Debt Debate in Congress

[we vs us]

Sen. Reid has just agreed to sign on with Boehner's short term plan, and they will now work up the bill, pass it and send it to the President to sign.

I bet we won't see a signature on this one either.

A successful debt deal would be his downfall.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEBT_SHOWDOWN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-07-25-12-14-43

Incorrect.  Neither has signed on to the others' bill.  It's an article about how each are going forward separately. 

There's no question that the President will sign a bill if it has anything near Reid's newest package (almost $3T in cuts, no new revenue); the real question will be to see if Boehner can deliver his caucus.  The chances of that, after all of this insanity, is approaching virtually nil, IMO.  The Tea Partiers really do want to see all of this burn. 

"We are nihilists, Lebowski!  We believe in nothing!"

[Conan71]

I think the middle in this discussion is farther right.  And because Obama's the Worst. Negotiator. Ever . . . his starting point was what he thought Boehner wanted, not farther left.  From the Dem point of view he's given up everything and consistently gotten nothing in return.  Reportedly Reid's latest offer is $2.7T in cuts with no revenue increases . . . the only thing they ask is that the ceiling get raised past the 2012 election.  That's even more than Boehner has been asking for.  From a saving-out-bacon point of view, it's a good offer, but from a giving-away-the-farm point of view, it's a total FAIL.    

I really fail to see how reigning in spending is "giving away the farm".

[we vs us]

I really fail to see how reigning in spending is "giving away the farm".

There're ways to reign in spending that don't explicitly put the burden on the backs of the poor, the old, and the infirm.  There're also ways to do it that don't endanger our's and the world's economies.

In a larger context, Obama's actually already given away the farm, because he's agreed with the Republicans that austerity is the only way out of our deficit debacle.  Rather than simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire and getting our economy back on track to produce revenue for the government.  The republican frame -- killing government further will solve our problems -- is anything but a foregone conclusion, but you wouldn't know that from how Obama and the Dems have gone along with it. 

[carltonplace]

The only part of government they dont want to shrink is their own salaries, office budgets and aides.

[Teatownclown]

You can also witness who here at TNF might be in the "dead beat" category....

Here:Al Franken Debt Ceiling Speech: What's At Stake For Our Nation

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/25/al-franken-debt-ceiling-republicans_n_908332.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

A Deadhead's smarter than a GOP/Teabagging dead beat....

[Conan71]

The only part of government they dont want to shrink is their own salaries, office budgets and aides.

And Carlton nails it.

[Gaspar]

So interesting development:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/26/house-gop-revolts-against-boehner-debt-plan/

One plan has been passed Cut-Cap-n' Balance.  All of the hoopla on Boehner's new plan and Reid's new plan turn out to be useless because neither one will pass the House.

So the only plan we have that has passed the house and now sits in the Senate is Cut-Cap-n' Balance.  If it is voted on, it is estimated to lack only 4 votes to pass.  If those senators change their minds and pass it, then it lacks one signature.

5 people now stand in the way of an agreement that would not only raise the debt ceiling to meet government's perceived requirements, but it would also force them to place a cap on spending related to the GDP (smart) and balance the budget as Clinton did.

. . .or we could just continue to play political football.

"ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL?"

[swake]

So interesting development:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/26/house-gop-revolts-against-boehner-debt-plan/

One plan has been passed Cut-Cap-n' Balance.  All of the hoopla on Boehner's new plan and Reid's new plan turn out to be useless because neither one will pass the House.

So the only plan we have that has passed the house and now sits in the Senate is Cut-Cap-n' Balance.  If it is voted on, it is estimated to lack only 4 votes to pass.  If those senators change their minds and pass it, then it lacks one signature.

5 people now stand in the way of an agreement that would not only raise the debt ceiling to meet government's perceived requirements, but it would also force them to place a cap on spending related to the GDP (smart) and balance the budget as Clinton did.

. . .or we could just continue to play political football.

"ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL?"

A balanced budget amendment is very, very stupid. How would we have been able to respond the financial crisis in 2008? How would we be able to wage war if attacked?

[nathanm]

To stoop to the level of some here: Why does the Tea Party hate America?

[swake]

To stoop to the level of some here: Why does the Tea Party hate America?

Because America expects them to pay taxes and is run by a black man. And because Newscorp/Talk Radio told them to.

The TeaParty is made of of people who are some combination of stupid, greedy, selfish, uneducated, short sighted, gullible, and/or racist. It's really that simple.  

[Gaspar]

A balanced budget amendment is very, very stupid. How would we have been able to respond the financial crisis in 2008? How would we be able to wage war if attacked?

The proposal is two fold, first it makes the cuts necessary to get spending under control, and then it caps spending to 18% of GDP, the historic standard for revenue no matter what the tax rate has been. Some would assert that Nate's precious Laugher Curve's apex is 18% because that average seems to be sustainable.

Short term spending, such as economic stimulus, or defense outlays for combat operations could still take place, however they would be greatly affected!! They would require significantly more forethought!! 

I would assume we would all be happier if it was harder for the president to bomb the smile out of a country or fill a dumpster with old pork and label it "stimulus."

[nathanm]

The proposal is two fold, first it makes the cuts necessary to get spending under control, and then it caps spending to 18% of GDP, the historic standard for revenue no matter what the tax rate has been. Some would assert that Nate's precious Laugher Curve's apex is 18% because that average seems to be sustainable.

Some would assert incorrectly. Your handlers lied to you.





Federal expenditures haven't been 18% of GDP since before 1970. It's a dumb metric to use as a hard cap anyway, as GDP always falls in a recession, which is precisely when expense on unemployment, food stamps, medicaid, jobs programs, and the like go up. And you'll note that receipts were over 18% for the entirety of the 90s, including the period in which we were running a small surplus.

18% isn't the maximum revenue we get because of some inherent magic, it's that because jackasses who don't want to pay the bills they've run up won't let revenues get that high before cutting taxes.

BTW, the Laffer curve isn't my thing. It's your man Grover's most precious, though. Surprisingly, he came out and said last week that loophole closing shouldn't be counted as a tax increase.

[Gaspar]

To stoop to the level of some here: Why does the Tea Party hate America?

Are you still beating your wife?

See, that's a really dumb question. . .I have never seen any hatred for America coming from the Tea Party.  They wave flags, carry pocket copies of the constitution given out for free.  Their symbols are the flag, effigies of the founding fathers, and the other symbols of American liberty.  It seems that they dislike anything liberal, socialist, or remotely fascist. 

The primary difference that makes people mad is that the Tea Party's foundation is a belief in the power of the individual. . .the smallest minority.  That is the opposite of the group-thought that pervades the liberal establishment. For this, I respect them as a movement, but they have no hope of ever being a political party, and I don't know if that is even their goal.  I think they just want us to get back to the fundamental principals of individual freedom that this country was founded on.

I think that if we get back to some basic fundamental principles, we can make sure that we resolve the issues. And I think that that's what the Tea Party was all about. It's getting back to a constitutional conservative government. And that is limited, but it's also effective and efficient. I think that that's what we'll be able to do. --Allen West

Some want equal opportunity for everyone, and others want equal achievement for everyone.  It depends on what you see as realistic and sustainable. 

I'm not sure where you see hatred for America in their rhetoric or if that was just a simple loaded question.

[Gaspar]

Some would assert incorrectly. Your handlers lied to you.





Federal expenditures haven't been 18% of GDP since before 1970. It's a dumb metric to use as a hard cap anyway, as GDP always falls in a recession, which is precisely when expense on unemployment, food stamps, medicaid, jobs programs, and the like go up. And you'll note that receipts were over 18% for the entirety of the 90s, including the period in which we were running a small surplus.

18% isn't the maximum revenue we get because of some inherent magic, it's that because jackasses who don't want to pay the bills they've run up won't let revenues get that high before cutting taxes.

BTW, the Laffer curve isn't my thing. It's your man Grover's most precious, though. Surprisingly, he came out and said last week that loophole closing shouldn't be counted as a tax increase.

Trend line?

[Townsend]

See, that's a really dumb question. . .I have never seen any hatred for America coming from the Tea Party. 

In cases like these "America" is subjective.

Everyone's version is different.

"Not in my country."