Economist: blame for deficit negotiation impasse directly at the feet of Republicans

Boehner backing down off $4 trillion figure for debt reduction

An effort to craft a broad deal of up to $4 trillion in deficit-reduction appeared out of reach on Saturday as Republican leader John Boehner cited differences with the White House on taxes and proposed pursuing a more modest package.

"Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes," Boehner, the speaker of the House of Representatives and the top Republican in Congress, said in a statement.

"I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure."

========

Hey, Boner, where are the jobs?

The Greatest Fucking Empire In The History Of The Universe feeds itself:

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...une%20SNAP.png

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...une%20SNAP.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

From what I read, the WH offered $4 trillion over the next decade in spending cuts + some tax increases, but Boehner rather take a $2 trillion (over a decade) spending cut deal with no tax increases that was offered by Biden a while back.

Which to me signals that the GOP is more concerned about the popular perception of the measures than actually finding a solution to balancing the budget, a necessary step before you can move on to an actual surplus to pay off debt. Not unexpected, tbh, with an electoral season looming.

---

You have to remember a difference in thinking. Anything less than a 10% increase annual, the democrats claim is a cut. I'm sure that's part of the $4t they are referring to.

US budget talks stall over tax dispute

Republicans in Congress on Saturday pulled out of talks over an ambitious plan to cut US deficits by $4,000bn over 10 years because of the party’s opposition to new tax rises sought by Democrats.

The development means that congressional leaders, who are due to meet President Barack Obama on Sunday, will seek to strike a smaller $2,000bn deal to shrink US debt and increase America’s borrowing limit, thereby avoiding a possible default.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f72db...#axzz1RiSAXG99

==========

The Repug thought leader chimes in on wanting, encouraging the financial apocalypse:

Limbaugh Ushers Listeners Into Fantasyland On Debt-Ceiling Risks

Rush Limbaugh has falsely suggested that there would be no adverse consequences for failing to raise the federal government's debt ceiling, claiming that because the government takes in enough revenue to pay interest on the debt, there is no danger of default. But experts say that if the government failed to pay many of its other bills, it would create economic chaos and could result in rising interest rates.

Limbaugh: "We Do Not Need To Raise The Debt Ceiling. There Is No Crisis."

LIMBAUGH: TheHill.com has an interesting story today that sort of sets the stage for what's to happen. Headline: "Report: Treasury must cut spending 44 percent in default." "New analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center, which has been shared extensively with members of Congress, estimates that the Treasury Department would not be able to pay all its bills and would need to implement an immediate 44 percent cut in federal spending in the event the debt ceiling is exceeded."

http://mediamatters.org/research/201107080035

=======

Media Matter better be careful, Limbaugh will sue to lose MM's non-profit status for attacking the official Repug thought dictator.

btw, military "spending limit" gets double-digit increase.

More guns, much less butter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You have to remember a difference in thinking. Anything less than a 10% increase annual, the democrats claim is a cut. I'm sure that's part of the $4t they are referring to.

---

I don't think the criteria is any different on the $2.5T offer he's seemingly willing to accept...

From the demented fringe of the Repug fringe:

Sen. DeMint: Geithner ‘playing Chicken Little’ on the debt ceiling

Tea party favorite Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) said Sunday that there was no risk of "major economic consequences" if the debt limit was not raised by Aug. 2.

"I think the president has been gaming Republicans," DeMint told Fox News' Bret Baier. "He has been talking about this for six months. The only proposal he sent us is his budget to raise the debt $10 trillion. So it's hard to take him seriously here."

"Thousands of Americans and many Republicans in Congress are uniting around the idea that we will give the president his increase in the debt limit in return for some reasonable cuts in spending this year, some caps on spending over the next ten years, his agreement to send balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, to the states for them to ratify," he added.

"Do you believe, Senator, that the country risks default or major economic consequences if the debt ceiling is not raised on August 2nd -- by August 2nd?" Baier asked.

"No, I don't," DeMint insisted. "I think [Treasury] Secretary Geithner has been irresponsible. He's playing Chicken Little here."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/1...e+Raw+Story%29

========

Anybody hear any similar "defaulting is no problem, and defaultnig is desirable" from the Dems?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I don't think the criteria is any different on the $2.5T offer he's seemingly willing to accept...

---

I want what I hear the republicans say. In essence, no compromise. No increased taxes, and no increase in the debt limit.

It's time government lives within the revenues it receives.

Outside of tangible assets, how many people can be in debt for more than they make in several years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I want what I hear the republicans say. In essence, no compromise. No increased taxes, and no increase in the debt limit.

---

That's not what Boehner is doing. He will compromise and raise the limit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

That's not what Boehner is doing. He will compromise and raise the limit.

---

probably, but I can dream, can't I?

Repugs reflexively raised the debt limit 7 times in dubya's reign of error, while dubya more than doubled the deficit, which is irrefutable proof that the Repugs' "deficit panic" is a lying pretext for destroying government, which takes priority for the Repugs, along with pandering the Christian Taleban, over stopping/reversing the lower 95% of Human-Americans declining in financial comfort/security and standard of living.

Does anybody know where the $2.5T - $4T cut is supposed to fall? It sure won't fall on the top 5%, and will certainly fall on the bottom 30%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Repugs reflexively raised the debt limit 7 times in dubya's reign of error, while dubya more than doubled the deficit, which is irrefutable proof that the Repugs' "deficit panic" is a lying pretext for destroying government, which takes priority for the Repugs, along with pandering the Christian Taleban, over stopping/reversing the lower 95% of Human-Americans declining in financial comfort/security and standard of living.

Does anybody know where the $2.5T - $4T cut is supposed to fall? It sure won't fall on the top 5%, and will certainly fall on the bottom 30%.

---

The increases in debt limit while Bush was president only added about a 10% value vs. GDP over his 8 years. Not bad for recession and war time. Obama however exceeded 20% in 3 years already.

When does it stop?

"Obama however exceeded 20% in 3 years already."

dubya didn't inherit or have occur anything equivalent to the Banksters' Great Depression that Barry inherited. Barry has nothing to do with causing the deficit.

The deficit is all due to Repugs bogus/botched wars, Repug tax cuts for the rich ($1T just for the estate tax cut for super rich) and corps, Repug Medicare Advantage subsidy of for-profit insurers, Repug Part D prescription drug subsidy to BigPharma, and the cratering of tax revenues at all levels with the cratering of the economy. Apart from all those, the budget would be pretty much in balance. Barry's first budget was smaller than dubya's last budget. etc, etc.

Keep up your VRWC shilliing and lying, and I'll keep bitch slappin with the truth.

This is when I wish they wouldn't raise the limit:

New IMF Head Says US Must Raise Debt Limit, or Face 'Nasty Consequences'

"The International Monetary Fund's new chief foresees 'real nasty consequences' for the U.S. and global economies if the U.S. fails to raise its borrowing limit. Christine Lagarde, the first woman to head the lending institution, said in an interview broadcast Sunday that it would cause interest rates to rise and stock markets to fall. That would threaten an important IMF goal, which is preserving stability in the world economy, she said. The U.S. borrowing limit is $14.3 trillion. Obama administration officials say the U.S. would begin to default without an agreement by Aug. 2."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"Obama however exceeded 20% in 3 years already."

dubya didn't inherit or have occur anything equivalent to the Banksters' Great Depression that Barry inherited. Barry has nothing to do with causing the deficit.

The deficit is all due to Repugs bogus/botched wars, Repug tax cuts for the rich ($1T just for the estate tax cut for super rich) and corps, Repug Medicare Advantage subsidy of for-profit insurers, Repug Part D prescription drug subsidy to BigPharma, and the cratering of tax revenues at all levels with the cratering of the economy. Apart from all those, the budget would be pretty much in balance. Barry's first budget was smaller than dubya's last budget. etc, etc.

Keep up your VRWC shilliing and lying, and I'll keep bitch slappin with the truth.

---

What law did bush pass that caused the Banker's depression??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

CARL QUINTANILLA (CNBC): Does it strike you that as the unemployment rate goes up that your chances of winning office also go up?

MICHELE BACHMANN: Well, that could be. Again, I hope so.

http://www.alternet.org/module/print...ndviews/631124

===

In line with Repugs 2010 strategy of prolonging/deepening the jobs pain and blame it on Barry, which is still their strategy for 2012.

After winning the House, what have the Repugs done about jobs? not a fucking thing. It's all about union busting, deficits (not jobs), abortion, and opposing EVERYTHING without compromise.

---

Nothing specific, just very lax enforcement by SEC and everywhere (cocaine and whores at MMS, fracking exempted from Clean Water Act, etc, etc.

dubya did block 19 states from stopping predatory sub-prime lending, including Spitzer whom he took down later for being Sheriff of Wall St and taking down Greenberg/AIG.

dubya's Treasury could stepped in to reduce the housing/credit bubble, but they "trust" the greedy "free market" to fuck up people without govt intervention.

The ground work of financial deregulation and the Banksters' Great Depression got started with St Ronnie The Diseased and continued right up Clinton signing the Repug bill to kill Glass-Steagall and prevent the govt from regulating financial derivatives.

dubya 8 years were overwhelming responsible for the huge deficit, for the reasons I've repeated here many times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The increases in debt limit while Bush was president only added about a 10% value vs. GDP over his 8 years. Not bad for recession and war time. Obama however exceeded 20% in 3 years already.

When does it stop?

---

This leaves out the important context of the economic growth caused by the housing bubble.

You can borrow a LOT and still have it be small relative to the economy if the economy is being pushed along by such a bubble.

When you get an economic slow down with high unemployment, you get the double whammy of greater outlays from social safety programs coupled with a smaller economy and fewer people paying into the system.

It is quite possible to be very fiscally responsible in such a case, and still find yourself with a ballooning deficit.

Since you place great emphasis on the proper context, I'm sure you were going to point that out, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

What law did bush pass that caused the Banker's depression??

---

?? Reading fail?

BD didn't actually say that Bush passed such a law, you do know that right?


As far as his administration's culpability, one can readily make the case that their laissez-faire attitude toward banking regulation, and letting the market "innovate" without any transparency, oversight, or consideration of systemic risk, led to poorly designed financial assets with deep hidden flaws that financial institutions bought into.

Quote:

---

J.P. Morgan recently surveyed its clients and asked how much rates would rise if there was a delay in payments, even a very brief one. Domestic investors thought they would go up by 0.37 percentage points, but foreign buyers — who own close to half the publicly held debt — predicted an increase of more than half a percentage point. Any increase in this range would raise Treasury’s borrowing costs by tens of billions of dollars per year.







Some may think that a rise in rates would be temporary. But there was a case back in 1979 when a combination of a failure to increase the debt limit in time and a breakdown of Treasury’s machines for printing checks caused a two-week default. A 1989 academic study found that it raised interest rates by six-tenths of a percentage point for years afterward.

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...H_story_1.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"Obama however exceeded 20% in 3 years already."

dubya didn't inherit or have occur anything equivalent to the Banksters' Great Depression that Barry inherited. Barry has nothing to do with causing the deficit.

The deficit is all due to Repugs bogus/botched wars, Repug tax cuts for the rich ($1T just for the estate tax cut for super rich) and corps, Repug Medicare Advantage subsidy of for-profit insurers, Repug Part D prescription drug subsidy to BigPharma, and the cratering of tax revenues at all levels with the cratering of the economy. Apart from all those, the budget would be pretty much in balance. Barry's first budget was smaller than dubya's last budget. etc, etc.

Keep up your VRWC shilliing and lying, and I'll keep bitch slappin with the truth.

---

Like I said earlier. It's Bush's fault. Just ask any liberal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

This is when I wish they wouldn't raise the limit:

New IMF Head Says US Must Raise Debt Limit, or Face 'Nasty Consequences'

"The International Monetary Fund's new chief foresees 'real nasty consequences' for the U.S. and global economies if the U.S. fails to raise its borrowing limit. Christine Lagarde, the first woman to head the lending institution, said in an interview broadcast Sunday that it would cause interest rates to rise and stock markets to fall. That would threaten an important IMF goal, which is preserving stability in the world economy, she said. The U.S. borrowing limit is $14.3 trillion. Obama administration officials say the U.S. would begin to default without an agreement by Aug. 2."

---

When will everyone wake up and smell the coffee. Stop letting these partisan pundits sway you.

It's going to hurt no matter what we do! Therefor, we need to focus on what hurts less in the long run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

This leaves out the important context of the economic growth caused by the housing bubble.

You can borrow a LOT and still have it be small relative to the economy if the economy is being pushed along by such a bubble.

When you get an economic slow down with high unemployment, you get the double whammy of greater outlays from social safety programs coupled with a smaller economy and fewer people paying into the system.

It is quite possible to be very fiscally responsible in such a case, and still find yourself with a ballooning deficit.

Since you place great emphasis on the proper context, I'm sure you were going to point that out, right?

---

Yes, things are complicated. I also left out the tech bubble Clinton enjoyed that popped just as he left office.

Quote:

---

Kentucky U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that Republican lawmakers are considering allowing President Obama to unilaterally increase the nation’s debt ceiling, a move that would represent one of the largest transitions of power in modern history.



Under a proposal put forth by Mr. McConnell, Mr. Obama could request increases of upwards of $2.5 trillion in the government borrowing authority in three separate installments over the next year, while simultaneously proposing spending cuts of greater size.

---

Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articl...#ixzz1RxR9jE00

"tech bubble Clinton enjoyed"

Clinton'es 8 years was the longest economic expansion since WWII, and the job creation in that period was fantastic.

Compare that with dubya's 8 years, esp the absent job creation and reduction in real household income.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articl...#ixzz1RxR9jE00

---

Sounds like an attempt by the Republicans to wash their hands of any responsibility. They're scrambling to make this not look like their fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Sounds like an attempt by the Republicans to wash their hands of any responsibility. They're scrambling to make this not look like their fault.

---

Notice how he says between the lines that raising the limit is the responsible thing to do, but they don't want the responsibility. Hypocrisy at it's finest.