Debt Debate in Congress

[we vs us]

If I know that I will lose my job on Aug. 2, then I prepare for it by saving. 

Like I said, we passed the debt ceiling in May.  The job has been lost.  We've been drawing on our emergency fund ever since.  Aug 2 is when we have to decide to pay our rent or eat.

Also, that's a really bad analogy.

 

[Gaspar]

Let's see. . .

1. Ignore the debt as you spend more than all other presidents combined.

2. Rather than present a budget that addresses the problem, form a blue ribbon commission of the best and brightest to figure out how to tackle the deficit. 

3. Ignore the recommendation of the commission completely, because they are emphasizing what most republicans have been telling you all along.

4. Deliver a budget "framework" speech that actually increases the deficit.

5. Ask the CBO how your new "framework" that you are so proud of affects the proposed budget and have Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf reply  "We don't estimate speeches."

6. Ignore multiple requests to sit down and discuss the budget, to tackle more pressing matters related to manipulating the trajectory of a small spherical object.

7. With just over two weeks left, agree to meet and show up with nothing but the same budget that your own congress laughed at, and the same sloppy framework that the CBO laughed at, and the mantra of "Eat the rich" "Eat your peas" on your lips.

[we vs us]

The economy is poised for growth with businesses at the line waiting for the gun, the problem is that the president wants to point the gun at their heads, and congress wants to hide the bullets.

So you don't like his proposal for $4T in cuts?  What would you like, Gassy?  $8T?  Or do you now magically see the virtue in Boehner's modest $2T?  Or -- katie bar the door! -- have you seen the light and now want some stimulus spending?

You're starting to turn yourself in knots.  The entirety of your objection seems to be "Anything Obama Does is Wrong, Even If Under Other Circumstances I'd Like It."

[Gaspar]

have you seen the light and now want some stimulus spending?

Are you actually friendly to more spending?

[nathanm]

Show the people and the markets that you are serious about shrinking government and unbridle them as your slaves, and you will increase revenue far more than any putative tax increase.  We learned this with Kennedy, then again with ERTA, and now we have to, hopefully, learn it again (but I fear we won't).

You should understand the laffer curve before trying to use it to bolster your argument.

[carltonplace]

one group is intractable and the other group is willing to make concessions but the group that will not bend, not even a little is right?

What do you republicans want? End all safety net programs, medicare, medicade and social security? We should take away grandma's scooter? Let the US default and end our ability to pay for these programs or write current social security checks?

FYI: Firing/laying off government workers will cause unemployment to rise.  

[we vs us]

Are you actually friendly to more spending?

Most definitely.  Not that I think it has an ice cube's chance in hell currently -- one of the GOPs many successes has been to entirely limit the range of the policy discussion to Austerity or Austerity+.  

The panic over the deficit -- and artificially linking it to business sentiment -- has been their big rhetorical win.  Sadly, ignoring the fact that actual data points to lack of consumer demand and a housing market that hasn't bottomed out all the way will get us nowhere near a real world solution.  Austerity or Austerity+ will just pull $billions more out of the economy, destroy even more consumer demand, and impact business sentiment even more.  I'd really bet that -- virtuous or not -- playing chicken with the debt ceiling is also a negative impact on business sentiment as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/business/economy/as-government-aid-fades-so-may-the-recovery.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1

Close to $2 of every $10 that went into Americans' wallets last year were payments like jobless benefits, food stamps, Social Security and disability, according to an analysis by Moody's Analytics. In states hit hard by the downturn, like Arizona, Florida, Michigan and Ohio, residents derived even more of their income from the government.

By the end of this year, however, many of those dollars are going to disappear, with the expiration of extended benefits intended to help people cope with the lingering effects of the recession. Moody's Analytics estimates $37 billion will be drained from the nation's pocketbooks this year.

While you may see that ideologically as overreliance on gov -- and heck, let's debate that -- the real world consequences of Austerity or Austerity+ will be to greatly decrease the amount of spendable $$$ in the system.  If you think you're looking at negative business sentiment now, wait till all those bennies expire.

[Gaspar]

You should understand the laffer curve before trying to use it to bolster your argument.

Nate,
I understand the laffer curve, the debate is on where we sit within that representation.  Liberals always feel that we are on the incline, no matter what the economic circumstances.  It becomes a tool for them to manipulate.  

My opinion is that it is not government's duty to squeak out as much revenue as it can from the people.  It's government's duty to be revenue neutral through a balanced budget that respects the tax payer first and the spending program second.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Gaspar,
Kennedy had tax hikes in place that were actually done by Johnson.  (Plus a little 'surcharge' that brought in even more.)

I expect much more from you from a historical perspective - you do know that each of the tax cuts we have used as tool have been accompanied by following tax hikes.  Until the latest Baby Bush garbage.  EVERY single President we have had since the '30s has understood the concept, or AT LEAST been able to do what real experts recommended.  And EVERY one of them successfully used the tools and the economy was enhanced and bolstered.

Baby Bush didn't understand.  Didn't pay attention.  Didn't do the right thing.  Now we are enjoying the results.  And will for another decade or more.

But hey, if the only phrase the parrot knows is "Cut taxes", well I guess that's all it can say.


One question remains that the Republicontin's refuse to answer; What action would they take to make the situation better??
(Hint; "cut taxes" ain't the right answer, as we have found for a long, long time.)

[Townsend]

The entirety of your objection seems to be "Anything Obama Does is Wrong, Even If Under Other Circumstances I'd Like It."

Ding

[Cats Cats Cats]

I must admit it is pretty hilarious listening to republican voters try to argue against reducing the defecit more.  My other favorite its "don't increase the debt ceiling, don't give in".  I am not necessarily talking about the people on the board (unless you believe this way).  I would love for the debt ceiling to not need to increase but it isn't realistic with the economy like this.

[Gaspar]

Gaspar,
Kennedy had tax hikes in place that were actually done by Johnson.  (Plus a little 'surcharge' that brought in even more.)

I expect much more from you from a historical perspective - you do know that each of the tax cuts we have used as tool have been accompanied by following tax hikes.  Until the latest Baby Bush garbage.  EVERY single President we have had since the '30s has understood the concept, or AT LEAST been able to do what real experts recommended.  And EVERY one of them successfully used the tools and the economy was enhanced and bolstered.

Baby Bush didn't understand.  Didn't pay attention.  Didn't do the right thing.  Now we are enjoying the results.  And will for another decade or more.

But hey, if the only phrase the parrot knows is "Cut taxes", well I guess that's all it can say.


One question remains that the Republicontin's refuse to answer; What action would they take to make the situation better??
(Hint; "cut taxes" ain't the right answer, as we have found for a long, long time.)

Huh?
You're way off your girdle.  Read through the thread.

SPENDING CUTS. . .NO MORE SPENDING. . .STOP SPENDING. . .

Cuts are usually followed by multiple hikes over time, that seems to be the natural progression of things when Democrats or Republicans want to spend more and there is room in the economy.  Tax cuts are then used to restart the engine when it falters.

At this point I would rather they not even have a debate about taxes, it's a distraction and a stupid one at that.  They need to STOP SPENDING. . .CUT SPENDING. . .SPEND NO MORE. . .SPEND FAR LESS. . .ELIMINATE SPENDING.

[Townsend]

Huh?
You're way off your girdle.  Read through the thread.

SPENDING CUTS. . .NO MORE SPENDING. . .STOP SPENDING. . .

Cuts are usually followed by multiple hikes over time, that seems to be the natural progression of things when Democrats or Republicans want to spend more and there is room in the economy.  Tax cuts are then used to restart the engine when it falters.

At this point I would rather they not even have a debate about taxes, it's a distraction and a stupid one at that.  They need to STOP SPENDING. . .CUT SPENDING. . .SPEND NO MORE. . .SPEND FAR LESS. . .ELIMINATE SPENDING.

So no military or any other payments?  A total stop to all spending.

[Cats Cats Cats]

"Tax cuts are then used to restart the engine when it falters."

Except of course when companies are hording money.  Then it does nothing... Like now.

I am not saying that it doesn't work in all cases.  Its just the economy is a very complex thing and not any one thing will work the exact same way in every single condition as you so claim.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Gaspar,
My phrases would be almost identical...the only modification I would make would be to add the word "increases" to each.  That coupled with repeal of the Baby Bush BS would make us whole again very soon...within a decade or so.  And if we had not gone down that path to begin with (the path of selling out to corporate interests), we would already have healed and been whole today.


Tax cuts; we have an 80 year history of the effects of tax cuts.  When follow on action is taken to increase taxes - AS WAS DONE in every tax cut we have had during that 80 years EXCEPT for the Baby Bush cuts - the economy has not only recovered, but rocketed well beyond the previous levels.  It is a combination of cut/increase that was so successful for so long.  NOT one or the other.

History, people!!!  Read it!  Understand it!  Embrace it!  Become one with the "Force"!