PDA

View Full Version : Economics Boehner lowers debt-package goal


mlyonsd
07-10-2011, 09:22 AM
WASHINGTON — House Republican budget negotiators have abandoned plans to pursue a massive $4 trillion, 10-year deficit reduction package in the face of stiff Republican opposition to any plan that would increase taxes as part of the deal.

House Speaker John Boehner informed President Barack Obama on Saturday that a smaller agreement of about $2 trillion was more realistic.

In a statement issued Saturday evening, Boehner said: “Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes.”

Boehner’s statement came a day before he and seven of the top House and Senate leaders were scheduled to meet at the White House in a negotiating session and lay out their remaining differences.

The White House responded that Obama will continue to push to make as much progress on deficit reduction as possible.

A deficit reduction deal is crucial to win Republican support for an increase in the nation’s debt ceiling. The government’s borrowing capacity is currently capped at $14.3 trillion and administration officials say it will go into default without action by Aug. 2.

Both parties are under pressure from voters to resolve the debt crisis ahead of next year’s congressional and presidential elections. Obama is seen as a candidate that is tough to beat, though voters’ fears over the economy have been dragging down his numbers.

Obama tried to build political support for an ambitious package of spending cuts and new tax revenue that would reduce the debt by $4 trillion over 10 years. But from the moment he proposed it, Republicans said they would reject any tax increases and Democrats objected to spending cuts in some of their most prized benefit programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Vice President Joe Biden had already identified, but not signed off on, about $2 trillion in deficit reductions, most accomplished through spending cuts.

But after holding a secret meeting with Boehner last weekend, Obama and his top aides said they believed an even bigger figure was attainable if both parties made politically painful, but potentially historic, choices.
In the end, the pressure from both sides was pushing against Obama’s bigger goal.

“I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase,” Boehner said.

The White House did not have an immediate reaction.

A Republican official familiar with the discussions said taxes and the major health and retirement entitlement programs continued to be sticking points.

Earlier on Saturday, in his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama appealed to Democrats and Republicans to “make some political sacrifices” and take advantage of an extraordinary opportunity to tackle the government’s budget crisis.

He said that it will take a “balanced approach” that mixes limits on domestic programs and the Pentagon, curbs to Medicare and elimination of some tax breaks for the wealthy.

AP
http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/6434650-418/boehner-lowers-debt-package-goal.html

The Mad Crapper
07-10-2011, 09:25 AM
Fine. Just don't raise taxes. You raise taxes and you kneecap an economy already leaning against a wall just to stand up AND you guarantee Nancy Pelosi getting her gavel back in 2012.

4 trillion or 2 trillion it's all a dog and pony show. Whats the projected national debt by 2014 when obamacare goes into full effect?

BucEyedPea
07-10-2011, 09:52 AM
I thought Boehner sold out with a compromise that does raise taxes.

SoCalBronco
07-10-2011, 12:47 PM
I'm a moderate Republican, but there has to be shared pain, here. Why would Obama give up something (SS and Medicare reform) for nothing?

It's not a one way street. It's not going to take radical surgery to attain the 4-5 trillion they are looking for. Some rational, moderate, mild reforms are absolutely reasonable. For the Democrats, simply slowing the rate of inflation in these programs by tying it to GDP growth alone would reap huge deficit reduction benefits. Also, they should be prepeared to slightly raise the eligibility ages to ease the pressure as well. These are not massive requests. For the Republicans, there must be some tax increases. Perhaps a slight increase in the amount of money the social security tax applies to (I think its around 106k now, maybe like 110k) and the adoption of the Bowles-Simpson plan which would actually reduce tax rates (making it more palatable) but close alot of loopholes which makes it a revenue-gainer on the whole. I would also be strongly in favor of axing the Bush tax cuts, which would reap us huge savings as well, or at least the portion for the 250k plus. Common sense compromises on estate taxes (3.5m instead of 5m exemption) would be fine, as well.

There has to be shared pain or else nothing will get done. Some tax increases might be harmful to the economy (and some spending cuts will be as well), but that's ok, the most important thing here is to get the long term debt under control. That's far more important than the short term.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2011, 12:49 PM
There has to be shared pain or else nothing will get done. Some tax increases might be harmful to the economy (and some spending cuts will be as well), but that's ok, the most important thing here is to get the long term debt under control. That's far more important than the short term.

I'd like to know how spending cuts hurt an economy unless you mean a mercantilist, socialist or mixed-economy.

patteeu
07-10-2011, 01:00 PM
I thought Boehner sold out with a compromise that does raise taxes.

It must be those impecable sources of yours again.

Saul Good
07-10-2011, 01:03 PM
I'm a moderate Republican, but there has to be shared pain, here. Why would Obama give up something (SS and Medicare reform) for nothing?

You think that only Democrats are going to feel the pain of cutting spending?

go bowe
07-10-2011, 01:06 PM
It must be those impecable sources of yours again.

oh, c'mon...

you just got here and you're making me laugh out loud, literally (my wife said wtf is so damned funny?)...

go bowe
07-10-2011, 01:10 PM
You think that only Democrats are going to feel the pain of cutting spending?

that's very true...

lots of republicans are out of work too...

SoCalBronco
07-10-2011, 01:11 PM
I'd like to know how spending cuts hurt an economy unless you mean a mercantilist, socialist or mixed-economy.

Suppose the government stopped spending entirely tomorrow. Those individuals who were either earning a salary from government, or were parties to government procurement contracts, or were obtaining benefits by way of the government in some manner, would be seriously hampered in their ability to become buyers on their own of products, which would affect private sellers of goods and those sellers would be hampered in their own purchases etc. We don't have a booming private sector right now and consumers arent spending at levels we would need them to spend to be the primary engine of the economy (which is the ideal and preferred scenario), so at times, on a limited basis, the government does have to pick up the slack.

FD
07-10-2011, 01:13 PM
Thats a shame. Opportunities like these don't come around to often, I was hoping they would get something substantial done.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2011, 01:17 PM
It must be those impecable sources of yours again.

No it wasn't. This looks like newer information from earlier info since it said Saturday. I didn't keep up after that which is why I used the words " "I thought." Quit being a jerk.

My sources were impeccable on Iraq, Afganistan, blowback, and the economy being predicted to collapse—ya' know when you were arguing it was sound.

SoCalBronco
07-10-2011, 01:18 PM
You think that only Democrats are going to feel the pain of cutting spending?

I think its unrealistic to expect Obama to agree to making serious reductions in his programs without getting something in exchange and I don't think some of the revenue generating proposals are all that onerous or unreasonable. Again, major sacrifices are not being asked here of either side, so its unfair to be asking only certain groups of constituences to essentially pay for the entire deficit reduction program. That's just not reasonable or feasible. The GOP has an oppurtunity to finally address the runaway problem of profilgate spending in these entitlement programs and they MUST be addressed. What the other side is asking for in exchange is not unreasonable. Cutting taxes overall but eliminating loopholes isn't particularly painful for the vast majority of people. A small uptick in the amount of income that SS taxes could apply to isn't particularly painful for the vast majority of people. I would be more than willing to give up a little bit there to rein in these behemoth entitlement programs. It's a worthwhile compromise and that's the name of hte game...compromise. We will NEVER get anywhere on our own. Ever. It's always a give and take process and you hope that in the end, you got a little more than the other side, did and I think that's true here.

The biggest obstacle to a truly historic deal that could really reshape our fiscal future is the extreme Tea Party wing of my party. They just don't understand how it works. Life isn't simplistic slogans like "no tax hikes ever". That's not an intelligent manner of going about things. That's not a way that involves real thought and contemplation. Everything depends on context, situation and fact intensive analysis of what would be reasonable and equitable.

They're like the donkey that denied that that Kevin Bacon was in footloose.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/W2Rdf0n_Lsg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

johnny961
07-10-2011, 01:19 PM
I'm a moderate Republican, but there has to be shared pain, here. Why would Obama give up something (SS and Medicare reform) for nothing?

It's not a one way street. It's not going to take radical surgery to attain the 4-5 trillion they are looking for. Some rational, moderate, mild reforms are absolutely reasonable. For the Democrats, simply slowing the rate of inflation in these programs by tying it to GDP growth alone would reap huge deficit reduction benefits. Also, they should be prepeared to slightly raise the eligibility ages to ease the pressure as well. These are not massive requests. For the Republicans, there must be some tax increases. Perhaps a slight increase in the amount of money the social security tax applies to (I think its around 106k now, maybe like 110k) and the adoption of the Bowles-Simpson plan which would actually reduce tax rates (making it more palatable) but close alot of loopholes which makes it a revenue-gainer on the whole. I would also be strongly in favor of axing the Bush tax cuts, which would reap us huge savings as well, or at least the portion for the 250k plus. Common sense compromises on estate taxes (3.5m instead of 5m exemption) would be fine, as well.

There has to be shared pain or else nothing will get done. Some tax increases might be harmful to the economy (and some spending cuts will be as well), but that's ok, the most important thing here is to get the long term debt under control. That's far more important than the short term.

I can agree with most of your sentiment. A considerable deficit reduction is possible if both sides quit drawing unreasonable lines in the sand.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2011, 01:24 PM
Suppose the government stopped spending entirely tomorrow.
Well, I didn't know anyone, let alone I, to say stop spending entirely. I said spending cuts.

Obama has funded a host of new initiatives and we bailed out Greece—or so I have read here.

Those individuals who were either earning a salary from government, or were parties to government procurement contracts, or were obtaining benefits by way of the government in some manner, would be seriously hampered in their ability to become buyers on their own of products, which would affect private sellers of goods and those sellers would be hampered in their own purchases etc.

On the other hand, using your scenario of stopping "spending entirely" they'd need no revenue and the private sector would have a lot more money to spend. Spendings cuts keep money in the economy that taxes remove.

We don't have a booming private sector right now and consumers arent spending at levels we would need them to spend to be the primary engine of the economy (which is the ideal and preferred scenario), so at times, on a limited basis, the government does have to pick up the slack.

Oh well I am not a Keynesian so I don't agree with this.

go bowe
07-10-2011, 01:26 PM
I think its unrealistic to expect Obama to agree to making serious reductions in his programs without getting something in exchange and I don't think some of the revenue generating proposals are all that onerous or unreasonable. Again, major sacrifices are not being asked here of either side, so its unfair to be asking only certain groups of constituences to essentially pay for the entire deficit reduction program. That's just not reasonable or feasible. The GOP has an oppurtunity to finally address the runaway problem of profilgate spending in these entitlement programs and they MUST be addressed. What the other side is asking for in exchange is not unreasonable. Cutting taxes overall but eliminating loopholes isn't particularly painful for the vast majority of people. A small uptick in the amount of income that SS taxes could apply to isn't particularly painful for the vast majority of people. I would be more than willing to give up a little bit there to rein in these behemoth entitlement programs. It's a worthwhile compromise and that's the name of hte game...compromise. We will NEVER get anywhere on our own. Ever. It's always a give and take process and you hope that in the end, you got a little more than the other side, did and I think that's true here.

The biggest obstacle to a truly historic deal that could really reshape our fiscal future is the extreme Tea Party wing of my party. They just don't understand how it works. Life isn't simplistic slogans like "no tax hikes ever". That's not an intelligent manner of going about things. That's not a way that involves real thought and contemplation. Everything depends on context, situation and fact intensive analysis of what would be reasonable and equitable.

They're like the donkey that denied that that Kevin Bacon was in footloose.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/W2Rdf0n_Lsg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

hold on now...

you guys are screwing up our forum...

WAY too much reason and thoughtfulness...

johnny961
07-10-2011, 01:37 PM
I think its unrealistic to expect Obama to agree to making serious reductions in his programs without getting something in exchange and I don't think some of the revenue generating proposals are all that onerous or unreasonable. Again, major sacrifices are not being asked here of either side, so its unfair to be asking only certain groups of constituences to essentially pay for the entire deficit reduction program. That's just not reasonable or feasible. The GOP has an oppurtunity to finally address the runaway problem of profilgate spending in these entitlement programs and they MUST be addressed. What the other side is asking for in exchange is not unreasonable. Cutting taxes overall but eliminating loopholes isn't particularly painful for the vast majority of people. A small uptick in the amount of income that SS taxes could apply to isn't particularly painful for the vast majority of people. I would be more than willing to give up a little bit there to rein in these behemoth entitlement programs. It's a worthwhile compromise and that's the name of hte game...compromise. We will NEVER get anywhere on our own. Ever. It's always a give and take process and you hope that in the end, you got a little more than the other side, did and I think that's true here.

The biggest obstacle to a truly historic deal that could really reshape our fiscal future is the extreme Tea Party wing of my party. They just don't understand how it works. Life isn't simplistic slogans like "no tax hikes ever". That's not an intelligent manner of going about things. That's not a way that involves real thought and contemplation. Everything depends on context, situation and fact intensive analysis of what would be reasonable and equitable.

They're like the donkey that denied that that Kevin Bacon was in footloose.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/W2Rdf0n_Lsg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Yep. Teapartiers are a huge obstacle in a meaningful deal. But another huge obstacle is the die hard liberal clan that won't buy into any type of entitlement reform.

Saul Good
07-10-2011, 01:40 PM
I can agree with most of your sentiment. A considerable deficit reduction is possible if both sides quit drawing unreasonable lines in the sand.

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that we stop spending money that we don't have.

SoCalBronco
07-10-2011, 01:42 PM
Yep. Teapartiers are a huge obstacle in a meaningful deal. But another huge obstacle is the die hard liberal clan that won't buy into any type of entitlement reform.

Yes, that is also true. I despise the Pelosi-types who don't understand that things cannot continue as they are. The idea that somehow she felt debt reduction should be decoupled from the debt ceiling extension shows just how out of touch that wing of the Democratic party is. There must be a serious effort to rein in the long term debt and most particularly the two behemoth entitlement programs. If you decoupled the talks, then there would be no incentive for the Left to make serious concessions on those programs. From what I have read though, it looks like Obama would be able to hold together a larger percentage of congressional Democrats for a shared pain "mega deal" than Boehner would be able to with the congressional Republicans since there are a number of Tea Party freshman who won't go along with anything that involves anything remotely resembling any tax increases.

It's too bad, really. This could have been a massive achievement for Republicans. Fiscal discipline is my No. 1 issue as a voter and this could have been the crowning achievement for the congressional GOP. ****ing idiots.

johnny961
07-10-2011, 01:43 PM
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that we stop spending money that we don't have.

And I don't disagree that spending cuts HAVE to be a considerable part of the picture.

Chiefshrink
07-10-2011, 01:44 PM
HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 3rd party !!!!!!. Conservatives all the way around(Libert-Repub-Dem) are soooooooooooooo pissed. :cuss:

Marxists must be dancing in the WH right now because after "O" gave in to extending the Bush Tax cuts he took in the ass hard from his base and could not afford another cave in. Boehner just gave "O Marxist" new life in his re-election bid. Now "O Marxist" can use several 'disingenous mis-represented" campaign lines to use as to how he fought for fiscal responsibility.

You see, Marxists "IF ALLOWED" which obviously they have been allowed for decades now by the Marxist Media to change the definitions on many of the terms used when they can't win the argument outright. They have to do this or they lose. They change the definition on what a tax increase is, what a tax cut is, what a spending cut is, what a tax rate is, ect...... You get it.

And the insane part is both sides know what each other is doing especially the Marxist media who push all this deception onto the public. The majority of the public has been dumbed down enough and confused on purpose primarily by the Marxist Dems and Marxist Media on what the 'real definitions and real numbers' are on the issues. Thus the public and RINO elite politicians have been 'conned' into buying this concept of "bi-partisanship" is A MUST AT ALL TIMES!!!! (see SoCal Bronco's posts)

THIS is utter :BS:

mlyonsd
07-10-2011, 01:45 PM
I don't think the bargaining/hard ball politics is over yet. This is just a move in a chess game. I also think this negotiating behind closed doors is bull chit. From both sides.

Chiefshrink
07-10-2011, 01:50 PM
I don't think the bargaining/hard ball politics is over yet. This is just a move in a chess game.

Just the appearance is enough because you know mylonsd how incensed conservatives are right now at DC and especially the weak ass Repub party who still continues to refuse to stand up for "We The People" who changed the canvas in the House in 2010 to specifically stop this cowardice.

RedNeckRaider
07-10-2011, 01:58 PM
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that we stop spending money that we don't have.

:spock: It is clear you have no understanding how our government works. Crazy talk son crazy talk~

mlyonsd
07-10-2011, 02:20 PM
Just the appearance is enough because you know mylonsd how incensed conservatives are right now at DC and especially the weak ass Repub party who still continues to refuse to stand up for "We The People" who changed the canvas in the House in 2010 to specifically stop this cowardice.You're afraid the republicans look weak because they are doing what they said, straight debt reduction by spending cuts with no tax increases?

Or you'd rather they force the issue by not caving and causing the country to default?

Chiefshrink
07-10-2011, 02:30 PM
You're afraid the republicans look weak because they are doing what they said, straight debt reduction by spending cuts with no tax increases?

Or you'd rather they force the issue by not caving and causing the country to default?

Country will not default if the Repubs refuse to cave in, period. Ready Ryan's plan. This is what I am talking about when it comes all this deception being thrown out there by the Marxist Media.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2011, 02:30 PM
You're afraid the republicans look weak because they are doing what they said, straight debt reduction by spending cuts with no tax increases?

Or you'd rather they force the issue by not caving and causing the country to default?
Well, that is what printing money is — a default.
Govt likes to pay back it's debt with cheap money which is a stealth tax on all us which will eventually destroy the dollar which is happening right now. So a default is going to come anyway.


Another to consider is:
"In Washington, if you hear about a so-called deal, you can be sure the taxes will come, but the cuts never well." ~ Press Release July 8, 2011 by Ron Paul.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2011, 02:32 PM
Country will not default if the Repubs refuse to cave in, period. Ready Ryan's plan. This is what I am talking about when it comes all this deception being thrown out there by the Marxist Media.

Add in the Ron Paul plan on the Fed destroying some of that debt too.

mlyonsd
07-10-2011, 02:42 PM
Country will not default if the Repubs refuse to cave in, period. Ready Ryan's plan. You really think that? Ryan's plan is a dead issue. If the house followed through with that type of thinking the only better news dems could have is Palin was leading all GOP contenders for the republican nomination.

This is what I am talking about when it comes all this deception being thrown out there by the Marxist Media.

You just stated yourself why the Ryan plan is dead.

mlyonsd
07-10-2011, 02:47 PM
Well, that is what printing money is — a default.
Govt likes to pay back it's debt with cheap money which is a stealth tax on all us which will eventually destroy the dollar which is happening right now. So a default is going to come anyway.


Another to consider is:
"In Washington, if you hear about a so-called deal, you can be sure the taxes will come, but the cuts never well." ~ Press Release July 8, 2011 by Ron Paul.So what do you say, republicans should not cave at all so the country stops paying some of it's bills 8/2?

go bowe
07-10-2011, 02:51 PM
sure, everybody knows the whole default dealio is a mercantilist sham...

who needs credit, anyway?

BucEyedPea
07-10-2011, 02:57 PM
So what do you say, republicans should not cave at all so the country stops paying some of it's bills 8/2?

Not at all, in addition to the below thread, the Rs could stop funding three wars and Greece for starters.

Debt Ceiling: Could Ron Paul's Plan Save Us From Disaster, twice? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/07/05/debt-ceiling-could-ron-pauls-plan-save-us-from-disaster-twice/)


The Federal Collapse and Collapse of Empire is inevitable.

mlyonsd
07-10-2011, 02:59 PM
sure, everybody knows the whole default dealio is a mercantilist sham...

who needs credit, anyway?Unlimited credit?
The idea our system is built on politicians being able to print money that they can hand out just to get re-elected is just plain scary.

go bowe
07-10-2011, 03:04 PM
Unlimited credit?
The idea our system is built on politicians being able to print money that they can hand out just to get re-elected is just plain scary.

unlimited credit?

of course not...

but the reality is that we will be borrowing a whole lot more money no matter what the politicians come up with in the way of cuts and increases...

and we should want to continue to borrow it at the current most favorable rates, not the rates that a defaulted, credit downgraded country will get...

mlyonsd
07-10-2011, 03:10 PM
Not at all, in addition to the below thread, the Rs could stop funding three wars and Greece for starters.

Debt Ceiling: Could Ron Paul's Plan Save Us From Disaster, twice? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/07/05/debt-ceiling-could-ron-pauls-plan-save-us-from-disaster-twice/)


The Federal Collapse and Collapse of Empire is inevitable.

The thread you posted doesn't stand up to the real problem and stopping funding on those wars isn't going to happen.

go bowe
07-10-2011, 03:12 PM
The thread you posted doesn't stand up to the real problem and stopping funding on those wars isn't going to happen.

tsk, tsk, tsk...

you were expecting something relevant and/or insightful?

mlyonsd
07-10-2011, 03:15 PM
unlimited credit?

of course not...

but the reality is that we will be borrowing a whole lot more money no matter what the politicians come up with in the way of cuts and increases...

and we should want to continue to borrow it at the current most favorable rates, not the rates that a defaulted, credit downgraded country will get...Fine. Then tell me how we get the keys away from our silly elected juveniles.

I for one say balanced budget amendment and a flat tax.

mlyonsd
07-10-2011, 03:16 PM
tsk, tsk, tsk...

you were expecting something relevant and/or insightful?I actually agree with some of the stuff her guy says so where does that place me?

Careful here....

go bowe
07-10-2011, 03:22 PM
Fine. Then tell me how we get the keys away from our silly elected juveniles.

I for one say balanced budget amendment and a flat tax.

both ideas have a lot of appeal for various reasons, but neither is happening in my lifetime...

it would take the mother of all business cycles to create enough revenue even with draconian cuts and tax increases in place...

go bowe
07-10-2011, 03:23 PM
I actually agree with some of the stuff her guy says so where does that place me?

Careful here....

o:-) o:-) o:-)

mlyonsd
07-10-2011, 03:26 PM
both ideas have a lot of appeal for various reasons, but neither is happening in my lifetime...

it would take the mother of all business cycles to create enough revenue even with draconian cuts and tax increases in place...And taxing the rich won't even come close either. I'm looking towards long term common sense agains the same old BS.

ClevelandBronco
07-10-2011, 03:29 PM
Well, that is what printing money is — a default.

Every once in a while you shit Tiffany cufflinks.

(Just in case BTW, that's a compliment, not an insult.)

go bowe
07-10-2011, 03:33 PM
And taxing the rich won't even come close either. I'm looking towards long term common sense agains the same old BS.

it will take all three factors to balance the budget

tax increases for the sort of rich, huge spending cuts in defense and discretionary programs and the mother of all economic recoveries...

afaict, the repubs aren't going to vote for tax cuts or huge cuts in defense spending and no-one seems to know how to get a recovery going, let alone have a totally beyond all estimates economic boom...

Chocolate Hog
07-10-2011, 04:41 PM
Lol so if we default there will be chaos? What about the other 3 times we defaulted?

Chiefshrink
07-10-2011, 04:45 PM
You really think that? Ryan's plan is a dead issue. If the house followed through with that type of thinking the only better news dems could have is Palin was leading all GOP contenders for the republican nomination.



You just stated yourself why the Ryan plan is dead.

Ryan's plan is dead "superficially" because the Marxist Dems and Marxist Media know that it is very legit and works. The Dems don't want any credence to a plan that 'actually works' without having to raise taxes, cuts spending and avoids raising the debt ceilng. That would actually be a political win for conservatives and victory for America. Hmmmmm...... imagine that?Doing what is best for our country. Dem Marxists and RINO elites can't have that because then they can't melt the Chines credit card or melt our printing press anymore.

Bottom line: Ryan's plan works and Obama knows it.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2011, 05:10 PM
Lol so if we default there will be chaos? What about the other 3 times we defaulted?

There's been defaults by states in our history. We're not strangers to it. The ones who hurt most in a default are those who's wealth is tied to govt more. I do think though, that the Republicans will cave because they won't want us leaving the military hi and dry or pulling out of Iraq.

Chocolate Hog
07-10-2011, 05:11 PM
Ryans plan is a joke that adds more debt and wouldn't work for atleast 25 years. Jim Demints is better it deals with everything within 10 years.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2011, 05:14 PM
The thread you posted doesn't stand up to the real problem and stopping funding on those wars isn't going to happen.
First Part: No but it buys time.
Bold Part: Precisely why we may default either directly or printing money.

Chocolate Hog
07-10-2011, 05:18 PM
We'll have to produce our own goods. How awful!

mlyonsd
07-10-2011, 05:30 PM
it will take all three factors to balance the budget

tax increases for the sort of rich, huge spending cuts in defense and discretionary programs and the mother of all economic recoveries...

afaict, the repubs aren't going to vote for tax cuts or huge cuts in defense spending and no-one seems to know how to get a recovery going, let alone have a totally beyond all estimates economic boom...Like I said I'm talking more long term. What we do once we're past the crisis.

And for today's crisis I would not agree to any plan where class warfare is used to solve the problem. I've already stated many times I would be ok with tax increases as long as they are across the board.

Not for those on SS though. They've paid their dues and I don't think it is fair to change the game on them now.

mlyonsd
07-10-2011, 05:34 PM
Ryan's plan is dead "superficially" because the Marxist Dems and Marxist Media know that it is very legit and works. The Dems don't want any credence to a plan that 'actually works' without having to raise taxes, cuts spending and avoids raising the debt ceilng. That would actually be a political win for conservatives and victory for America. Hmmmmm...... imagine that?Doing what is best for our country. Dem Marxists and RINO elites can't have that because then they can't melt the Chines credit card or melt our printing press anymore.

Bottom line: Ryan's plan works and Obama knows it.Ryan's plan is dead because there are 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day that feel it screws them. Talk to them.

The Mad Crapper
07-10-2011, 05:38 PM
The budget battle that is brewing in Washington actually has three levels to it. The first is the battle over the debt ceiling, and the desire for congressional Republicans to extract as much as they can from Obama on spending cuts. The second is longer term, and involves keeping the United States out of some sort of Greek-style catastrophe. And the third involves an age-old ideological conflict that has defined the two-party system for some time: how much money should the federal government take in revenues and distribute in outlays?

Turn down the volume on the liberal hyperbole, where every Republican in Congress secretly wants to destroy Social Security, and it is not hard to discover the position of the Grand Old Party. Over the last forty years, the federal government has taken in about eighteen percent of GDP in taxes and spent about twenty percent of GDP in outlays, so why not just keep doing that?

Now, I know what you’re thinking: Oooh…those Republicans are so radical! How dare they want to tax and spend as much as the country has taxed and spent over the last half century! How on earth can we continue to fund food safety and the weather service? How will we rebuild our crumbling infrastructure? I know it's crazy, but those zany GOPers believe that the federal government can indeed find a way to meet its obligations on consumer safety, highways and transportation, social welfare, national defense, and so on without redistributing more than twenty cents of every dollar, just as it has for the last forty years.

The Democratic position is that the federal government should take in more and spend more – just how much more depends on how far to the left any given Democrat is.

Let’s keep this in mind as we now consider the projections of the Congressional Budget Office for the next eighty years.



If a picture is worth a thousand words, this one should make clear why the GOP is not putting tax increases on the table. The fiscal path the country is on will take us to an unprecedented level of spending and taxation. Why should the Republicans want to facilitate this process any more? It is contrary to pretty much everything the party is supposed to stand for. If anything, the GOP earns a fair share of the blame for this impending disaster because the party didn't do anything about it between 2003 and 2007, when it had full control of the government and knew full well that, thanks to the baby boomers and out-of-control medical costs, our terribly outdated Medicare system was set to blow up the budget. At least now, Republicans are no longer a party to making it worse, by demanding -- at last! -- some fiscal restraint and some sensible reforms.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...34.html?page=1

mlyonsd
07-10-2011, 05:40 PM
First Part: No but it buys time.
Bold Part: Precisely why we may default either directly or printing money.First part: Interesting option.
Second part: Some things need to be sacrificed for the security of the country. I know you'll disagree with the scenario but we'll just have to disagree there.

Mr. Flopnuts
07-10-2011, 05:42 PM
SoCalBronco is becoming one of my favorite posters here. I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. Only because he's a Donko fan.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2011, 05:43 PM
First part: Interesting option.
Second part: Some things need to be sacrificed for the security of the country. I know you'll disagree with the scenario but we'll just have to disagree there.

In second part's response I understand that's your position however, it will still lead to a default either directly or through the printing of money. There's no way around it.

Chiefshrink
07-10-2011, 08:39 PM
Ryan's plan is dead because there are 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day that feel it screws them. Talk to them.

And this info right here is absolute BS:BS: that you have bought from the Marxist Media. The deceptional lies that I was referring to earlier.

Ryan's plan does not effect anybody age 55 or older, PERIOD!! Medicare "stays the same" as it is for those 55 and older.

READ IT !!!!

patteeu
07-10-2011, 08:57 PM
I think its unrealistic to expect Obama to agree to making serious reductions in his programs without getting something in exchange and I don't think some of the revenue generating proposals are all that onerous or unreasonable. Again, major sacrifices are not being asked here of either side, so its unfair to be asking only certain groups of constituences to essentially pay for the entire deficit reduction program. That's just not reasonable or feasible. The GOP has an oppurtunity to finally address the runaway problem of profilgate spending in these entitlement programs and they MUST be addressed. What the other side is asking for in exchange is not unreasonable. Cutting taxes overall but eliminating loopholes isn't particularly painful for the vast majority of people. A small uptick in the amount of income that SS taxes could apply to isn't particularly painful for the vast majority of people. I would be more than willing to give up a little bit there to rein in these behemoth entitlement programs. It's a worthwhile compromise and that's the name of hte game...compromise. We will NEVER get anywhere on our own. Ever. It's always a give and take process and you hope that in the end, you got a little more than the other side, did and I think that's true here.

The biggest obstacle to a truly historic deal that could really reshape our fiscal future is the extreme Tea Party wing of my party. They just don't understand how it works. Life isn't simplistic slogans like "no tax hikes ever". That's not an intelligent manner of going about things. That's not a way that involves real thought and contemplation. Everything depends on context, situation and fact intensive analysis of what would be reasonable and equitable.

They're like the donkey that denied that that Kevin Bacon was in footloose.

1. There is no Bowles-Simpson-style tax reform on the table so we're not talking here about lowering rates and eliminating tax expenditures (i.e. closing loopholes). We're just talking about the latter without the former. In fact, the democrats want to raise rates (by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on some income categories). If the Republicans go along with rolling the expenditures back now, you can kiss any chance at a Bowles-Simpson tax reform goodbye because the dems won't agree to lower rates without the sugar of closing so-called loopholes to go with it.

2. How is it shared sacrifice when you first allow democrats to increase spending dramatically and then you remedy that debt impact with partial spending cuts and partial tax increases? Sounds like a net win for the increase spending/increase taxes party to me. Similarly, allowing democrats to roll back the Bush tax cuts on upper income brackets only has the net effect (initial Bush cuts plus rollback) of making the tax code more progressive not less, which again is a win for democrats.

Chiefshrink
07-10-2011, 09:05 PM
1. There is no Bowles-Simpson-style tax reform on the table so we're not talking here about lowering rates and eliminating tax expenditures (i.e. closing loopholes). We're just talking about the latter without the former. In fact, the democrats want to raise rates (by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on some income categories). If the Republicans go along with rolling the expenditures back now, you can kiss any chance at a Bowles-Simpson tax reform goodbye because the dems won't agree to lower rates without the sugar of closing so-called loopholes to go with it.

2. How is it shared sacrifice when you first allow democrats to increase spending dramatically and then you remedy that debt impact with partial spending cuts and partial tax increases? Sounds like a net win for the increase spending/increase taxes party to me. Similarly, allowing democrats to roll back the Bush tax cuts on upper income brackets only has the net effect (initial Bush cuts plus rollback) of making the tax code more progressive not less, which again is a win for democrats.

BINGO;)

Chiefshrink
07-10-2011, 09:22 PM
Part of a transcript from Limbaugh's show last week about the Repubs possibly caving in.

If there is a cave by House Republicans on this debt limit, if Obama gets what he wants, all of what he wants as Kristol is alluding to here and was backed up by other reports, then you can say good-bye to the Republican National Committee. It will implode. People will stop sending it money. You can say hello to an Obama second term because there will be a third party. The Tea Party will organize as a third party.

If there is a cave on this we could lower the debt ceiling and make our debt payments, as I detailed yesterday. We are not at risk of default. We are not in danger of default. Anybody, either party who says we are is engaging in demagoguery and the same classic Washington tactic of creating for you a crisis, an apocalyptic crisis that has to be solved now or else. I'm telling you, that isn't true. Just as the world was going to end if we didn't get TARP, that wasn't true. None of the forecast crises and their accompanying apocalypse have been true. Nothing that they have tried to scare us with since 2008 has been true. So if this cave happens, hello third party, it's going to happen, and then you're gonna see a wave of new presidential candidates get in the race, and Rick Perry will decide at that moment, it's time to get in, and Paul Ryan, who knows.

I don't mean to be alarmist here, but if these guys cave, the November elections of 2010 -- see, the thing to me is that Boehner isn't under any pressure. His base does not want to compromise. We do not want a compromise. Whatever pressure Boehner thinks he's under is coming from somebody else, 'cause it's not coming from us. We don't want him to cave. We want what's right. If they come out of there with no deal that's advantageous for us and is not representative at all of the November 2010 elections, I'm afraid to predict what's gonna happen to these incumbent Republicans. Rasmussen today, 72% of the country favor free market economy over one managed by the government. Seventy-two percent, in other words, want to fire Obama. Seventy-two percent want to fire every Democrat in Congress. Seventy-two percent of the people want their country back. This is why Democrats hate the Tea Party, and this is why the Republicans have to hold firm.

The Politico yesterday had this little passage, second paragraph: "Debt Talks, Bottom Lines Loom -- With White House debt talks due to resume Sunday, the next few days will sorely test the mettle of President Barack Obama and Speaker John Boehner as they try to finalize a landmark budget and tax reform deal, held prisoner thus far by the rhetoric of both parties." Sorry, Politico, there's no rhetoric that is holding anything prisoner here. It's hard, cold reality, and it's called saving the nation. Here's the second paragraph: "Boehner's forces appeared shaken Thursday by the skepticism they encountered for even entertaining new tax revenues as part of the package. And the GOP's divisions broke into the open at a White House meeting hosted by Obama for congressional leaders." I read that and I said, "Whoa." Boehner's forces appeared shaken Thursday by the skepticism they encountered for even entertaining new tax revenues.

Now, who are Boehner's forces? Who's this talking about? And then I learned what the rest of this means is, the Republicans' divisions broke into the open in a White House meeting. This means that other elements of the Republican leadership at the meeting with Boehner openly broke with him in front of Obama, while Obama was still in the room, other Republicans -- that's what this report says. Now, it's Politico, folks, sad to say we don't know how much of this is true because Boehner's out there saying there is no deal imminent; I don't know what this is all about, but we haven't moved close. I hope that's true. Hope this other stuff is BS. I hope Kristol's got it all wrong. But Boehner isn't under any pressure. What pressure could there be to cave to Obama? What's the pressure? It isn't coming from the American people. The American people don't want Obama's deal here.

RUSH: This is Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard last night, Special Report with Bret Baier during the All-Star Panel.

KRISTOL: It sounds as if it's heading towards a deal. It's not a deal that I'm going to like I suspect and I think it's going to be a bad deal for conservatives and Republicans, but I think they are intimidated. The president's been running around talking about corporate jets and the rich, and how the sky's gonna fall unless Republicans cave, and I think they're getting ready to cave in a pretty big way on some things.

RUSH: That's what he said. Now, again, the media is all hoping that that this true and the things the media was writing last night independent, by the way, of anything Kristol said, the media was writing gave indications that there's something to this. For example, again this Politico story, "Boehner's forces appeared shaken Thursday by the skepticism they encountered for even entertaining new tax revenues as part of the package. And the Republican divisions broke into the open at a White House meeting hosted by Obama for congressional leaders," at the big meeting. Now, let's just take this at its word. It's the Politico, but let's take it at its word. They're in the meeting, there's a bunch of Republicans in the leadership there, of course, with Speaker Boehner.

At some point in the meeting Boehner signals willingness to entertain the idea of new tax revenues as part of the package, and at that moment elements within the Republicans that were with him revolted, and Boehner was shocked. Politico said Boehner's forces appeared shaken by the skepticism. How can you be so tone deaf? I read this, and I said, "Boehner cannot be this tone deaf. He cannot possibly think that a winning thing for him or the Republicans is to go along with tax increases." This just doesn't compute. He's not under any pressure from the base, anyway. We don't want to compromise with Obama here. We want Obama caving, which can be made to happen.

RUSH: Now, again, "Boehner's forces appeared shaken." See, I can't get beyond the hard, cold reality that I can't fathom what pressure Boehner's under. Now, the traditional way that Republicans get snookered here is to be made to believe that the American people are clamoring for whatever it is the Democrats want. I don't care, Obama, Barney Frank, I don't care, that's always the template, whatever Democrats want, the people want. And that the Republicans are the obstructionists and that they're standing in the way and they're not working with anybody and they're racists sexists bigots homophobes and they're mean-spirited extremists and now they're Wahhabis holding guns to people's heads and all this sort of stuff.

So that would add up to me to be media pressure, and we know that in Washington media pressure is intense. We know that, sadly, more often than not, Republicans react to it. But there certainly is no pressure on the Republicans from their voters to do this. I mean to give Obama what he wants here, more spending, to give him a lifeline to the 2012 campaign and reelection? That's what our base wants? I mean, forget for a moment, even if you want to take it to the detail that, well, maybe Boehner's not a movement conservative, okay, fine. Maybe Boehner's not a movement conservative; he's not a liberal Democrat. And again, I have to remind you here that Boehner has said, it's been reported all over the place, he had a press conference, "Look, I don't care what you're hearing, no deal is imminent here. We're not close, either in public or private."

He didn't specifically address any of the claims that have been made in some of these news stories. For example, where is it, TheHill.com is reporting that they discussed cutting the military yesterday from between 600 to $700 billion. Now, Obama, his original proposal was to cut defense $400 billion. There's TheHill.com reporting that they were discussing cuts in the range of 600 to $700 billion. Now, the fear, the fear here is that nondefense cuts will be weak, as they always are, and they'll be spread out, they always are, the cuts in defense much heavier than we should have, and that something smells on the revenue side, why are we even talking about revenue, this ought to be all spending they're talking about. But apparently they're not talking about serious course reversal, no serious steps to fend off what's coming.

Nobody's reporting that the Republicans in the meeting are telling the president no more spending. Okay, all right, Republicans are creatures of Washington. What does Washington do? It spends money. It's what it thinks it has to do. That's what the role of government is, spend money, that's how you please people, it's how you pay people off, it's how you buy their vote, whatever. Those days are gone now; we don't have the money. We're under the impression that the people we elected in November know it. And we're under the impression that the people we elected in November are there to put the brakes on and to represent those who elected them in a huge landslide, always remembering that that November election result was an anti-Obama vote. It wasn't so much a pro-Republican vote; there wasn't a Republican message per se.

There wasn't a Republican personality or identity people could latch onto in that election. They were talking House and Senate races, down-ballot state legislatures. It was a slam dunk. It was an overwhelming landslide and it was resulting from the Democrats, Reagan Democrats and independents fleeing Obama. That was an anti-Obama, anti-liberal, anti-Obama policy vote in November. Those people haven't changed their minds. Unemployment news today, you've heard it, 9.2%. The president with a pathetic announcement about it today. CNBC and some other business channel experts were all predicting a rosy economy by now. They're eating crow left and right.

You've got David Plouffe -- did you see this? Obama's campaign ace in 2008 said, (paraphrasing) "You know what, unemployment's not even gonna be an issue in 2012. Is not even gonna be an issue." You know why unemployment's not gonna be an issue in 2012, folks, you know why? Essentially he said because voters are stupid, they don't care about anybody but themselves. He said the voters are going to be voting on their own circumstances, and if their future looks good they're not gonna want to change anything, they're not gonna want to change horses in the middle of the stream. Fine. That's a crazy thing to say. Who in the world, in a majority, does that include? When I see a poll 72% want a free market economy, not government-run, when 60-plus percent say they don't like the direction the country is going, where in the world does anybody get from that that Obama wins reelection because people are comfortable and happy with their own personal circumstance? Oh, yeah, the unemployment rate doesn't matter. Of course you say that now that they've figured they're not gonna be able to get it below 8%.

In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics played another little game starting this year in order to keep that number at 9.2%. Not only are they monkeying around with the total number of jobs in the universe and reducing it, they are now expanding from two years to five years a statistic regarding the number of people unemployed. I will explain that to you in detail as the program unfolds. Also, there's a panicked press release today from some commercial real estate people, trade people, that in the discussion yesterday, Obama -- and, by the way, he has made this official in 2009 budget documents he's presented that he wants to get rid of the carried interest tax break for hedge funds, private equity groups, and commercial real estate people.

Now, carried interest, I gave myself a challenge today, make the complex understandable. What is it? Gave myself a challenge, be able to explain carried interest inside of a minute. I think I've been able to do it. But essentially carried interest is profits for original investors in hedge funds, private equity firms, commercial real estate that is at present taxed at capital gains levels, and they want to convert this to ordinary income, which would move it up to about 35 and then eventually 39.6 if Obama gets his tax increase wish, which would shut down commercial real estate investment. It would just end it. So basically in less than a minute I told you what it was. So apparently these people in the commercial real estate industry are panicked that the Republicans are gonna cave on that. I got that this morning in the e-mail.

Then you got the corporate jet guys, they're panicked over what's planned there. So something is clearly going on. If you look at what Obama has achieved, his stimulus is now part of the baseline of every single budget. He wants to slash defense, bye-bye NASA as of today. There's talk about revenue being generated, and the Republicans are engaging in those talks, when revenue shouldn't even be an issue. Obamacare is not being discussed, and that's the biggest spending problem to come down the pike, that's got to be defunded or repealed, and that's not even being discussed. And Obama's talking about spreading out budget cuts over more than a decade, meaning they will never occur. So you, as a Congress, you agree to budget cuts today that will happen in 2010. Well, by the time the Congress of 2020 comes along they're gonna say screw those guys in 2011, we're gonna do what we want to do now.

So all these long-term, out-year cuts, they're never gonna happen. It's as old as the Democrat Party the playbook. I don't know why the Republicans feel any pressure to do this. What am I missing, folks? What am I missing? Where is the pressure? I know there's media pressure on the Republicans. What, Snerdley, what? Okay. So the pressure is that we have to expand the debt ceiling, 'cause it's the responsible thing. If we don't raise the debt ceiling, we default. That's the pressure. Okay, all right, so who's saying that? The media is saying that and Obama's saying that. All right. Well, I know Boehner is saying it. In fact, there's a Politico story here, I'll find it, I've got stuff scattered over different places here, but Boehner has said we gotta do this by August 2nd, and we don't. We don't. We could lower the debt ceiling and still service the debt. But I don't know how much of this is gamesmanship and Obama being pressured by Boehner in a little reverse game here.

Regardless, apparently the Republicans are feeling pressure from someplace but from the wrong place. They're reacting to the wrong pressure and they're reacting to the wrong people. Obama does the same thing every time, the same thing every time. I've figured it out. This is what happens. In order to keep the public in the dark about what he's doing and to bypass the usual legislative process, Obama waits until the last minute for everything. He doesn't get involved in talks until the final moments, then when he does get involved, the meetings are in secret. He comes out of the meetings framing the issues and some deal gets cut, and the public really has no idea what the details are until there is a vote.

This is how he operates. This is how he undermines the legislative process, by the way. This is how he controls the media spin. This is how he deceives the public. This is how he leads from behind, and he only gets away with it because the Republican leadership is somehow caught constantly off guard and lets it happen knowing full well that it's coming. Now, on the other side the Democrats are fit to be tied, too. Pelosi, when she heard that Social Security and Medicare cuts are part of what Obama's offering, she's flipping her wig, and so's David "Rodham" Gergen. We've got sound bites of that to share with you. This is why I am here, my friends, to cut through all of this drivel, all of this bilge to get to the essence of what's being discussed and what's taking place.

RUSH: There's another element at play here, of course, and that's big money, who could Boehner and the Republicans be feeling pressure from. McConnell, could be Wall Street types, could be big money types who want, you know, for their world to function, have the debt ceiling raised, no worries about credit ratings and bond ratings and all that and could very well be that that's where the pressure Boehner is feeling is coming from.

wazu
07-10-2011, 10:18 PM
1. There is no Bowles-Simpson-style tax reform on the table so we're not talking here about lowering rates and eliminating tax expenditures (i.e. closing loopholes). We're just talking about the latter without the former. In fact, the democrats want to raise rates (by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on some income categories). If the Republicans go along with rolling the expenditures back now, you can kiss any chance at a Bowles-Simpson tax reform goodbye because the dems won't agree to lower rates without the sugar of closing so-called loopholes to go with it.

2. How is it shared sacrifice when you first allow democrats to increase spending dramatically and then you remedy that debt impact with partial spending cuts and partial tax increases? Sounds like a net win for the increase spending/increase taxes party to me. Similarly, allowing democrats to roll back the Bush tax cuts on upper income brackets only has the net effect (initial Bush cuts plus rollback) of making the tax code more progressive not less, which again is a win for democrats.

This. Nailed it.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-11-2011, 02:55 AM
http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

You can never earn enough money to pay the debt in a system that by design creates more debt than money. So why should we bother trying?

BucEyedPea
07-11-2011, 09:10 AM
Ryan's plan does not effect anybody age 55 or older, PERIOD!! Medicare "stays the same" as it is for those 55 and older.


That's what Bachmann said on Fox too.

VAChief
07-11-2011, 12:31 PM
And this info right here is absolute BS:BS: that you have bought from the Marxist Media. The deceptional lies that I was referring to earlier.

Ryan's plan does not effect anybody age 55 or older, PERIOD!! Medicare "stays the same" as it is for those 55 and older.

READ IT !!!!

The Social Security part of his plan doesn't really worry me from what I understand of the basics. It keeps the same system for those in it now (or at least could be in it now). Those close it gives some options that at least on the surface seems reasonable.

The medicare vouchers worry me a ton. There definitely needs to be reform as we cannot sustain the current path. However, the reform is too heavily weighted on the customer end and not enough on the provider end. We could start by actually gutting hacks like Rick Scott down the belly who bilked medicare for years and then get elected Gov. of Florida.

Medicare, Social Security, or Medicaid fraud should be considered treason. Take away your citizenship, we give you a one way ticket to any country that will take you. Buh Bye!