WSJ: Why Obama Owns the Debt-Ceiling

[spursncowboys]

Why Obama Owns the Debt-Ceiling Disaster

By Karl Rove (http://www.foxnews.com/author/karl-rove/index.html)
Published July 14, 2011
| The Wall Street Journal

President Obama (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/obama-administration/barack-obama.htm#r_src=ramp) and Congress face a mess if the federal government hits the debt ceiling Aug. 2. The Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank, projects that the government will receive $172 billion in revenues between August 3 and August 31, but it is on the hook to spend $306 billion, leaving a shortfall of $134 billion.

On Tuesday, Mr. Obama told Scott Pelley (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/reporters/scott-pelley.htm#r_src=ramp) of CBS News that "there may simply not be the money in the coffers" to issue Social Security (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/social-security.htm#r_src=ramp), veterans and disability checks after August 3.

Not so. The $172 billion in revenues collected over the rest of the month can pay the $29 billion interest charges on the national debt, Social Security benefits ($49 billion), Medicaid (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/healthcare/health-care.htm#r_src=ramp) and Medicare (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health/healthy-aging/medicare.htm#r_src=ramp) ($50 billion), active duty military pay ($2.9 billion), Department of Defense vendors ($31.7 billion), IRS refunds ($3.9 billion), and about a quarter of the $12.8 billion in unemployment checks due that month.

There will, however, be no cash for highway construction, no checks for federal workers or retirees, no agriculture payments, no open national parks. Interest rates are also likely to rise if U.S. debt is downgraded, adding massively to the deficit and further damaging the economy. This would be a disaster with no political winners.

The president wants a $2.4 trillion debt-ceiling increase to get him past next year's election—and the deal he's proposing is based on promised future cuts paired with substantial tax increases on households earning more than $250,000 a year.

House Speaker John Boehner (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/rep.-john-boehner.htm#r_src=ramp) proposed matching a debt-ceiling hike with substantial spending cuts. The Congressional Budget Office (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health-care-bill-gross-cost-of-coverage-provisions#r_src=ramp) estimates federal spending at $46.1 trillion over the next 10 years, a dramatic escalation from projections before Mr. Obama took office. Mr. Boehner's modest proposal was to trim that back 5.2% over the decade, but the president balked.

Yet the $4 trillion in deficit reduction that Mr. Obama talks about is shy on details. No one who's attended his frequent negotiating sessions knows what his proposal really is.

The president has made a bipartisan agreement even more difficult by declaring certain spending off-limits to cuts. Mr. Obama's "untouchable" list includes his $1 trillion health-care reform, $128 billion in unspent stimulus funds, education and training outlays, his $53 billion high-speed rail proposal, spending on "green" jobs and student loans, and virtually any structural changes to entitlements except further squeezing payments to doctors, hospitals and health-care professionals.

Mr. Obama has offered no evidence since becoming president that he wants to restrain the upward trajectory of government spending. He does want higher taxes to pay for significantly higher federal spending. But he wants Republicans to deliver the tax increases, since Democrats couldn't pass them last year despite controlling both chambers of Congress.
Republicans have wisely declined. Demanding the GOP vote for immediate tax increases that would be offset by vague, future tax cuts conjures up images of Charlie Brown, Lucy and the football. The tax increases would be real—the future tax rate cuts would be imaginary. And Mr. Obama has opposed any serious spending enforcement mechanisms, such as a balanced budget amendment or hard caps on spending...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304911104576443863077227784.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[spursncowboys]

(Obama's) tone also hasn't helped achieve a comprehensive agreement. The president's two most recent press conferences, in which he accused the GOP of foot-dragging, convinced Republicans that he was interested in scoring political points and attracting independents, not facilitating a deal.

[ElNono]

lol Karl Rove

Obama actually called out Boehner and said he was ready to negotiate on that $4 trillion deal. Meaning, if the GOP wanted to make changes to it, that could be arranged. But Boehner walked away from it. What Obama wants is a long term solution until the elections.

What the GOP wants is to have this shit pop up every 6 months to play more politics.

[spursncowboys]

ready to negotiate on what? Has he given what he wants to cut 4 trillion on? or is it just a number he threw out there?

[ElNono]

ready to negotiate on what? Has he given what he wants to cut 4 trillion on? or is it just a number he threw out there?

He had private negotiations with Boehner, and Boehner himself said the number was there, and the reason he wasn't going to take it is because of tax increases, and that he would rather take the $2.1 trillion Biden deal instead. The problem is that he can't get his caucus to agree.

Catch up, this was on the news last week.

[MannyIsGod]

You might want to cut him some slack considering he's in a war zone. Just sayin.

[EVAY]

Oh, yeah, Karl Rove. There's an unbiased source.

Try reading The Economist editorial that (I think it was) Random Guy posted in the thread on 60 republicans refusing any deal whatsoever.

That source is at least knowledgeable.

If I were Karl Rove, I'd try to sell what he's trying to sell, too.

Come to think of it, if I were Karl Rove, ... it's just too ugly to think about.

[ChumpDumper]

lol disaster

lol Rove

lol Murdoch

[Ignignokt]

lol Toros Janitor

[ChumpDumper]

lol my biggest fan

[ElNono]

You might want to cut him some slack considering he's in a war zone. Just sayin.

I know, that's why I'm telling him to catch up if he can. This stuff was news last week.

[spursncowboys]

Is there a good source with what obama was willing to cut?

[ElNono]

Is there a good source with what obama was willing to cut?

You should ask Boehner. He did say he was willing to make cuts and rework both Social Security and Medicare if necessary to get it done. Boehner didn't bite. Just google 'Boehner 4 trillion'.

[ElNono]

Oh, and Biden has been in negotiations on a $2.1 billion spending cut with Cantor for months.

[CosmicCowboy]

Is there a good source with what obama was willing to cut?

No

The deal was "agree to raise taxes now" and "we promise to cut a bunch of shit in the future after the election".

Anyone that says that wasn't the deal needs to post the specific cuts that were proposed by Obama to take effect immediately

[Drachen]

You should ask Boehner. He did say he was willing to make cuts and rework both Social Security and Medicare if necessary to get it done. Boehner didn't bite. Just google 'Boehner 4 trillion'.

Be careful how you spell that!

[ElNono]

Be careful how you spell that!

:lol

[ElNono]

No

The deal was "agree to raise taxes now" and "we promise to cut a bunch of shit in the future after the election".

Anyone that says that wasn't the deal needs to post the specific cuts that were proposed by Obama to take effect immediately

My understanding was that the whole thing was going to be one single bill that raised the debt-limit, include the modifications to the different plans to accommodate the cuts, and also stipulate the tax increases starting in 2014.

That cut figure was the calculated savings over a decade.

It was supposed to be an all-in-one package. According to Boehner, he stopped the negotiations when the WH wouldn't agree to bigger cuts than in the Biden deal without increasing taxes.

[Ignignokt]

lol my biggest fan

if fanaticism is enjoying a fool make a fool of himself, signed.

[spursncowboys]

No

The deal was "agree to raise taxes now" and "we promise to cut a bunch of shit in the future after the election".

Anyone that says that wasn't the deal needs to post the specific cuts that were proposed by Obama to take effect immediately
All I could find is what they wouldn't allow to be cut. Which was everything

[ChumpDumper]

if fanaticism is enjoying a fool make a fool of himself, signed.Not exactly in this case, but your signature is accepted nonetheless, fanboy.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I stopped at karl rove

[boutons_deux]

WSJ is a pitiful Murdoch rag, given huge credibility by running a Rove screed full of bullshit and lies.

[DMX7]

Too bad for Rove the polls say Repugs will get the blame from most Americans if the U.S. defaults.

[ChuckD]

lol disaster

lol Rove

lol Murdoch

This. The WSJ, like every other Murdoch rag, isn't even fit to wipe your ass with anymore. My sister and bro-in-law have been subscribers for 15 years. They just canceled and went with Bloomberg.

The only "owner" of the debt ceiling issue is Congress, and more specifically, the GOP controlled House of Representatives. They initiate all bills about matters fiscal. If this shit goes south, Obama will hang it around the GOP's necks with ease.

[Winehole23]

(deep into the madrugada)

[George Gervin's Afro]

I guess the GOP is hoping that the masses will accept, "hey, don't look at us.." defense..

[CosmicCowboy]

There won't be a default. Obama will finally fold and they will come up with 2 trillion in cuts without any tax increase.

[DMX7]

Republicans are more likely to feel Americans' scorn than will President Barack Obama if no resolution is found to the US debt limit crisis, according to a poll released on Thursday.

Quinnipiac University pollsters said 48 percent of voters said they will blame Republicans if the debt ceiling is not raised, as opposed to 34 percent who will fault Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/approval-obama-over-republicans-debt-limit-poll-131656487.html

[Crookshanks]

Republicans are more likely to feel Americans' scorn than will President Barack Obama if no resolution is found to the US debt limit crisis, according to a poll released on Thursday.

Quinnipiac University pollsters said 48 percent of voters said they will blame Republicans if the debt ceiling is not raised, as opposed to 34 percent who will fault Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/approval-obama-over-republicans-debt-limit-poll-131656487.html

That's because many, many Americans are stupid and they believe the hype and crap coming out of the Oval Office; especially since the mainstream media is doing everything they can to protect the incompetent idiot who is currently occupying that office.

[baseline bum]

That's because many, many Americans are stupid and they believe the hype and crap coming out of the Oval Office; especially since the mainstream media is doing everything they can to protect the incompetent idiot who is currently occupying that office.

Huh? Fox does nothing but trash him.

[MannyIsGod]

I know that when I see Crookshanks in a thread I will have proof that indeed, many Americans are stupid.

[George Gervin's Afro]

That's because many, many Americans are stupid and they believe the hype and crap coming out of the Oval Office; especially since the mainstream media is doing everything they can to protect the incompetent idiot who is currently occupying that office.


the president is proposing a plan that reduces spending and raises revenue coming to the govt. this is the only realistic way to deal with the deficit..Most Americans are smart enough to know this... hence why they will blame the GOP

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, and liars. Remember when Crookshanks said she was leaving and then stuck to her word? Yeah, me neither.

[Blake]

That's because many, many Americans are stupid and they believe the hype and crap coming out of the Oval Office; especially since the mainstream media is doing everything they can to protect the incompetent idiot who is currently occupying that office.

if only more celebrities and sports stars would lean to the right.

[RandomGuy]

Why Obama Owns the Debt-Ceiling Disaster

By Karl Rove


Stopped reading it right there. It is hard for me to imagine anyone whose analysis or assertions that I would assign less weight to.

If you want to drink that cool-aid, be my guest. Personally, I'm not fond of being told what to think.

[CosmicCowboy]

the president is proposing a plan that reduces spending and raises revenue coming to the govt. this is the only realistic way to deal with the deficit..Most Americans are smart enough to know this... hence why they will blame the GOP

If Obama is seriously advocating cuts, the why couldn't he name ONE PROGRAM he would cut this morning when Jake Tapper asked him to give an example of cuts he is proposing?

[George Gervin's Afro]

If Obama is seriously advocating cuts, the why couldn't he name ONE PROGRAM he would cut this morning when Jake Tapper asked him to give an example of cuts he is proposing?



President Barack Obama said that every federal program and tax break should be scrutinized for potential spending cuts, in his Fourth of July weekend address to the nation Saturday.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58243.html#ixzz1SCMQS2MW

[CosmicCowboy]

In other words, he can't name one specific program that he thinks should be cut. He gives broad promises but no specifics, and you just gobble it up. It's a sound bite, not a plan.

[Winehole23]

The offer to cut the deficit by $4 trillion, plus put SS and Medicare on the table, didn't impress you?

The president's own caucus was duly impressed but then again, perhaps that's who it was really intended for. Still, GOP could've called that bluff but chose not to.

[LnGrrrR]

If Obama is seriously advocating cuts, the why couldn't he name ONE PROGRAM he would cut this morning when Jake Tapper asked him to give an example of cuts he is proposing?

Why should he tip his hand when Republicans aren't willing to agree to ANY tax raises?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

"President Barack Obama said that every federal program and tax break should be scrutinized for potential spending cuts"

He's been saying that since he was Candidate Obama. And the hot potato game continues dot dot dot

[George Gervin's Afro]

In other words, he can't name one specific program that he thinks should be cut. He gives broad promises but no specifics, and you just gobble it up. It's a sound bite, not a plan.



Weeks of negotiations led by Vice President Joseph Biden have identified deficit-reduction savings in the range of $1.7 trillion to $2 trillion in savings. But that leaves a gap of $400 billion to $700 billion to be filled, and Democrats have argued strongly that revenues must be part of the mix.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58630.html#ixzz1SCQ4WBsG

because there is a plan already on the table you dumb ass...

[George Gervin's Afro]

"President Barack Obama said that every federal program and tax break should be scrutinized for potential spending cuts"

He's been saying that since he was Candidate Obama. And the hot potato game continues dot dot dot



Weeks of negotiations led by Vice President Joseph Biden have identified deficit-reduction savings in the range of $1.7 trillion to $2 trillion in savings. But that leaves a gap of $400 billion to $700 billion to be filled, and Democrats have argued strongly that revenues must be part of the mix.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58630.html#ixzz1SCQ4WBsG

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I like how they swap "taxes" with "revenue".

[Viva Las Espuelas]

GGA, that story you linked stated "updated 7/10". Any changes to that story or is it still on the table as stated?

[CosmicCowboy]

GGA, that story you linked stated "updated 7/10". Any changes to that story or is it still on the table as stated?

There is no plan currently on the table.

[Winehole23]

Nice dodge, btw. I was talking to you.

[CosmicCowboy]

Obama WANTS to shut the government down and blame it on Congress just like Clinton did. It might work, too.

[Winehole23]

Says you. I think it's too bad the Republicans didn't take the best deal offered.

[Winehole23]

Obama offered real leadership the GOP walked away.

[Winehole23]

Putting SS and Medicare on the table before the vote is leadership.

[CosmicCowboy]

Says you. I think it's too bad the Republicans didn't take the best deal offered.

I have said all along it's going to take the holy trinity of tax increases, discretionary and military spending cuts, and entitlement cuts to seriously balance the budget.

That being said, IMHO the House IS NOT GOING TO PASS any tax increases.

Whatever deal gets done right now is going to have to be about spending.

[Winehole23]

Good answer, GG! Don't take no shit!

[CosmicCowboy]

Putting SS and Medicare on the table before the vote is leadership.

:lmao

Offering to "means test" SS and Medicare benefits was just more class warfare. That was not a serious offer.

[Winehole23]

I think it was.

[Winehole23]

Missed opportuntity fior sure.

[MannyIsGod]

Putting SS and Medicare on the table before the vote is leadership.

[MannyIsGod]

Its foolish to think its going to be solved with one piece of legislation. That being said, Obama's offer was one hell of a starting place and there's no way around that. When the GOP rejected that, they took a whole shit ton of the blame if anything goes down.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

There is no plan currently on the table.

So is GGA uninformed?

[CosmicCowboy]

So is GGA uninformed?

that's a nice way to put it...:lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

that's a nice way to put it...:lol


Weeks of negotiations led by Vice President Joseph Biden have identified deficit-reduction savings in the range of $1.7 trillion to $2 trillion in savings. But that leaves a gap of $400 billion to $700 billion to be filled, and Democrats have argued strongly that revenues must be part of the mix.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1SCQ4WBsG

keep digging cc..

[CosmicCowboy]

keep digging cc..

That's old news and off the table dumbass.

Also instead of continually regurgitating the 1.7 million number why don't you post an itemized list of the proposed cuts?

This morning Obama was asked to name some cuts he was proposing and he wouldn't even name one.

[boutons_deux]

Anybody see yet what is to be cut to arrive at $Tx savings?

When we know, that's when the politics will hit the fan.

[ElNono]

I'd like to see the list of proposed cuts that the GOP wants before raising any debt limit. I haven't seen that list either.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'd like to see the list of proposed cuts that the GOP wants before raising any debt limit. I haven't seen that list either.

Does the name Paul Ryan ring a bell?

I mean, he WAS just recently demonized by Democrats and the mainstream media...

I'm not saying it was perfect but at LEAST he had the balls to put a real plan in play.

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

[ChuckD]

Obama WANTS to shut the government down and blame it on Congress just like Clinton did. It might work, too.

You're a funny man, and don't even understand the issue. We're not talking a govt shutdown, bubba, we're talking about an economic shutdown. The difference between what you referred to and what could happen is the difference between a pebble rolling down the concrete curb in front of your house, or several gigatons of rock fragments avalanching down a mountain. Nobody but Tea Party wants to see that happen.

[baseline bum]

Does the name Paul Ryan ring a bell?

I mean, he WAS just recently demonized by Democrats and the mainstream media...

I'm not saying it was perfect but at LEAST he had the balls to put a real plan in play.

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

A real plan? By eliminating medicare and medicaid, giving huge tax breaks to the rich, and not touching the defense budget? It's the right wing equivalent to Obama coming out and saying he wants to tax everything over $250,000 at 90% and give a Cadillac to every illegal.

[MannyIsGod]

You're a funny man, and don't even understand the issue. We're not talking a govt shutdown, bubba, we're talking about an economic shutdown. The difference between what you referred to and what could happen is the difference between a pebble rolling down the concrete curb in front of your house, or several gigatons of rock fragments avalanching down a mountain. Nobody but Tea Party wants to see that happen.

Indeed

[Winehole23]

A real plan? By eliminating medicare and medicaid...
Raising the Medicare retirement age is functionally the equivalent of voucherizing Medicare for many seniors age 65 and 66. It is just like the Paul Ryan plan, but in a small increment for now. It would radically restructure Medicare as we know for millions of new retirees, and more importantly set the precedent for how to slowly voucherizing all Medicare using a series of small retirement age increases http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/07/15/raising-medicare-age-is-restructing-medicare-into-a-voucher-program/

[Winehole23]

(beefed)

[ElNono]

Does the name Paul Ryan ring a bell?

I mean, he WAS just recently demonized by Democrats and the mainstream media...

I'm not saying it was perfect but at LEAST he had the balls to put a real plan in play.

Come on, that 'real plan' isn't serious. Tax cuts?

[boutons_deux]

The Journal Becomes Fox-ified

By JOE NOCERA

It’s official. The Wall Street Journal has been Fox-ified.

It took Rupert Murdoch only three and a half years to get there, starting with the moment he acquired the paper from the dysfunctional Bancroft family in December 2007, a purchase that was completed after he vowed to protect The Journal’s editorial integrity and agreed to a (toothless) board that was supposed to make sure he kept that promise.

Fat chance of that. Within five months, Murdoch had fired the editor and installed his close friend Robert Thomson, fresh from a stint Fox-ifying The Times of London. The new publisher was Leslie Hinton, former boss of the division that published Murdoch’s British newspapers, including The News of the World. (He resigned on Friday.) Soon came the changes, swift and sure: shorter articles, less depth, an increased emphasis on politics and, weirdly, sometimes surprisingly unsophisticated coverage of business.

Along with the transformation of a great paper into a mediocre one came a change that was both more subtle and more insidious. The political articles grew more and more slanted toward the Republican party line. The Journal sometimes took to using the word “Democrat” as an adjective instead of a noun, a usage favored by the right wing. In her book, “War at The Wall Street Journal,” Sarah Ellison recounts how editors inserted the phrase “assault on business” in an article about corporate taxes under President Obama. The Journal was turned into a propaganda vehicle for its owner’s conservative views. That’s half the definition of Fox-ification.

The other half is that Murdoch’s media outlets must shill for his business interests. With the News of the World scandal, The Journal has now shown itself willing to do that, too.

As a business story, the News of the World scandal isn’t just about phone hacking and police bribery. It is about Murdoch’s media empire, the News Corporation, being at risk — along with his family’s once unshakable hold on it. The old Wall Street Journal would have been leading the pack in pursuit of that story.

Now? At first, The Journal ignored the scandal, even though, as the Murdoch biographer Michael Wolff pointed out in Adweek, it was front-page news all across Britain. Then, when the scandal was no longer avoidable, The Journal did just enough to avoid being accused of looking the other way. Blogging for Columbia Journalism Review, Dean Starkman, the media critic, described The Journal’s coverage as “obviously hamstrung, and far, far below the paper’s true capacity.”

On Friday, however, the coverage went all the way to craven. The paper published an interview with Murdoch that might as well have been dictated by the News Corporation public relations department. He was going to testify before Parliament next week, he told the Journal reporter, because “it’s important to absolutely establish our integrity.” Some of the accusations made in Parliament were “total lies.” The News Corporation had handled the scandal “extremely well in every way possible.” So had his son James, a top company executive. “When I hear something going wrong, I insist on it being put right,” he said. He was “getting annoyed” by the scandal. And “tired.” And so on.

In the article containing the interview, there was no pushback against any of these statements, even though several of them bordered on the delusional. The two most obvious questions — When did Murdoch first learn of the phone hacking at The News of the World? And when did he learn that reporters were bribing police officers for information? — went unasked. The Journal reporter had either been told not to ask those questions, or instinctively knew that he shouldn’t. It is hard to know which is worse. The dwindling handful of great journalists who remain at the paper — Mark Maremont, Alan Murray and Alix Freedman among them — must be hanging their heads in shame.

To tell you the truth, I’m hanging my head in shame too. Four years ago, when Murdoch was battling recalcitrant members of the Bancroft family to gain control of The Journal, which he had long lusted after and which he viewed as the vehicle that would finally allow him to go head-to-head against The New York Times, I wrote several columns saying that he would be a better owner than the Bancrofts.

The Bancrofts’ history of mismanagement had made The Journal vulnerable in the first place. I thought that Murdoch’s resources would stop the financial bleeding, and that his desire for a decent legacy would keep him from destroying a great newspaper.

After the family agreed to sell to him, Elisabeth Goth, the brave Bancroft heir who had long tried to get her family to fix the company, told me, “He has a tremendous opportunity, and I don’t think he’s going to blow it.” In that same column, I wrote, “The chances of Mr. Murdoch wrecking The Journal are lower than you’d think.”

Mea culpa.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/opinion/16nocera.html?_r=2&sq=foxification&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=print

[CosmicCowboy]

A real plan? By eliminating medicare and medicaid, giving huge tax breaks to the rich, and not touching the defense budget? It's the right wing equivalent to Obama coming out and saying he wants to tax everything over $250,000 at 90% and give a Cadillac to every illegal.

Did you read the actual proposal or are you just regurgitating up what some blogger/boutons told you? I'm not saying it was perfect and would please everyone but he DID put a specific plan on the table.

[baseline bum]

Did you read the actual proposal or are you just regurgitating up what some blogger/boutons told you? I'm not saying it was perfect and would please everyone but he DID put a specific plan on the table.

The roadmap is a brutal read with the constant platitudes and long circle-jerk on laissez-faire economics and American exceptionalism. It makes me want to puke when right wingers act like it was some idolized form of capitalism that made this nation rich in the 20th century, ignoring the obvious factors of America having enormous amounts of productive land protected from the rest of the world by two oceans and not decimated by two world wars worth of destruction that the rest of the first world suffered through. Hearing this guy bitch about government intrusion making health care expensive is laughable, as if all government policy is destined to make things more expensive. He has a point with the ridiculous employer-based system, but his solution to medicare is pretty much a handout to insurance companies, so I don't see where he has a leg to stand on. Meanwhile the rest of the first world has gotten its healthcare costs in line through either centralized public care (Canada, Japan, UK) or making healthcare non-profit (Germany). The roadmap reads like one big fantasy. I particularly hate his argument of public healthcare driving insurers out of the market, as if the public owes them the right to be profitable when there are far cheaper alternatives.

It blows my mind seeing Ryan on one hand complain about the lack of preventative care and then complain about clean air standards on the other. How two-faced can the guy be? As if breathing in an aerosol of heavy metals isn't a huge contributing factor to the allergy epidemic of the last 50 years. If the guy really wants a preventative solution, how about not allowing McDonalds to bribe kids with toys and get them sucked into eating french fries and drinking cokes? Or removing sodas, chips, fries and other assorted garbage from schools where parents can't monitor their kids' diets? Do something to ensure kids aren't bombared with tons of clever marketing that turns them into fatasses. Kids have always liked candy, but before TV I wonder how many of them drank sodas all day and ate 10-piece Chicken McNugget meals for dinner all the time.

And eliminating capital gains taxes so even more of the burden falls on regular workers? Spin that as anything but a direct handout to hedge fund managers. The Ryan roadmap reads like a stereotypical Republican fantasy: stick it to everything that benefits citizens, don't touch a cent of the enormous waste from our military empire and constant wars, throw in a few references to god and faith, kiss Friedman's and Hayek's asses, and push laissez-faire as the driver behind the nation's past wealth, turning a blind eye to other much larger factors. As if the people in the cess pools of American cities in the early 20th century were so well off by limited government.

[Wild Cobra]

Any solution to keep us from spiraling to doom is going to hurt several classes of people.

[ElNono]

Any solution to keep us from spiraling to doom is going to hurt several classes of people.

It should. I thought the recession would too, but it looks like some people are special.

[Ignignokt]

The roadmap is a brutal read with the constant platitudes and long circle-jerk on laissez-faire economics and American exceptionalism. It makes me want to puke when right wingers act like it was some idolized form of capitalism that made this nation rich in the 20th century, ignoring the obvious factors of America having enormous amounts of productive land protected from the rest of the world by two oceans and not decimated by two world wars worth of destruction that the rest of the first world suffered through. Hearing this guy bitch about government intrusion making health care expensive is laughable, as if all government policy is destined to make things more expensive. He has a point with the ridiculous employer-based system, but his solution to medicare is pretty much a handout to insurance companies, so I don't see where he has a leg to stand on. Meanwhile the rest of the first world has gotten its healthcare costs in line through either centralized public care (Canada, Japan, UK) or making healthcare non-profit (Germany). The roadmap reads like one big fantasy. I particularly hate his argument of public healthcare driving insurers out of the market, as if the public owes them the right to be profitable when there are far cheaper alternatives.

It blows my mind seeing Ryan on one hand complain about the lack of preventative care and then complain about clean air standards on the other. How two-faced can the guy be? As if breathing in an aerosol of heavy metals isn't a huge contributing factor to the allergy epidemic of the last 50 years. If the guy really wants a preventative solution, how about not allowing McDonalds to bribe kids with toys and get them sucked into eating french fries and drinking cokes? Or removing sodas, chips, fries and other assorted garbage from schools where parents can't monitor their kids' diets? Do something to ensure kids aren't bombared with tons of clever marketing that turns them into fatasses. Kids have always liked candy, but before TV I wonder how many of them drank sodas all day and ate 10-piece Chicken McNugget meals for dinner all the time.

And eliminating capital gains taxes so even more of the burden falls on regular workers? Spin that as anything but a direct handout to hedge fund managers. The Ryan roadmap reads like a stereotypical Republican fantasy: stick it to everything that benefits citizens, don't touch a cent of the enormous waste from our military empire and constant wars, throw in a few references to god and faith, kiss Friedman's and Hayek's asses, and push laissez-faire as the driver behind the nation's past wealth, turning a blind eye to other much larger factors. As if the people in the cess pools of American cities in the early 20th century were so well off by limited government.
You seriously have no idea of how economics works. Brazil has huge land and resources, hell africa does too. England enriched itself without many national resources. Please, don't even try arguing economics, you're a dumbfuck.

[baseline bum]

You seriously have no idea of how economics works. Brazil has huge land and resources, hell africa does too. England enriched itself without many national resources. Please, don't even try arguing economics, you're a dumbfuck.

Wow, your retarded ass made a post without homoerotic fantasies? It's a big first step for you.

[Ignignokt]

This is the reason why our economy is fucked.

1. You can have all the progressive tax structure you want, but the fact is that while you have a fiat currency backed by empty promises, the govt will have no incentive to be fiscally responsible which will give inflation. Inflation is an indirect tax on the middle and lower class. They have to pay more for the price of goods.

2. The govt will stagnate when you have a workers economy. Advocating that the producers, innovators, and ceo's who create markets be punished at the expense of a workers paradise is no way of progressing. You will have unprofitable buisinesses and largesse.

3. Social security is and was a ponzi scheme, along with medicare we're fucked. When govt got into the medical buisinesses, prices skyrocketed. Why do boob implants cost a fraction of knee surgery? One of them is insured, the other is not. Do the math. Govt intervention equals market distortions.

4. When you have govt coercion into the market whether it be through Corporations getting favorable regulation at the expense of buisiness, minimum wage laws, fractional reserve banking, forced union contracts, mandatory insurance, you take away the bargaining position of one group or the other, and either the buisinesses have no incentive to lower prices, or the workers have no interest in making their employers be profitable and sustaining.

5. If you need to understand how govt intervention distorts prices, look at college tuition.

[Ignignokt]

Wow, your retarded ass made a post without homoerotic fantasies? It's a big first step for you.

Such post would have made more sense than the bullshit workers paradise shit you're spouting. LOok at your state and it's budget, moron. And then rethink your garbage position.

[Wild Cobra]

This is the reason why our economy is fucked.

1. You can have all the progressive tax structure you want, but the fact is that while you have a fiat currency backed by empty promises, the govt will have no incentive to be fiscally responsible which will give inflation. Inflation is an indirect tax on the middle and lower class. They have to pay more for the price of goods.

2. The govt will stagnate when you have a workers economy. Advocating that the producers, innovators, and ceo's who create markets be punished at the expense of a workers paradise is no way of progressing. You will have unprofitable buisinesses and largesse.

3. Social security is and was a ponzi scheme, along with medicare we're fucked. When govt got into the medical buisinesses, prices skyrocketed. Why do boob implants cost a fraction of knee surgery? One of them is insured, the other is not. Do the math. Govt intervention equals market distortions.

4. When you have govt coercion into the market whether it be through Corporations getting favorable regulation at the expense of buisiness, minimum wage laws, fractional reserve banking, forced union contracts, mandatory insurance, you take away the bargaining position of one group or the other, and either the buisinesses have no incentive to lower prices, or the workers have no interest in making their employers be profitable and sustaining.

5. If you need to understand how govt intervention distorts prices, look at college tuition.
Too bad all this is too logical for the typical liberal to understand.

[ElNono]

Not to mention not necessarily true.

I'm going to repeat that I'm not a fan of the FIAT economy, but the biggest inflation experienced in this country all happened during the gold standard era (1917-1920, 1945).

Inflation for the most part has been pretty low since 1981.

The other part that's really debatable is whether all government intervention is bad. You don't have to look further than the recent property bubble for lack of adequate regulation.
It can be good or bad. Depends on the situation.

There are certain things where the free market is really shitty at, simply because the priorities cannot be returning a profit to shareholders. Lots of countries figured that one out with healthcare a long time ago. Canada, for example, used to be under a pile of debt and they turned it around (the have had budget surpluses for a while and been paying down their debt, along with keeping unemployment at around 6%) all the while not needing to 'privatize' their public healthcare.

The reason our economy is fucked is because both parties talk the talk, but never walk the walk. The last time we had an administration that did do what needed to be done as far as cuts and attempting to balance the budget was Clinton/GOP Congress before dubya. All things considered, that's pretty recent. And it proves that when the good intentions are there, things can get done. Unfortunately this is a very shitty generation of politicians, on both sides of the aisle.

When part of the solution proposed for fixing the deficit is more tax cuts you're just not being realistic.

[baseline bum]

1. You can have all the progressive tax structure you want, but the fact is that while you have a fiat currency backed by empty promises, the govt will have no incentive to be fiscally responsible which will give inflation. Inflation is an indirect tax on the middle and lower class. They have to pay more for the price of goods.


If you want to complain about inflation lately, look to the oil traders sending food and transportation costs through the roof.



2. The govt will stagnate when you have a workers economy. Advocating that the producers, innovators, and ceo's who create markets be punished at the expense of a workers paradise is no way of progressing. You will have unprofitable buisinesses and largesse.

....

4. When you have govt coercion into the market whether it be through Corporations getting favorable regulation at the expense of buisiness, minimum wage laws, fractional reserve banking, forced union contracts, mandatory insurance, you take away the bargaining position of one group or the other, and either the buisinesses have no incentive to lower prices, or the workers have no interest in making their employers be profitable and sustaining.


Germany destroys the rightwing myth that workers can't made good wages and have decent job security and worker rights. And also that unions make people lazy.



3. Social security is and was a ponzi scheme, along with medicare we're fucked. When govt got into the medical buisinesses, prices skyrocketed. Why do boob implants cost a fraction of knee surgery? One of them is insured, the other is not. Do the math. Govt intervention equals market distortions.


Did you just really compare inserting a bag of saline to repairing ligaments and joints?



5. If you need to understand how govt intervention distorts prices, look at college tuition.
You're ignoring the death of what was the backbone of our economy: manufacturing. You could cut every cent of subsidized student aid and there would still be an enormous demand for college degrees without those manufacturing jobs and with a shitty secondary school system that does very little in the way of teaching practical work skills as an alternative to college. You think the banks that gave ninja mortgage loans for closing costs would have been scared of providing student loans before the 2008 crash? Even now, the schools will keep bending over backwards to maintain student enrollment via grade inflation to keep the banks making loans.

EDIT: Apparently the Pell Grant is on average about $3700 for those who qualify (capped above at $5500, below at $550). I suppose at a school like UTSA you could probably get by on $10,000-$12,000 a year for a full courseload, fees, books, computer, and transportation by really pinching pennies, but that doesn't explain a school like Baylor having its costs rise at the level they have the last 15 years.

[MannyIsGod]

If you need to see how government intervention distorts prices look no further than energy deregulation. If you want to see how government intervention distorts prices look no further than Medicare.

Tuition isn't about government intervention at all. Its about an exploding population and growing demand for a limited resource due to lower skilled labor jobs being moved overseas due to globalization. In other words, Its the exact opposite of rising due to government intervention.

[Winehole23]

When part of the solution proposed for fixing the deficit is more tax cuts you're just not being realistic.This can't be stressed enough right now.

[Winehole23]

You think the pucker is bad now? Just wait. The really bad news hasn't been announced yet, and even then, it will be years before people understand it well enough to misrepresent it to others. It all goes back to the hot minute in 2008 where it looked like our system of payment might fail without substantial public support.

[Winehole23]

Too bad prompt action laws didn't work. Could have used one back there.

[Winehole23]

Lack of risk transparency is a bitch.

[Winehole23]

Here come the aftershocks.

[DMX7]

That being said, IMHO the House IS NOT GOING TO PASS any tax increases.

Whatever deal gets done right now is going to have to be about spending.

Too bad the repugs have proposed only an ultimatum, not a "deal".

Thankfully, the American people know this (if only because they've been told repeatedly by Obama & the media), and that's why the repugs will get the majority of the blame if we do default.

[boutons_deux]

The House tea bagger mob's destructive/obstructive refusal to raise taxes or the deficit ceiling proves beyond a doubt they are proxies for the under-taxed Kock/VRWC/Wall St crowd, not representing the best interests of their districts.

[RandomGuy]

Honestly, at this point I would not put deliberately ruining the economy for the sole purpose of benefiting in the 2012 election past the Republicans in Congress. I used to not be that cynical.

[RandomGuy]

[re-hashed partisan talking-point garbage masquerading as "logic"]

:sleep

[boutons_deux]

"I used to not be that cynical."

bandwaggoner! :)

[CosmicCowboy]

Honestly, at this point I would not put deliberately ruining the economy for the sole purpose of benefiting in the 2012 election past the Republicans in Congress. I used to not be that cynical.

You could say the exact same thing about Obama.

[MannyIsGod]

You could say the exact same thing about Obama.

If you ignore the proposal he's made then sure. But that requires some willful ignorance.

[RandomGuy]

You could say the exact same thing about Obama.

I could.

But I would be foolish to do so, since presidents, even more than Congress, become identified with the economy in general, arguably with less logical linking.

Given, however, the stated intention of the GOP to "destroy" Obama, one has to wonder just how far they would go to do so.

[CosmicCowboy]

The fact is, before August 2nd it appears that he will have a couple of different options (one from the House and one from the Senate) available to him to raise the debt ceiling that don't involve raising taxes. The question is what will he do then?

[Winehole23]

Each side characterizes the other as illegitimate. Collegiality and decorum are out, demonization and hysterical denunciation are in.

Enjoy!

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-a-three-part-deal-on-the-debt-ceiling/2011/07/18/gIQAKoRZLI_blog.html

[Winehole23]

The fact is, before August 2nd it appears that he will have a couple of different options (one from the House and one from the Senate) available to him to raise the debt ceiling that don't involve raising taxes. The question is what will he do then?True. We're still waiting to see what comes out in the wash.

[MannyIsGod]

Pretty shitty punt, IMO. For all the GOP talk about actually getting something done this is more of the same. No one can say they didn't have a chance. No one.

[Winehole23]

Thanks for the topical update, Manny.

[boutons_deux]

If Ezra Klein is right, the Repugs look to be stretching out the bogus deficit panic "framing" with the mulit-step/multi-vote bullshit so that it distracts from doing real work on getting the economy moving again, not that anybody at this point could imagine that the Repugs have the slightest interest in anything but prolonging/deepening the Banksters' Great Depression. We know from 8 years of dubya, the Repugs are 100% against governing.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-a-three-part-deal-on-the-debt-ceiling/2011/07/18/gIQAKoRZLI_blog.html

More kicking the can down the road and gamesmanship. :vomit:

[spursncowboys]

You could say the exact same thing about Obama.
Especially since he voted to not raise the debt ceiling when he was in congress. Also with him being the leader of the Dem's and they couldn't pass a bill to raise taxes, when they controlled the big three.

[ChumpDumper]

Especially since he voted to not raise the debt ceiling when he was in congress. Also with him being the leader of the Dem's and they couldn't pass a bill to raise taxes, when they controlled the big three.They passed bills to lower taxes during the depths of the recession. What makes you think they were trying to raise taxes back then?

[boutons_deux]

"the Dem's and they couldn't pass a bill to raise taxes"

bullshit. The DINO Dems like Chief Horse's Ass Ben Nelson, Lieberman, etc meant the Dems never had 60 votes in the Senate.

[baseline bum]

I find it hilarious that the Eric Cantor who voted for Bush's Medicare Part D plan (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll332.xml) is now all of a sudden so worried about deficit spending when there isn't a Republican in the white house. The Democrats should have an easy case to make before voters for 2012: namely, that the Republicans are holding guns to the nation's heads and threatening to take the whole economy down the same way the banks did in 2008. Then again, I'm not holding my breath waiting for competency from the jackasses who couldn't get a decent health bill passed with a supermajority in the senate and control of the house and executive branch.

[Wild Cobra]

Back to something in the OP:

Yet the $4 trillion in deficit reduction that Mr. Obama talks about is shy on details. No one who's attended his frequent negotiating sessions knows what his proposal really is.
Talk is cheap. My understanding is he has only outlined $2 billion of this fantasized $4 billion.

[cheguevara]

I stopped at karl rove

[coyotes_geek]

I find it hilarious that the Eric Cantor who voted for Bush's Medicare Part D plan (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll332.xml) is now all of a sudden so worried about deficit spending when there isn't a Republican in the white house. The Democrats should have an easy case to make before voters for 2012: namely, that the Republicans are holding guns to the nation's heads and threatening to take the whole economy down the same way the banks did in 2008. Then again, I'm not holding my breath waiting for competency from the jackasses who couldn't get a decent health bill passed with a supermajority in the senate and control of the house and executive branch.

republicans = democrats = really worried about defecits when someone from the other team is in the WH

On another note, if we just get rid of medicare D entirely, there's $1 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years. Seems like a good place to start.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-a-three-part-deal-on-the-debt-ceiling/2011/07/18/gIQAKoRZLI_blog.htmlSo they're going to pass resolutions to disapprove of Obama's using a power they approved of giving him.

No, they aren't playing politics at all.

[boutons_deux]

"if we just get rid of medicare D entirely"

and the other Repug subsidy for the corps, Medicare Advantage, about 12% more expensive than Medicare.

[CosmicCowboy]

So they're going to pass resolutions to disapprove of Obama's using a power they approved of giving him.

No, they aren't playing politics at all.

And Obama pretending to be a deficit hawk isn't playing politics? :lol

[LnGrrrR]

Back to something in the OP:

Talk is cheap. My understanding is he has only outlined $2 billion of this fantasized $4 billion.

And exactly how many taxes have the Republicans said they will support?

Why should Obama outline every cut he wants to make, opening himself to criticism in those areas, when the Republicans won't even agree to more taxes?

[ChumpDumper]

And Obama pretending to be a deficit hawk isn't playing politics? :lolIs he not proposing cuts?

[Ignignokt]

Making a promise which got you elected is playing politics.. but comprimising and thinking about reelection is not. Got it!

[ChumpDumper]

The Republicans promised to give Obama the power to raise the debt ceiling?

Link, please.

[CosmicCowboy]

Is he not proposing cuts?


Knowing that tax increases were impossible to pass in the house, was it really a serious proposal to link unspecified cuts to specified tax increases?

And assuming he believed in those (unspecified) cuts, why aren't those cuts still on the table?

[ChumpDumper]

Knowing that tax increases were impossible to pass in the house, was it really a serious proposal to link unspecified cuts to specified tax increases?

And assuming he believed in those (unspecified) cuts, why aren't those cuts still on the table?Are all cuts off the table now?

Link, please.

[CosmicCowboy]

Are all cuts off the table now?

Link, please.

I'm sure that if the President wanted to add additional cuts to the 1.5T already identified by Biden and the House his input would certainly be considered. Link to where Obama wants to add more cuts to the 1.5T?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm sure that if the President wanted to add additional cuts to the 1.5T already identified by Biden and the House his input would certainly be considered. Link to where Obama wants to add more cuts to the 1.5T?So you're walking back from your position that all cuts are now off the table.

OK.

[CosmicCowboy]

So you're walking back from your position that all cuts are now off the table.

OK.

If there is an offer on the table from the President for budget cuts that aren't linked to tax increases then post it.

Put up or shut the fuck up.

[MannyIsGod]

I linked such an offer above.

[MannyIsGod]

But the qualification, in itself, is telling.

[Ignignokt]

The Republicans promised to give Obama the power to raise the debt ceiling?

Link, please.

They didn't. They promise to object to raising the debt limit.

[ChumpDumper]

If there is an offer on the table from the President for budget cuts that aren't linked to tax increases then post it.

Put up or shut the fuck up.Why the walkback, CC?


They didn't. They promise to object to raising the debt limit.Really? They promised that? Link, please.

[CosmicCowboy]

No walkback involved Chump.

[ChumpDumper]

No walkback involved Chump.You walked back from saying there were no cuts on the table to saying there are at least $1.5T in cuts on the table.

I'll just accept you don't really know.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You walked back from saying there were no cuts on the table to saying there are at least $1.5T in cuts on the table.

I'll just accept you don't really know.

cc was telling me the other day there was no plan...when there was one

[Winehole23]

The GOP already passed on the best deal offered, but it might have been an political winner for Obama too. Can't have that.

[LnGrrrR]

The Republican definition of compromise involves demanding the other side give in at all times.

"Democrats, you take the time to propose all cuts, opening yourself up to criticism, and we make no promise to agree to raising taxes in the slightest. However, we do promise to maybe perhaps look at the idea of creating a small group that might perhaps look at MAYBE maybe raising taxes.

But probably not."

[CosmicCowboy]

You walked back from saying there were no cuts on the table to saying there are at least $1.5T in cuts on the table.

I'll just accept you don't really know.

I'll just accept that you have reading comprehension issues.

[boutons_deux]

Meanwhille, the Repug House assholes have a symbolic vote today, grandstanding for their asshole base, rather than doing serious work. Their kind of "govt IS the problem". :lol

Inhofe, hired climate change denier, has a proposal to cut $9T, nothing but grandstanding for the ignorant bubba Okies.

[ChumpDumper]

I'll just accept that you have reading comprehension issues.What did I read wrong, CC?

You said there were no cuts on the table, then said there were cuts on the table.

[CosmicCowboy]

What did I read wrong, CC?

You said there were no cuts on the table, then said there were cuts on the table.

God damn you can be dense sometime.

Obama has NO firm offer listing specific cuts he would accept on the table, not to mention that any general cuts he may have insinuated could be offered were directly linked to tax increases that he knew could not possibly get passed in the House.

That's not an offer, that's talking points for gullible people like you.

[CosmicCowboy]

What did I read wrong, CC?

You said there were no cuts on the table, then said there were cuts on the table.

God damn you can be dense sometime.

Obama has NO firm offer listing specific cuts he would accept on the table, not to mention that any general cuts he may have insinuated could be offered were directly linked to tax increases that he knew could not possibly get passed in the House.

That's not an offer, that's internet talking points for gullible people like you.

[ChumpDumper]

God damn you can be dense sometime.

Obama has NO firm offer listing specific cuts he would accept on the table, not to mention that any general cuts he may have insinuated could be offered were directly linked to tax increases that he knew could not possibly get passed in the House.

That's not an offer, that's internet talking points for gullible people like you.So you're back to saying no cuts are on the table.

:lol

http://randylewis.org/102707%2001%20Waffle%20King.jpg

[CosmicCowboy]

Meh, go eat your peas. I didn't realize you were that gullible. Guess I was wrong.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't realize you couldn't make up your mind about this. Guess I was wrong.

[coyotes_geek]

Meanwhile, Coburn & Lieberman put out their own plan yesterday.

$9 trillion total defecit reduction over the next 10 years.

$1 trillion in new tax revenue via getting rid of deductions & loopholes
$1 trillion in defense spending cuts
$2.6 trillion in entitlement savings (includes retirement ages for both SS&M going up, as well as instituting medicare deductibles which increase with income)

Can't seem to find any details about where the other $4.4T would come from.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/Coburn-Releases-9T-Deficit-Reduction-Plan-207408-1.html?pos=hmp

EDIT: More details available on Coburn's website.

http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=ac3f0d39-1cc2-4bac-b170-42fc20111974 (summary table)

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/back-in-black-a-deficit-reduction-plan (specifics)

[Winehole23]

Using CC's logic, simply by citing provisions as toxic to one caucus (revenue enhancers) or another (raising retirement age for SS and Medicare), this too could be dismissed as a non-starter.

[CosmicCowboy]

Using CC's logic, simply by citing provisions as toxic to one caucus (revenue enhancers) or another (raising retirement age for SS and Medicare), this too could be dismissed as a non-starter.

Oh, it's ABSOLUTELY a non-starter.

No way in hell any of that passes as is with either party.

[boutons_deux]

Darrell Issa: Debt Deadline Is ‘Artificial’ Date Obama Is Using To ‘Extort’ A Deal From Congress

Congressional Republicans continue to doubt President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s urgings that Treasury will exhaust its ability to keep the country beneath its statutory debt limit on Aug. 2. While Treasury was able to find ways to push back earlier deadlines, the Aug. 2 date is the “drop dead date,” according to Geithner and other Treasury officials.

So far, however, the questioning has come mainly from talk radio hosts and backbench Republicans who lack any real influence in the party. Their attacks, that deadline is Aug. 2 so Obama can celebrate Ramadan or have celebrities perceive him as a hero at his birthday party, have been easily dismissed. But Monday, the first attack came from a member of House leadership when Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, claimed on Southern California Public Radio that Aug. 2 was an “artificial deadline” Obama was using to “extort a deal” out of Congress:

“We should not be having a discussion with a artificial deadline of August 2nd, set by the President so the President can extort a deal through his reelection period. That’s not right, it’s not what the American people expect us to do.”

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/19/272826/darrell-issa-debt-deadline-is-artificial-date-obama-is-using-to-extort-a-deal-from-congress/

[coyotes_geek]

Using CC's logic, simply by citing provisions as toxic to one caucus (revenue enhancers) or another (raising retirement age for SS and Medicare), this too could be dismissed as a non-starter.

Probably. Although it does present kind of a paradox. There needs to be a deal. It's inevitable that any such deal will include provisions that will piss off a bunch of people.

So what's a congress-critter to do? Tell everyone what's going on and risk passage when your congressional collegues start getting angry phone calls from their constituents? Or just do everything behind closed doors until it's all over and tell the masses "here's your plan, deal with it"?

[boutons_deux]

Barry pissing off Medicare recipients is gonna cost Barry more than the Repugs pissing off their asshole base.

[coyotes_geek]

Hence republicans taking the approach of "here's our plan, where's yours" and obama/democrats taking one of "your plan is mean".

[LnGrrrR]

Hence republicans taking the approach of "here's our plan, where's yours" and obama/democrats taking one of "your plan is mean".

You could easily reverse that. Obama said, "Here's my plan" and Republicans said, "Taxes? NOOO!!!!!!" :lol

The Republicans plan has spending cuts, mostly on things that Democrats favor. I'm pretty sure if the Dems came up with a plan to reduce savings that only cut defense spending, and then raised taxes on individuals and businesses, Republicans would rightly skewer them.

[coyotes_geek]

You could easily reverse that. Obama said, "Here's my plan" and Republicans said, "Taxes? NOOO!!!!!!" :lol

The Republicans plan has spending cuts, mostly on things that Democrats favor. I'm pretty sure if the Dems came up with a plan to reduce savings that only cut defense spending, and then raised taxes on individuals and businesses, Republicans would rightly skewer them.

No doubt. republicans = democrats.

[baseline bum]

You could easily reverse that. Obama said, "Here's my plan" and Republicans said, "Taxes? NOOO!!!!!!" :lol

The Republicans plan has spending cuts, mostly on things that Democrats favor and Republicans favor when Republicans are in the white house. I'm pretty sure if the Dems came up with a plan to reduce savings that only cut defense spending, and then raised taxes on individuals and businesses, Republicans would rightly skewer them.

fify

[Winehole23]

So what's a congress-critter to do? Tell everyone what's going on and risk passage when your congressional collegues start getting angry phone calls from their constituents? Or just do everything behind closed doors until it's all over and tell the masses "here's your plan, deal with it"?It doesn't matter which way they do it. They're poltiicians. We elect them to make hard decisions. It's time for both sides to show some testicular fortitude, face their responsibility, and make a deal.

[boutons_deux]

WH still lost in idealist's cloud-cuckoo land.

[Winehole23]

I didn't say they would do it. Just they need to.

[boutons_deux]

come on, you know they won't.

The current batch of "swearing" Repug VRWC-proxy extremists don't "need to" do anything except fuck up govt to the max.

[ElNono]

It doesn't matter which way they do it. They're poltiicians. We elect them to make hard decisions. It's time for both sides to show some testicular fortitude, face their responsibility, and make a deal.

They'll be happy to make the 'hard decision' to enable another government power to make the hard decision. smh.

[boutons_deux]

Wall Street starts to lose its debt ceiling cool

Adding to the market woes were indications that, after months of shrugging off the debate over the U.S. debt ceiling, investors are getting edgy over Washington inaction ahead of an Aug. 2 deadline.... financial markets are showing classic signs of contagion: Investors, worried about troubles in one place, sell in another, creating a downward spiral that feeds on itself.

At Bloomberg, William Cohan captures the tension in another flashback-inducing snapshot:

Indeed, investors' manic desire for safety last week reached levels not seen since the most acute days of the financial crisis in September and October 2008. Ironically, though, given the pathetic display in Washington and the country's ongoing fiscal troubles, people turned in droves to the perceived security of the U.S. Treasury market, even though it has never looked shakier.

That's worth repeating. Investors, terrified of European instability, are pouring their cash into U.S. Treasuries, even as the U.S. government is doing all it can to undermine the integrity of its own finances.

http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/07/19/wall_street_loses_its_debt_ceiling_cool/index.html

[Wild Cobra]

Inhofe, hired climate change denier, has a proposal to cut $9T, nothing but grandstanding for the ignorant bubba Okies.
In didn't know there was $9T to be found in climate change legislation. But if there is, I say do it!

[Winehole23]

They'll be happy to make the 'hard decision' to enable another government power to make the hard decision. smh.Punting to the president isn't a hard decision -- it's cowardice.

[boutons_deux]

130 Republicans Who Are In Congress Today Voted To Hike The Debt Ceiling Under Bush Without Hostage Threats

MR. FLEISCHER: The Senate passed, 68-29, a clean increase in the debt limit. The President praises the Senate’s action. The debt limit is a very important issue. This is not the time to play any — this is not the time to engage in any activities that could in any way raise questions about the full faith and credit of the United States. And the President urges the House to follow the Senate’s action on this matter.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/19/273349/130-republicans-voted-debt/

=========

7 raises under dubya

18 raises under St Ronnie

under Barry? P A N I C ! ! !

[boutons_deux]

Gang Of Six Plan Reduces Social Security Benefits By $1,300 A Year, Cuts Corporate Tax Rates

the proposal will actually be scored as a $1.5 trillion tax cut under current law (with the Bush tax cuts set to expire in 2012)

Yesterday, President Obama all but endorsed the deficit reduction plan outlined by the Gang of Six senators. The plan still faces numerous obstacles — it’s incredibly vague on the details, has critics on both sides of the aisle, and may not even be ready by the Aug. 2 default deadline. Liberal Democrats have pointed out the plan is far from a balanced approach, asking seniors and the working poor to bear the brunt of the pain without asking the wealthy or corporations to sacrifice at all.

Two members of the Gang of Six, Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) were positively crowing about the conservative bona fides of their plan yesterday on MSNBC. Because the proposal will actually be scored as a $1.5 trillion tax cut under current law (with the Bush tax cuts set to expire in 2012), they are confident that House Republicans, who have vowed never to vote for a tax increase, will go for it.

Watch it:

The Congressional Budget Office will score the plan as a $1.5 trillion tax cut, as it lowers the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to between 23 and 29 percent, eliminates the alternative minimum tax, and lowers personal income tax rates. But by closing loopholes, the Gang of Six says they’ll raise $1.3 trillion in revenue.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/20/273830/gang-of-six-plan-reduces-social-security-benefits-by-1300-a-year-cuts-corporate-tax-rates/

[CosmicCowboy]

The 1.3 trillion dollar question is what deductions they will kill. Mortgage interest? State Income tax? Individual and child deductions? They aren't gonna get that kind of jack from taxing corporate jets and closing "loopholes".

[Winehole23]

Details would be nice.

[boutons_deux]

cutting Soc Sec payout? figures.

financial sector, capitalists will be untouched, will be enriched, while the old, sick, poor, young, disabled will all pay for the Banksters' Great Depression, for the Repugs' tax cuts, and the Repug botched/bogus wars of choice.

[boutons_deux]

Anger at government highest in 19 years: poll

Dissatisfaction and anger with the federal government are at a nearly 20-year high, according to the results of a new ABC News/Washington Post poll released Wednesday.

When asked how they felt about the federal government, 80 percent of poll respondents said that they felt dissatisfied or even angry about the work the government is doing. The last time such a peak of ill will was felt was during 1992's economic slump, under President George Bush's leadership.

The public's slumping opinion of the country's political class can be actively attributed to the negotiations surrounding the debt ceiling: The dissatisfaction numbers rocketed up 11 points between this month and last.

Indeed, congressional Republicans are facing the fire of poor public opinion. The ABC News/Washington Post poll shows a 28 percent approval rating for them, with 77 percent of participants saying the Republican leadership is unwilling to negotiate, further slowing debt talks.

A CBS poll released earlier this week is even darker for the Republicans — they garnered only a 21 percent approval rating in that poll.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/20/anger-at-government-highest-in-19-years-poll/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

========

It looks like at least some Human-Americans are paying attention and hearing/observing correctly that the Repubs are obstructionists/extortionists here, and will be the big losers in a default.

[coyotes_geek]

The 1.3 trillion dollar question is what deductions they will kill. Mortgage interest? State Income tax? Individual and child deductions? They aren't gonna get that kind of jack from taxing corporate jets and closing "loopholes".

Nonsense. It's well known that evil corporations and the rich get 100% of all tax breaks and not one of them pays so much as a penny in taxes. It's time for shared sacrifice (i.e. raising someone else's taxes and cutting someone else's benefits).

[Kamala]

cutting Soc Sec payout? figures.

financial sector, capitalists will be untouched, will be enriched, while the old, sick, poor, young, disabled will all pay for the Banksters' Great Depression, for the Repugs' tax cuts, and the Repug botched/bogus wars of choice.

That pretty much nails the conservative agenda.:toast

[boutons_deux]

Soc Sec is easy to fix,not that it's immediately broken.

Just remove the cap of $106K, et voila, c'est fait.

-$1300/year over 15 years = $19,500. I'm sure plenty of senior will be missing that $100/month and splitting more pills, and not taking their meds, eating more beans.
This Is America, The Greatest Country In The Universe.

[Wild Cobra]

Soc Sec is easy to fix,not that it's immediately broken.

Just remove the cap of $106K, et voila, c'est fait.

-$1300/year over 15 years = $19,500. I'm sure plenty of senior will be missing that $100/month and splitting more pills, and not taking their meds, eating more beans.
This Is America, The Greatest Country In The Universe.
I haven't kept up with the ideas floating around for SS, but keep in mind two things. See where the "grandfathering" lies at with new legislative ideas, and remember it isn't meant to secure a good living. It is meant to keep people food and housed who didn't or couldn't save for themselves.

I'm curious. How much money do you think removing the cap will add? It's really not going to get the evil rich like you want, because most already don't pay into a normal tax system like the rest of us. What about government employees who don't pay into it? There are exclusions to the SS system you know.

Ever see the math?

If people pay more into a retirement system, are you then advocating they get more out, or is it another Marxist idea you have?

[Winehole23]

will the mercurial President sign the deal or kill it?


Congress and the White House are on the brink of an agreement that would raise the debt limit until July 31, 2021 and increase government spending for two years, according to people briefed on the discussions.


The deal that is in the final stages of negotiation would offset about $75 billion of the spending increase, giving the Trump administration and Republicans about half of the savings they sought, the people said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-22/crunch-week-for-debt-limit-leaves-little-time-for-budget-deal

[Winehole23]

Conservative budget math for the President supervising a $1 trillion debt: raise spending by $350 billion, offset ~$75 billion

[CosmicCowboy]

Conservative budget math for the President supervising a $1 trillion debt: raise spending by $350 billion, offset ~$75 billion

Pretty irresponsible by both parties.

[Winehole23]

Trump blew a gaping hole in US revenues with the tax cut, but yeah, both sides.

[boutons_deux]

will the mercurial President sign the deal or kill it?


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-22/crunch-week-for-debt-limit-leaves-little-time-for-budget-deal (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-22/crunch-week-for-debt-limit-leaves-little-time-for-budget-deal)

"Trump officials have been pushing to offset that spending increase for the military and domestic agency budgets with

savings in entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid :lol duh, of courseTrump in the past has decided last minute to scuttle other deals negotiated on behalf of his administration.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-22/crunch-week-for-debt-limit-leaves-little-time-for-budget-deal (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-22/crunch-week-for-debt-limit-leaves-little-time-for-budget-deal)

yes, citizens pay for Medicare / Medicaid so they are entitled to get it.Note the anti-American, unpatriotic Capitalists PAY NOTHING from the Capital gains for the social costs, and they greatly reduced taxes on Capital gains that they don't hide.

[Pavlov]

Pretty irresponsible by both parties.What happened those two years one party controlled everything?

[CosmicCowboy]

What happened those two years one party controlled everything?

it takes 60 to control the senate.

[Pavlov]

it takes 60 to control the senate.Seriously? this is your excuse?

[CosmicCowboy]

Seriously? this is your excuse?

Simple fact. 51 can control what goes to the floor but it generally takes 60 to get anything passed. You weren't aware of this?

[Pavlov]

Simple fact. 51 can control what goes to the floor but it generally takes 60 to get anything passed. You weren't aware of this?What was the Senate vote on the tax cuts?

[CosmicCowboy]

Also, it's typically only the party out of power that "cares" about the deficit.

It why you are suddenly a deficit hawk :lol

[Pavlov]

Also, it's typically only the party out of power that "cares" about the deficit.

It why you are suddenly a deficit hawk :lolWhy are you suddenly not a deficit hawk anymore?

[CosmicCowboy]

Why are you suddenly not a deficit hawk anymore?

I'm disgusted with both parties.

[Pavlov]

I'm disgusted with both parties.But you're not a deficit hawk anymore. Why not?

[Winehole23]

Debt/deficit/spending no longer an existential problem since 2016. Hyperinflation no longer lurks just around the corner.

Did CC change his mind about fiscal/monetary policy, or did aomething else change?

[CosmicCowboy]

https://www.rt.com/business/464928-dollar-dominance-over-jpmorgan/

[Pavlov]

The citations from WSJ under Black President to RT today under Trump are the perfect bookends for the mental deterioration of right wing America.

[CosmicCowboy]

Your stupid is showing. The only way presidents can effect budgets is by vetoing them. Congress controls the money.

[spurraider21]

Your stupid is showing. The only way presidents can effect budgets is by vetoing them. Congress controls the money.
when was the last time congress overrode a president's veto to pass a budget bill?