutzpah to be responsible for an increase in the national debt by 30% of GDP and blame a supercommittee which was designed to fail and which at best was going to deliver an additional $30 billion a year of deficit reduction of "kicking the can down the road."
Okay this is a bit more reasonable. However, just because they were responsible for increasing the deficit by 30% doesn't mean that Obama's offer to the Republicans wasn't legitimate. It was and should have been accepted if the GOP congressmen really cared about the deficit. If they weren't afraid of the activists in the Tea Party they would have accepted.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 21, 2011, 09:59:40 PM
What am I missing?
I'm not on board with Yi holding Obama responsible for 30% of the country's debt, but to take a position that might very well be his side, a statistic showing that Bush was an even wilder deficit spender than Obama doesn't support that Obama was very frugal.
I would say the statistics you cited support the reaction of "chutzpah".
Just for quick reference: 30% of US GDP is about $4.5 trillion.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 21, 2011, 10:02:49 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 21, 2011, 10:01:44 PM
Look at all those disastrous tax cuts.
Yep. Ugly as fuck, isn't it?
It's sad the extent to which voodoo economics has ruined your country.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 21, 2011, 10:11:57 PM
Just for quick reference: 30% of US GDP is about $4.5 trillion.
That's a lot of deficit. Obama should be hanged. [/uncriticallyacceptseverystatthatsomeonepostsontheinternet]
Quote from: Neil on November 21, 2011, 10:13:13 PM
It's sad the extent to which voodoo economics has ruined your country.
Tell me about it.
Quote from: Neil on November 21, 2011, 10:01:44 PM
Look at all those disastrous tax cuts.
What some people forget is that they were passed initially a temporary stimulus measure - hence the (disregarded) sunset.
People also forget (but the chart confirms) that the 08 stimulus bill pushed by the prior administration was around the same size as ARRA.
The problem is not the concept of stimulus in and of itself - the problem is the tendency of stimulus on both the tax and spending sides to become a new baseline rather than a temporary measure that is ramped back down when prosperity returns.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 21, 2011, 10:11:17 PM
I'm not on board with Yi holding Obama responsible for 30% of the country's debt, but to take a position that might very well be his side, a statistic showing that Bush was an even wilder deficit spender than Obama doesn't support that Obama was very frugal.
I would say the statistics you cited support the reaction of "chutzpah".
I don't know. Yi is pretending that the GOP came into being in 2008, and plays no role in the creation of the Bush deficit. I acknowledge Obama's increased the deficit; he's also proposed cuts to spending and tax increases in order to fix that. The GOP response is... tax cuts, and spending cuts, with the promise of tax cuts leading to growth and the Laffer Singularity.
If Yi's point is that Obama increased spending, and therefore isn't serious about cutting the deficit, then the same is true of the GOP even moreso.
So while certainly it isn't good - isn't it not so bad that we're actually now facing more in automatic spending cuts for the next ten years than any of the proposed plans by either party?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2011, 10:08:34 PM
Okay this is a bit more reasonable. However, just because they were responsible for increasing the deficit by 30% doesn't mean that Obama's offer to the Republicans wasn't legitimate. It was and should have been accepted if the GOP congressmen really cared about the deficit. If they weren't afraid of the activists in the Tea Party they would have accepted.
A bit more reasonable than what Timmy? The imaginary post in which I said Obama's offer wasn't legitimate?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 21, 2011, 10:19:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 21, 2011, 10:01:44 PM
Look at all those disastrous tax cuts.
What some people forget is that they were passed initially a temporary stimulus measure - hence the (disregarded) sunset.
People also forget (but the chart confirms) that the 08 stimulus bill pushed by the prior administration was around the same size as ARRA.
The problem is not the concept of stimulus in and of itself - the problem is the tendency of stimulus on both the tax and spending sides to become a new baseline rather than a temporary measure that is ramped back down when prosperity returns.
Well, when the tax cuts were passed, economic catastrophe was assured, so maybe they were just letting some people pile up some wealth to get them through the tough years ahead?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 21, 2011, 10:19:56 PM
What some people forget is that they were passed initially a temporary stimulus measure
It's no wonder that has been largely forgotten given how far they've overstayed their welcome.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 21, 2011, 10:22:37 PM
I don't know. Yi is pretending that the GOP came into being in 2008, and plays no role in the creation of the Bush deficit. I acknowledge Obama's increased the deficit; he's also proposed cuts to spending and tax increases in order to fix that. The GOP response is... tax cuts, and spending cuts, with the promise of tax cuts leading to growth and the Laffer Singularity.
If Yi's point is that Obama increased spending, and therefore isn't serious about cutting the deficit, then the same is true of the GOP even moreso.
My point is that it's hypocritical for the Obama White House to acuse Congress of kicking the deficit can down the road when they've been running 10% deficits for three years, with no intention of tackling the issue until the 2010 elections made it an issue.
And the GOP had no intention of tackling them until they thought they could hit Obama with it. So what's the GOP proposal again?
I'm sorry, I'm missing something here. Is anyone seriously suggesting that one side or the other during this mess has actually done due diligence?
Quote from: KRonn on November 21, 2011, 12:09:38 PM
I feel that this super committee was an abdication of Congress's responsibilities. Congress should be doing what's needed, but instead they appoint a committee to an onery task. Worst of all for what they did legislate if this committee fails are the possibly draconian budget cuts that kick in at some point if nothing is resolved. Plus the possible downgrading of the US' credit rating, again.
The "draconian budget cuts' are designed to keep the "possible downgrading of the US' credit rating" at bay. I can live with them. In fact, I can live with Congress enacting no more laws (other than continuing resolutions) for a decade. That will balance the budget by 2015, between special expenditures not re-enacted and tax cuts expiring.
Chaos for King!
Quote from: fahdiz on November 21, 2011, 10:33:50 PM
I'm sorry, I'm missing something here. Is anyone seriously suggesting that one side or the other during this mess has actually done due diligence?
Yes, I think the Democrats have advanced actual, concrete proposals and the GOP has made it clear that they won't agree to any program with a tax hike.
Quote from: grumbler on November 21, 2011, 10:36:17 PM
The "draconian budget cuts' are designed to keep the "possible downgrading of the US' credit rating" at bay. I can live with them. In fact, I can live with Congress enacting no more laws (other than continuing resolutions) for a decade. That will balance the budget by 2015, between special expenditures not re-enacted and tax cuts expiring.
Chaos for King!
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Faeelin on November 21, 2011, 10:36:50 PM
Yes, I think the Democrats have advanced actual, concrete proposals and the GOP has made it clear that they won't agree to any program with a tax hike.
No, no - I mean during this WHOLE mess.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 21, 2011, 10:32:31 PM
And the GOP had no intention of tackling them until they thought they could hit Obama with it.
This has convinced me: Obama has been a monster megadeath deficit hawk.
QuoteSo what's the GOP proposal again?
There were a few. The Ryan proposal, which the House passed and the Senate I think did not consider. Then there was the $4 trillion and change package during the debt limit hostage negotiations.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 21, 2011, 11:57:06 AM
Except it's not. As our European friends are discovering.
The yield on 30 year treasuries is now lower than it was for 1 months in January 2008. The market's pretty sanguine about US debt - not least because it's spinning out about European debt (even the spread on the Dutch is increasing).
My view is that it's worth kicking the can down the road. It's really not the time for massive spending cuts and tax rises - as our experience shows. You've got the market desperate to buy US debt precisely because the world economy looks so unstable. I think you should have short-term stimulus - payroll and unemployment extension, some infrastructure - with laws enacting medium to long-term reforms. So, I'd say, phase out certain tax deductions for income and corporate tax, phase in tax increases starting in a few years and have Social Security and (most importantly) Medicare reforms. While that's going on also have a look at other discretionary spending - I imagine there's stuff that can be cut.
Having said that despite the Eurocrisis I think there's been some positive noise out of the US economy lately so, God-willing, we'll be in a situation that has growth playing its role in deficit reduction.
QuoteSo they are making a lot of noise about making deals, but cannot actually come through. The Dems should rape them over this, but will likely screw it up instead.
I think this is true.
QuoteSo while certainly it isn't good - isn't it not so bad that we're actually now facing more in automatic spending cuts for the next ten years than any of the proposed plans by either party?
Not really. I imagine there'll be enormous pressure to roll back those cuts and save certain things - though Obama's apparently threatening to veto any bill that does that. But my understanding is that those cuts just apply uniformally across the board. That's an insane way to cut government. You'll end up cutting worthwhile stuff by just as much as programs that should have perhaps have attracted greater attention.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2011, 10:50:43 PM
QuoteSo while certainly it isn't good - isn't it not so bad that we're actually now facing more in automatic spending cuts for the next ten years than any of the proposed plans by either party?
Not really. I imagine there'll be enormous pressure to roll back those cuts and save certain things - though Obama's apparently threatening to veto any bill that does that. But my understanding is that those cuts just apply uniformally across the board. That's an insane way to cut government. You'll end up cutting worthwhile stuff by just as much as programs that should have perhaps have attracted greater attention.
Yeah but if it was politically impossible to actually get relevant cuts in just crap programs then it might be better to just take an all around haircut than unabashed increases in expenditure, no?
Quote from: fahdiz on November 21, 2011, 10:40:24 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on November 21, 2011, 10:36:50 PM
Yes, I think the Democrats have advanced actual, concrete proposals and the GOP has made it clear that they won't agree to any program with a tax hike.
No, no - I mean during this WHOLE mess.
So, 1965 to the present then?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2011, 10:50:43 PM
The yield on 30 year treasuries is now lower than it was for 1 months in January 2008. The market's pretty sanguine about US debt - not least because it's spinning out about European debt (even the spread on the Dutch is increasing).
My view is that it's worth kicking the can down the road. It's really not the time for massive spending cuts and tax rises - as our experience shows. You've got the market desperate to buy US debt precisely because the world economy looks so unstable. I think you should have short-term stimulus - payroll and unemployment extension, some infrastructure - with laws enacting medium to long-term reforms. So, I'd say, phase out certain tax deductions for income and corporate tax, phase in tax increases starting in a few years and have Social Security and (most importantly) Medicare reforms. While that's going on also have a look at other discretionary spending - I imagine there's stuff that can be cut.
Yes the can has to be kicked to allow time for any actual solution to be implemented. That's pretty clear. The biggest problem with any long term budget reduction plan is sticking to the plan. The next President or the next Congress will decide to do something completely different and then we're back to no solution.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 21, 2011, 11:27:14 PMYes the can has to be kicked to allow time for any actual solution to be implemented. That's pretty clear. The biggest problem with any long term budget reduction plan is sticking to the plan. The next President or the next Congress will decide to do something completely different and then we're back to no solution.
That's possibly true of a budget reduction plan, but your system's resistant to change once it's been made. In the UK I think you'd be more right because any government can, by definition, pass any legislation it wants - if it can't it's not the government. But in the US once a law's been passed through Congress I think the institutional conservatism reasserts itself. The difficulty of passing legislation also makes it difficult to abolish it. I think the O'Neill-Reagan deals on Social Security and income tax (though the latter wasn't that great a reform) are examples of that.
Maybe that's changed now your system's got more partisan though? If so it seems like you'll have all our flaws without the advantages
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2011, 11:01:24 PMYeah but if it was politically impossible to actually get relevant cuts in just crap programs then it might be better to just take an all around haircut than unabashed increases in expenditure, no?
You're probably right. Who knows maybe (and I hope Obama sticks to this) the pain of Congress not being able to roll back unpleasant universal cuts will focus their mind. Who knows though.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 21, 2011, 11:23:07 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 21, 2011, 10:40:24 PM
No, no - I mean during this WHOLE mess.
So, 1965 to the present then?
So the Great Society caused this catastrophe? Really?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 22, 2011, 12:03:27 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 21, 2011, 11:23:07 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 21, 2011, 10:40:24 PM
No, no - I mean during this WHOLE mess.
So, 1965 to the present then?
So the Great Society caused this catastrophe? Really?
I think it's safe to say that the roots of the latest political fracture did originate in 1960ies, when Democrats enforced the power of the federal government over apartheid states in the South. Ever since then, Democrats gained the black votes, while Republicans gained the radicalized racist votes. Republicans got the better end of the deal by far.
Quote from: DGuller on November 22, 2011, 12:21:03 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 22, 2011, 12:03:27 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 21, 2011, 11:23:07 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 21, 2011, 10:40:24 PM
No, no - I mean during this WHOLE mess.
So, 1965 to the present then?
So the Great Society caused this catastrophe? Really?
I think it's safe to say that the roots of the latest political fracture did originate in 1960ies, when Democrats enforced the power of the federal government over apartheid states in the South. Ever since then, Democrats gained the black votes, while Republicans gained the radicalized racist votes. Republicans got the better end of the deal by far.
Comments like this make Raz's rant about how Republicans think Dems are evil kind of funny.
Is there anything factually inaccurate in what I said?
Quote from: DGuller on November 22, 2011, 01:21:22 AM
Is there anything factually inaccurate in what I said?
What relevance does that have to my comment?
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2011, 02:01:58 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 22, 2011, 01:21:22 AM
Is there anything factually inaccurate in what I said?
What relevance does that have to my comment?
Your comments have no relevance. So he can't make a comment that is relevant to yours.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 21, 2011, 10:19:56 PM
What some people forget is that they were passed initially a temporary stimulus measure - hence the (disregarded) sunset.
You're not that naive. Everything intended to be a temporary fix becomes permanent.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2011, 10:40:42 PM
There were a few. The Ryan proposal
The Ryan proposal was New Math. The GOP is balking now at auto spending cuts to defense; the Ryan plan if actually implemented as proposed would leave $0 for defense by a couple decades out.
I don't see how the deficit talks can be considered a failure, particularly since the deficit gets cut with the automatic kick-ins.
Buhbye, W's rich pipple tax cuts.
I guess now our politicians are scrambling a bit to decide on renewing some of the Bush/Obama tax cuts that were extended last year. If nothing is decided then all our payroll taxes go up in January. About a thousand dollars a year for the average worker. That will hurt a bit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 22, 2011, 03:31:47 PM
I don't see how the deficit talks can be considered a failure, particularly since the deficit gets cut with the automatic kick-ins.
:hug:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 22, 2011, 03:31:47 PM
I don't see how the deficit talks can be considered a failure, particularly since the deficit gets cut with the automatic kick-ins.
Buhbye, W's rich pipple tax cuts.
I almost wonder if this was the plan all along.
It kinda gives the congress-critters some political cover, instead of having to answer to accusations that he/she "voted for unfair cuts/take hikes", they can say "we didn't want to make cuts...it was the law".