PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama Backs New Debt Plan That Doesn't Raise Taxes


petegz28
07-25-2011, 03:12 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43883330

HonestChieffan
07-25-2011, 03:16 PM
No doubt.


It mimics Obama.....it looks good on paper and accomplishes nothing

go bowe
07-25-2011, 03:23 PM
wasn't this "plan" aleady critiqued in another thread?

basically it's cosmetic cuts and phantom savings...

petegz28
07-25-2011, 03:45 PM
wasn't this "plan" aleady critiqued in another thread?

basically it's cosmetic cuts and phantom savings...

Kinda goes back to your thread about politicos worrying more about re-election than doing anything worth a shit. This is just so both sides can say they got what they wanted

Chiefshrink
07-25-2011, 03:53 PM
Not just yet.

Chiefshrink
07-25-2011, 03:54 PM
They are bitching over the dates. Obama wants to push the next deal past 2012 for obvious reasons and for obvious reasons the Repubs want to revisit this prior to 2012.

Same ol same ol

HonestChieffan
07-25-2011, 04:02 PM
House answers with a bit more meat....

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a blunt challenge to President Barack Obama, House Republicans drafted legislation Monday to avert a threatened Aug. 2 government default — but along lines the White House has already dismissed. U.S. financial markets shrugged off the uncertainty.

According to a GOP aide familiar with the emerging House bill, it would provide for an immediate $1 trillion increase in the government’s $14.3 trillion debt limit in exchange for $1.2 trillion in cuts in federal spending.

The measure also envisions Congress approving a second round of spending cuts of $1.8 trillion or more in 2012, passage of which would trigger an additional $1.6 trillion in increased borrowing authority.

While the bill marked a retreat from legislation that conservatives muscled through the House last week, the two-step approach runs afoul of Obama’s insistence that lawmakers solve the current crisis in a way that avoids a politically charged rerun next year in the middle of the 2012 election campaign.

Without signed legislation by day’s end on Aug. 2, the Treasury will be unable to pay all its bills, possibly triggering an unprecedented default that officials warn could harm an economy struggling to recover from the worst recession in decades.

That deadline has set off an epic clash between the two parties, each side maneuvering for public approval and political leverage in advance of next year’s elections with the White House and control of Congress at stake.

patteeu
07-25-2011, 04:21 PM
They are bitching over the dates. Obama wants to push the next deal past 2012 for obvious reasons and for obvious reasons the Repubs want to revisit this prior to 2012.

Same ol same ol

The Republicans are willing to accept either a short term deal or a long term deal that goes past the 2012 election. The hang up is that for a long term deal, the Republicans are insisting on real cuts and no new taxes while the democrats seem to want fake cuts and/or new taxes.

orange
07-25-2011, 04:29 PM
House answers with a bit more meat....


Tea Party* to Boehner:

http://sportschump.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Bill-Rusell-blocks-shot.jpg
Get that weak shit out of here!


Tea Party Coalition Rejects Boehner's Debt Proposal (UPDATE)

UPDATE: 4:10 p.m. -- A coalition of Tea Party chapters and conservative lawmakers on Monday rejected the debt proposal put forward by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), despite his efforts to sweeten the deal with provisions favored by his conservative base.

The Cut, Cap, Balance Coalition, which boasts hundreds of Tea Party groups and more than 100 GOP lawmakers in its membership, is citing two provisions in Boehner's proposal that amount to deal-breakers: its call for creating a Congressional Commission and its inclusion of a balanced budget amendment that, according to the group, is only for show.

"A symbolic vote on a balanced budget amendment at some later time minimizes its importance, as it will not be tied to an increase in the debt ceiling," reads a statement from the coalition. "A BBA that allows a tax increase with anything less than a 2/3 supermajority is not a serious measure."

Conservatives were also rubbed the wrong way by Boehner's inclusion of a "Super Congress" in his plan. The new commission, composed of 12 members from both parties and both chambers, would be granted extraordinary new powers to fast-track legislation through both chambers without it being amended. The commission would be tasked with finding a minimum amount of spending cuts before Congress could proceed to a second increase in the debt ceiling next year.

"History has shown that such commissions, while well-intentioned, make it easier to raise taxes than to institute enduring budget reforms," reads the coalition's statement.

Boehner threw a bone to the Tea Party by wrapping a balanced budget amendment and spending caps into his final debt plan. But his specific proposal to hold a vote on a balanced budget amendment after lawmakers would be asked to vote to raise the debt ceiling isn't good enough for the group.

The coalition tried to soften the blow to Boehner by saying they aren't unhappy with him, but with his proposal.

"To be clear, we are not criticizing the Speaker," the statement explained. "However, we cannot support his framework, and we urge those who have signed the Pledge to oppose it and hold out for a better plan."

Joseph Bretell, a spokesman for the coalition, told The Huffington Post he wouldn't speak for individual lawmakers, but that it is fair to say that lawmakers who signed the coalition's pledge are behind the group's statement.

"We put forward the pledge. They signed the pledge," said Bretell. "We certainly hope that having signed the pledge, they will hold out for a better plan than this one."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/25/tea-party-scores-another-victory-with-boehner-debt-proposal_n_908771.html

* ridiculously clever Boston reference intentional

HonestChieffan
07-25-2011, 04:32 PM
They will come together. No way will they even consider that crock of shit Reid attempted to sell.

Calcountry
07-25-2011, 04:34 PM
If the house makes a deal with the Senate, they pass it, then adjourn. game over Obama.

orange
07-25-2011, 04:42 PM
If the house makes a deal with the Senate, they pass it, then adjourn. game over Obama.

And just where do you think he's going to get all these Democratic votes? Nevermind the Senate - it'll never get that far if the TPers vote Nay and there are not a substantial number of House Dems voting Aye.

dirk digler
07-25-2011, 04:47 PM
I almost feel sorry for Boehner. He really really wants to make a deal but he has to deal with his own caucus that just don't want any compromise at all.

Calcountry
07-25-2011, 04:48 PM
And just where do you think he's going to get all these Democratic votes? Nevermind the Senate - it'll never get that far if the TPers vote Nay and there are not a substantial number of House Dems voting Aye.Well fug it then.

Calcountry
07-25-2011, 04:49 PM
I almost feel sorry for Boehner. He really really wants to make a deal but he has to deal with his own caucus that just don't want any compromise at all.Fug you guys. We will see you in november.

You want to fug the country up, go ahead.

Just understand one thing. We fugged it together.

'Hamas' Jenkins
07-25-2011, 04:52 PM
I almost feel sorry for Boehner. He really really wants to make a deal but he has to deal with his own caucus that just don't want any compromise at all.

He's the one who courted these psychopaths, now he has to deal with it. Fuck him.

vailpass
07-25-2011, 04:54 PM
obama. How could any rational person not regret his presidency to date?

dirk digler
07-25-2011, 04:57 PM
He's the one who courted these psychopaths, now he has to deal with it. Fuck him.

or that

RINGLEADER
07-25-2011, 04:57 PM
Given the fact that the Dems have given in to:

* Tying debt increase to longer-term debt cuts
* No income tax increases
* No cuts in defense spending

I think the GOP has more than enough to claim victory here politically. If the Tea Party wing is too stupid to realize this then that's their problem, but in answer to the question about their significance, I think Reid's (somewhat) gimmicky proposal would have pretty strong bi-partisan support even without the TP and pass in the House and Senate. If Boehner could squeeze Reid further and get him to agree to a BBA vote with his package then everyone pretty much wins (Obama gets his 2 years of cash to spend, the Dems don't have to touch entitlements or make a lot, if any, cuts, and the GOP gets to hang their hat on some fantasy numbers, a commission, no tax increase, etc., and the TP gets a BBA vote).

Given the fact that there wouldn't have even been a debate about the size of the debt absent a GOP House, you'd think that the GOP would grab the bigger bag of marbles and go home now. It's not like their plan of a few trillion in cuts (as opposed to Reid's 1.2 trillion or thereabouts) really fixes anything either. Politically, if the GOP really wants to do something transformational, they need to get what they can here and win the next election.

The whole thing is pretty much a joke all around at this point... especially since the final solution both sides are advocating isn't going to have much more of an impact than this thing would.

RINGLEADER
07-25-2011, 05:00 PM
He's the one who courted these psychopaths, now he has to deal with it. **** him.

They're not psychopaths, they just have inflated senses of self-worth. Kind of like Obama, just without any real power...

dirk digler
07-25-2011, 05:04 PM
I don't disagree with your post Ringleader and really Boehner and the Republicans should have took the deal they had with Obama including the revenue. It was a good deal and gave each side things they wanted and didn't want. That is compromise which is what the American people want.

RINGLEADER
07-25-2011, 05:08 PM
I don't disagree with your post Ringleader and really Boehner and the Republicans should have took the deal they had with Obama including the revenue. It was a good deal and gave each side things they wanted and didn't want. That is compromise which is what the American people want.

From the reporting (and watching some of Obama's people on the tube this weekend) I think they had a deal and Obama tried to get some extra taxes thrown in and that scuttled things. Obama is playing politics with this thing the same as Boehner and the GOP. When you realize that the "grand plan" didn't cover the interest payments in the next 10 years you get a sense of how unrealistic all sides are being with the issue.

BucEyedPea
07-25-2011, 05:08 PM
I don't disagree with your post Ringleader and really Boehner and the Republicans should have took the deal they had with Obama including the revenue. It was a good deal and gave each side things they wanted and didn't want. That is compromise which is what the American people want.

I don't want that and I am one of those Americans.

BucEyedPea
07-25-2011, 05:10 PM
I almost feel sorry for Boehner. He really really wants to make a deal but he has to deal with his own caucus that just don't want any compromise at all.
He's in the pockets of the Big Banks. F the sell-out!

petegz28
07-25-2011, 05:12 PM
Before either side entertains any tax hikes we need to see significant cuts. Throw the people a bone FFS, already. It's going to make it a lot easier to pass any tax hikes once the people see some actual spending cuts. But this crap of "we overspent, put you in debt and now we need to tax you more for our mis-managment" is a crock.

BucEyedPea
07-25-2011, 05:12 PM
Tea Party* to Boehner:

Tea Party Coalition Rejects Boehner's Debt Proposal (UPDATE)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/25/tea-party-scores-another-victory-with-boehner-debt-proposal_n_908771.html

Awesome! It's like fighting a second American Revolution but without the bloodshed!!! :thumb:

orange
07-25-2011, 05:13 PM
From the reporting (and watching some of Obama's people on the tube this weekend) I think they had a deal and Obama tried to get some extra taxes thrown in and that scuttled things. Obama is playing politics with this thing the same as Boehner and the GOP. When you realize that the "grand plan" didn't cover the interest payments in the next 10 years you get a sense of how unrealistic all sides are being with the issue.

From what I've heard (miscellaneous sources), it wasn't anything Obama said that caused Boehner to walk out. It was the "not only NO, HELL NO!" that he got from his own people.

Calcountry
07-25-2011, 05:13 PM
He's the one who courted these psychopaths, now he has to deal with it. **** him.Bring it bitch.

petegz28
07-25-2011, 05:14 PM
From what I've heard (miscellaneous sources), it wasn't anything Obama said that caused Boehner to walk out. It was the "not only NO, HELL NO!" that he got from his own people.

Well then good for him for listening.

dirk digler
07-25-2011, 05:17 PM
From the reporting (and watching some of Obama's people on the tube this weekend) I think they had a deal and Obama tried to get some extra taxes thrown in and that scuttled things. Obama is playing politics with this thing the same as Boehner and the GOP. When you realize that the "grand plan" didn't cover the interest payments in the next 10 years you get a sense of how unrealistic all sides are being with the issue.

What supposedly happened was they asked Boehner if they could add $400 billion in revenue and it wasn't a demand. They told him to get back with him to see if that would work and they never talked to him again until he called right before he went on TV 2 days later.

Of course there is 2 sides to every story and who knows what the truth is.

BucEyedPea
07-25-2011, 05:20 PM
From what I've heard (miscellaneous sources), it wasn't anything Obama said that caused Boehner to walk out. It was the "not only NO, HELL NO!" that he got from his own people.

Awesome!

petegz28
07-25-2011, 05:22 PM
What supposedly happened was they asked Boehner if they could add $400 billion in revenue and it wasn't a demand. They told him to get back with him to see if that would work and they never talked to him again until he called right before he went on TV 2 days later.

Of course there is 2 sides to every story and who knows what the truth is.

The truth is that the Dems and the mainstream R's are trying to concoct some deal that makes it look like they are doing something good for everyone when really they just get to keep on spending.

BucEyedPea
07-25-2011, 05:26 PM
The truth is that the Dems and the mainstream R's are trying to concoct some deal that makes it look like they are doing something good for everyone when really they just get to keep on spending.

Someone can see through all the histrionics.

dirk digler
07-25-2011, 05:30 PM
The truth is that the Dems and the mainstream R's are trying to concoct some deal that makes it look like they are doing something good for everyone when really they just get to keep on spending.

Maybe. But I have a solution to this whole mess.

1. Extend the debt ceiling to 2013 by itself on the condition of:
a. Spending cut bill that has to be signed by Dec 31, 2011 11:59pm with cuts at the minimum of $4 trillion dollars
b. Tax reform bill that will raise revenue by $2 trillion and has to be signed by Dec 31, 2011 11:59pm

If there is no bill done by this time Obamacare goes bye bye and we have full repeal of the Bush tax cuts.

RINGLEADER
07-25-2011, 05:31 PM
From what I've heard (miscellaneous sources), it wasn't anything Obama said that caused Boehner to walk out. It was the "not only NO, HELL NO!" that he got from his own people.

Yeah, I'm sure he's got a gun in his back, but I also think Boehner is willing to bend more than they may want him to bend. It looks increasingly like they were close to a deal but the thing that's important to Obama isn't cuts or revenues but one vote that will last through the next election.

I still subscribe to this whole exercise (and its participants) being a total joke at this point.

Calcountry
07-25-2011, 05:32 PM
What supposedly happened was they asked Boehner if they could add $400 billion in revenue and it wasn't a demand. They told him to get back with him to see if that would work and they never talked to him again until he called right before he went on TV 2 days later.

Of course there is 2 sides to every story and who knows what the truth is.Don't you just love the Constitution?

go bowe
07-25-2011, 05:32 PM
Maybe. But I have a solution to this whole mess.

1. Extend the debt ceiling to 2013 by itself on the condition of:
a. Spending cut bill that has to be signed by Dec 31, 2012 11:59pm with cuts at the minimum of $4 trillion dollars
b. Tax reform bill that will raise revenue by $2 trillion and has to be signed by Dec 31, 2012 11:59pm

If there is no bill done by this time Obamacare goes bye bye and we have full repeal of the Bush tax cuts.

nope, too reasonable...

Calcountry
07-25-2011, 05:33 PM
The truth is that the Dems and the mainstream R's are trying to concoct some deal that makes it look like they are doing something good for everyone when really they just get to keep on spending.If they don't pass the debt increase, they will have to CUT SPENDING.

The priorities are the only thing we are haggling over at this point.

Chocolate Hog
07-25-2011, 05:33 PM
Obama isn't a leader.

petegz28
07-25-2011, 05:34 PM
nope, too reasonable...

Like I said...."let us spend more now and we promise to spend less later. In the meantime your taxes are going up"

Calcountry
07-25-2011, 05:34 PM
The house should pass a clean 300 billion increase in the debt ceiling, no strings attached as a last ditch. Then we can keep this game going another month.

BucEyedPea
07-25-2011, 05:34 PM
Maybe. But I have a solution to this whole mess.

1. Extend the debt ceiling to 2013 by itself on the condition of:
a. Spending cut bill that has to be signed by Dec 31, 2012 11:59pm with cuts at the minimum of $4 trillion dollars
b. Tax reform bill that will raise revenue by $2 trillion and has to be signed by Dec 31, 2012 11:59pm

If there is no bill done by this time Obamacare goes bye bye and we have full repeal of the Bush tax cuts.

Will never work when they extend the ceiling first. The tax cuts never follow. In fact after every tax increase spending has increased.

RINGLEADER
07-25-2011, 05:35 PM
Maybe. But I have a solution to this whole mess.

1. Extend the debt ceiling to 2013 by itself on the condition of:
a. Spending cut bill that has to be signed by Dec 31, 2012 11:59pm with cuts at the minimum of $4 trillion dollars
b. Tax reform bill that will raise revenue by $2 trillion and has to be signed by Dec 31, 2012 11:59pm

If there is no bill done by this time Obamacare goes bye bye and we have full repeal of the Bush tax cuts.

I like your passion...

petegz28
07-25-2011, 05:35 PM
Maybe. But I have a solution to this whole mess.

1. Extend the debt ceiling to 2013 by itself on the condition of:
a. Spending cut bill that has to be signed by Dec 31, 2012 11:59pm with cuts at the minimum of $4 trillion dollars
b. Tax reform bill that will raise revenue by $2 trillion and has to be signed by Dec 31, 2012 11:59pm

If there is no bill done by this time Obamacare goes bye bye and we have full repeal of the Bush tax cuts.

Why extend it until 2013?

RINGLEADER
07-25-2011, 05:36 PM
The house should pass a clean 300 billion increase in the debt ceiling, no strings attached as a last ditch. Then we can keep this game going another month.

Reportedly they had a deal that the GOP and DEMs both liked but Obama vetoed it when Reid outlined it to him over the weekend -- chiefly because it required two votes.

But as a last-ditch it would be funny to see Obama get such a thing and be forced to veto it.

vailpass
07-25-2011, 05:36 PM
The house should pass a clean 300 billion increase in the debt ceiling, no strings attached as a last ditch. Then we can keep this game going another month.

There is some merit to that. Not rushing in to a huge issue like this like they did on obamacare certainly seems to make sense.

Calcountry
07-25-2011, 05:37 PM
The house should pass any plan that didn't include a tax increase, and won't extend Obama's ability to spend(and his ability to spend is fugging legion), past next November.

Then the Senate can pick on, or fug it. Done. the House is just as important and equal as any other branch, they should have one vote every day on a different plan, pass em all, or not pass some of them, but, this would show that it is not them trying to be intransigent.

Then it is ALL on the Senate and President for failing to act. Let us not forget, who put in place the spending spree we are currently on, a DEMOCRATIC HOUSE, SENATE, AND President. They have spent us here.

BucEyedPea
07-25-2011, 05:39 PM
The house should pass a clean 300 billion increase in the debt ceiling, no strings attached as a last ditch. Then we can keep this game going another month.

Not bad, but I still like Paul's plan more for buying time.

Calcountry
07-25-2011, 05:46 PM
Reportedly they had a deal that the GOP and DEMs both liked but Obama vetoed it when Reid outlined it to him over the weekend -- chiefly because it required two votes.

But as a last-ditch it would be funny to see Obama get such a thing and be forced to veto it.They should pass a deal that Boehner said was in place when they moved the Goal posts.

BucEyedPea
07-25-2011, 05:47 PM
"A T-bill is a bond just like any other bond. Corporations, municipalities, and other issuers default on bonds all the time, and the results are hardly catastrophic.

Financial markets have been restructuring debt for many centuries, and they've gotten pretty good at it. From the discussion regarding T-bills, you'd think no one had ever heard of default-risk premiums before.

Treasuries are bonds just like any other bonds. There's nothing magic, mythical, or sacred about them. A default on US government debt is no more or less radical than a default on any other kind of debt."

Excerpted from: http://mises.org/daily/5476/There-Is-Life-after-Default

Calcountry
07-25-2011, 05:47 PM
Not bad, but I still like Paul's plan more for buying time.Honestly, I haven't heard about it.

Which is why the dude won't be president, cause I eat this stuff and haven't seen it. What is his plan?

Calcountry
07-25-2011, 05:48 PM
"A T-bill is a bond just like any other bond. Corporations, municipalities, and other issuers default on bonds all the time, and the results are hardly catastrophic.

Financial markets have been restructuring debt for many centuries, and they've gotten pretty good at it. From the discussion regarding T-bills, you'd think no one had ever heard of default-risk premiums before.

Treasuries are bonds just like any other bonds. There's nothing magic, mythical, or sacred about them. A default on US government debt is no more or less radical than a default on any other kind of debt."

Excerpted from: http://mises.org/daily/5476/There-Is-Life-after-DefaultExcept for Goldman won't be happy.

dirk digler
07-25-2011, 05:49 PM
Why extend it until 2013?

I thought about that and maybe that could be another trigger if the cuts and tax reform aren't passed.

And btw I edited my post I put 2012 when I meant 2011.

BucEyedPea
07-25-2011, 05:52 PM
Honestly, I haven't heard about it.

Which is why the dude won't be president, ...

This is irrelevant to this issue.

What is relevant is that he is in Congress where he serves on the Joint Economic Committee, and the House Committee on Financial Services, and is Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology. He excels in this area and the power of the purse is the role of Congress not the President.

...cause I eat this stuff and haven't seen it. What is his plan?
It's actually been given mainstream coverage. Here it is:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=246815&highlight=Ron+Paul+save+%2B+debt


Oh and the Republicans may not get the White House back either.

Calcountry
07-25-2011, 06:02 PM
Maybe. But I have a solution to this whole mess.

1. Extend the debt ceiling to 2013 by itself on the condition of:
a. Spending cut bill that has to be signed by Dec 31, 2011 11:59pm with cuts at the minimum of $4 trillion dollars
b. Tax reform bill that will raise revenue by $2 trillion and has to be signed by Dec 31, 2011 11:59pm

If there is no bill done by this time Obamacare goes bye bye and we have full repeal of the Bush tax cuts.They won't do it now, what makes you think they will be able to do it with more debt on their plate?

Obama wants a default, that is why he spend so DAMN MUCH MONEY. He is deliberately trying to debauch the currency.

Calcountry
07-25-2011, 06:02 PM
I thought about that and maybe that could be another trigger if the cuts and tax reform aren't passed.

And btw I edited my post I put 2012 when I meant 2011.We already have a trigger, and it is cocked and loaded.

Aug 2.

Calcountry
07-25-2011, 06:03 PM
Oh and the Republicans may not get the White House back either.Where in my post did I say we would?

Calcountry
07-25-2011, 06:04 PM
P.S. BEP, thanks for the link.

BucEyedPea
07-25-2011, 06:10 PM
Where in my post did I say we would?

It was related to your saying Paul wouldn't be president. I was using an irrelevancy irreverently in response.

BucEyedPea
07-25-2011, 06:12 PM
They won't do it now, what makes you think they will be able to do it with more debt on their plate?

Obama wants a default, that is why he spend so DAMN MUCH MONEY. He is deliberately trying to debauch the currency.

"The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency." ~ John Maynard Keynes

|Zach|
07-25-2011, 06:13 PM
Given the fact that the Dems have given in to:

* Tying debt increase to longer-term debt cuts
* No income tax increases
* No cuts in defense spending

I think the GOP has more than enough to claim victory here politically. If the Tea Party wing is too stupid to realize this then that's their problem, but in answer to the question about their significance, I think Reid's (somewhat) gimmicky proposal would have pretty strong bi-partisan support even without the TP and pass in the House and Senate. If Boehner could squeeze Reid further and get him to agree to a BBA vote with his package then everyone pretty much wins (Obama gets his 2 years of cash to spend, the Dems don't have to touch entitlements or make a lot, if any, cuts, and the GOP gets to hang their hat on some fantasy numbers, a commission, no tax increase, etc., and the TP gets a BBA vote).

Given the fact that there wouldn't have even been a debate about the size of the debt absent a GOP House, you'd think that the GOP would grab the bigger bag of marbles and go home now. It's not like their plan of a few trillion in cuts (as opposed to Reid's 1.2 trillion or thereabouts) really fixes anything either. Politically, if the GOP really wants to do something transformational, they need to get what they can here and win the next election.

The whole thing is pretty much a joke all around at this point... especially since the final solution both sides are advocating isn't going to have much more of an impact than this thing would.

Fractured GOP.

2012 victory.

|Zach|
07-25-2011, 06:20 PM
Reid plan looks pretty Republican.

Calcountry
07-25-2011, 06:34 PM
"The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency." ~ John Maynard KeynesI think I read Keynes, Marx, and sat in classes led by socialists, institutionalists, neo classical economists.

Someone else people should read, is Adam Smith.

Calcountry
07-25-2011, 06:35 PM
It was related to your saying Paul wouldn't be president. I was using an irrelevancy irreverently in response.I'm so dumb, and you are so smart. I get it now, thanks for splanin it to me.

:drool:

BucEyedPea
07-25-2011, 06:41 PM
I think I read Keynes, Marx, and sat in classes led by socialists, institutionalists, neo classical economists.

Someone else people should read, is Adam Smith.

Smith is fine but he made some errors that allowed Marx to get his foot in the door. It took the Austrian school to explain where that was. It was the Labor Theory of Value. It's not true. Value is subjective. There is no objective value because it comes from what value people give something.

KCWolfman
07-25-2011, 06:46 PM
Fractured GOP.

2012 victory.

If victory is defined by the unemployment rates of the last 3 years continuing for another 5.

|Zach|
07-25-2011, 06:52 PM
If victory is defined by the unemployment rates of the last 3 years continuing for another 5.

Not my fault you have a fractured party that can't get it together against one of the most vulnerable Presidents.

I guess lip service about being fiscally responsible while being pig headed on social issues only gets you so far.

petegz28
07-25-2011, 06:59 PM
Not my fault you have a fractured party that can't get it together against one of the most vulnerable Presidents.

I guess lip service about being fiscally responsible while being pig headed on social issues only gets you so far.

As opposed to the Democratic party who with all the control they had couldn't pass a budget for 2 fucking years which arguably has us in this mess to begin with.

|Zach|
07-25-2011, 06:59 PM
As opposed to the Democratic party who with all the control they had couldn't pass a budget for 2 ****ing years which arguably has us in this mess to begin with.

Uh yea that is putting it lightly.

mlyonsd
07-25-2011, 07:02 PM
Fractured GOP.

2012 victory.If the bill that passes doesn't have tax increases I doubt they will be as fractured as you think.

HonestChieffan
07-25-2011, 07:08 PM
Obama does not want a deal. He is running a scam and it will backfire.

The house has passed one bill, Obama got Reid to kill it.

He failed to work as a leader and ran Boehner off.

Reid was working a deal with Boehner and Obama told Reid to stop.

Reid comes forth with a pure bullshit proposal, Obama liked it and it fell like turd. Now Boehner will once more get his folks to back a deal and pass the house...and its back in Reid and Obama's court.

Obama wants a tax hike and a deal on the debt that keeps him from facing the music before the election...thats the entire program....more taxes and a free shot to keep spending like a hooker on crack.

|Zach|
07-25-2011, 07:13 PM
lol at this whole thing.

Boehner has now failed to get the House GOP leadership united behind his plan, much less his caucus. Boehner's criticism that Reid plan doesn't cut entitlements would be more convincing if Boehner's plan actually cut entitlements.

|Zach|
07-25-2011, 07:14 PM
Harry Reid's plan cuts $2.7T, Boehner's plan cuts $1.2T. Which one will "fiscally conservative" Republicans support?

patteeu
07-25-2011, 07:16 PM
I almost feel sorry for Boehner. He really really wants to make a deal but he has to deal with his own caucus that just don't want any compromise at all.

I think he wants to make a deal too, but he says Obama is the obstacle.

HonestChieffan
07-25-2011, 07:20 PM
Harry Reid's plan cuts $2.7T, Boehner's plan cuts $1.2T. Which one will "fiscally conservative" Republicans support?


Check your math....

Reids proposal:

$1.2t — discretionary cuts — defense and non-defense. *Notes Boehner agreed to $1.2t before broke off talks w/ WH.
$100b mandatory savings. Negotiated by Biden grp. Won’t impact Medicare, Medicaid, or SS benefits.
* Breaking this down —
* $40b in waste, fraud, abuse

* $30b in Fannie/Freddie reforms

* $15b in spectrum sales and Universal Service Fund Reforms

* $10–15b in agriculture reforms

* Higher education prog reform whose savings go to sustain the Pell Grant Program. (No dollar on this)

$1t in savings from winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
$400b in interest savings.


Boehner:

According to a GOP aide familiar with the emerging House bill, it would provide for an immediate $1 trillion increase in the government’s $14.3 trillion debt limit in exchange for $1.2 trillion in cuts in federal spending.

The measure also envisions Congress approving a second round of spending cuts of $1.8 trillion or more in 2012, passage of which would trigger an additional $1.6 trillion in increased borrowing authority.

patteeu
07-25-2011, 07:26 PM
Harry Reid's plan cuts $2.7T, Boehner's plan cuts $1.2T. Which one will "fiscally conservative" Republicans support?

Reid's plan doesn't cut anywhere near $2.7T. Did you just roll off the turnip truck?

|Zach|
07-25-2011, 07:36 PM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEBT_SHOWDOWN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-07-25-12-14-43

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-democrats-cave/242467/

Calcountry
07-25-2011, 07:38 PM
Smith is fine but he made some errors that allowed Marx to get his foot in the door. It took the Austrian school to explain where that was. It was the Labor Theory of Value. It's not true. Value is subjective. There is no objective value because it comes from what value people give something.Value is perceived, I put that into practice in the real world every day.

Calcountry
07-25-2011, 07:41 PM
Smith is fine but he made some errors that allowed Marx to get his foot in the door. It took the Austrian school to explain where that was. It was the Labor Theory of Value. It's not true. Value is subjective. There is no objective value because it comes from what value people give something.Be relevant to the discussion now. ;)

Specifically, what errors? What is this "door", that you refer to?

Calcountry
07-25-2011, 07:42 PM
Be rigorous, and precise.

banyon
07-25-2011, 08:03 PM
Smith is fine but he made some errors that allowed Marx to get his foot in the door. It took the Austrian school to explain where that was. It was the Labor Theory of Value. It's not true. Value is subjective. There is no objective value because it comes from what value people give something.

objectivity is "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion".

Values for all manner of product are agreed upon daily by the market, auctions, price listings, menus, etc. While it is obtusely true that any individual transaction between a buyer and seller will be governed by their independent ideas of value, that does not mean that there is not an objective market with reference points that a broader group of people have constructed that acts as a set of guidelines to govern their transaction.

Your skewed narrow definition of objectivity would render all manner of useful societal norms impractical and unusable.

|Zach|
07-25-2011, 08:13 PM
As opposed to the Democratic party who with all the control they had couldn't pass a budget for 2 ****ing years which arguably has us in this mess to begin with.

Via WashingtonPost

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/07/25/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/debt%20changes%20under%20bush%20obama.jpg

patteeu
07-25-2011, 08:49 PM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEBT_SHOWDOWN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-07-25-12-14-43

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-democrats-cave/242467/

http://www.cabletvonhold.com/_/rsrc/1288495917188/who-are-you/fall-off-the-turnip-truck/turnip.jpg

|Zach|
07-25-2011, 08:54 PM
http://www.cabletvonhold.com/_/rsrc/1288495917188/who-are-you/fall-off-the-turnip-truck/turnip.jpg

Yea I mean...on one hand I have the AP and then on the other I have a George Bush fluffing partisan hack.

http://stopmysacramentoforeclosure.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Man-Weighing-Options.jpg

banyon
07-25-2011, 08:58 PM
http://www.cabletvonhold.com/_/rsrc/1288495917188/who-are-you/fall-off-the-turnip-truck/turnip.jpg

Is that band-aid from when, after the turnip fell into the road, the Republicans tried to drain blood out of it?

:p

patteeu
07-25-2011, 09:07 PM
Yea I mean...on one hand I have the AP and then on the other I have a George Bush fluffing partisan hack.

If nothing else, even you ought to be able to understand that counting the already planned end to military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan as $1T in new cuts is fakery regardless of whether the AP wants to go along with the bookkeeping charade.

The emperor's new clothes are exquisite, aren't they Zach?

|Zach|
07-25-2011, 09:25 PM
If nothing else, even you ought to be able to understand that counting the already planned end to military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan as $1T in new cuts is fakery regardless of whether the AP wants to go along with the bookkeeping charade.

The emperor's new clothes are exquisite, aren't they Zach?

You mean like both the House Republican budget and the “Cut, Cap, and Balance” Plan? Booth supported by nearly the entire GOP caucus. Also counted savings from winding down the wars.

But you don't have to believe me. Cantor said it himself.

petegz28
07-25-2011, 09:28 PM
Via WashingtonPost

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/07/25/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/debt%20changes%20under%20bush%20obama.jpg

Ok, using your chart, if Obama were to serve 2 terms at the pace he is going he would outspend Bush by $1 tril.

And you left out Obama's extension of the Bush tax cuts, Libya, Afghan surge.....

What's your point?

HonestChieffan
07-25-2011, 09:30 PM
Gimmicks don't fly with the bean counters at the ratings agencies.


(Fox News) — Senate Democrats’ inclusion in their proposed debt package of $1 trillion in savings from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may not satisfy ratings agencies threatening a credit downgrade since the wars were expected to end with or without a debt deal.

The budget gimmick is one that has been used by both parties. President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner had earlier considered employing it during discussions that have since broken down. Now Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid is using the trick in his $2.7 trillion deficit-reduction plan, according to aides. Boehner has not indicated where he would draw his savings, totaling up to $3 trillion.

To put the numbers in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office estimated earlier this year that U.S. budget deficits would total $7 trillion over the coming decade.

But to reach $1 trillion in war costs, budget scorekeepers simply look at current funding for the wars and spread that out over 10 years, rather than projecting what is going to happen in the future.

“The way the CBO constructs the baseline is it extrapolates current law, and the current law is that we are funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin told FoxNews.com. “The trouble is that CBO’s baseline is not what anyone really thinks will happen.”

Holtz-Eakin said that while Reid’s proposal is transparent about including war savings, the problem with employing it here is that ratings agencies want to see “real savings” out of the current talks.

“I don’t think it’ll be compelling to markets or ratings agencies,” he said. “Since this spending was going to go away anyway, it would not constitute an improvement. And they want improvements.”

|Zach|
07-25-2011, 09:31 PM
Ok, using your chart, if Obama were to serve 2 terms at the pace he is going he would outspend Bush by $1 tril.

And you left out Obama's extension of the Bush tax cuts, Libya, Afghan surge.....

What's your point?

Well after reading your post my point is that you don't read graphs well.

HonestChieffan
07-25-2011, 09:31 PM
Ok, using your chart, if Obama were to serve 2 terms at the pace he is going he would outspend Bush by $1 tril.

And you left out Obama's extension of the Bush tax cuts, Libya, Afghan surge.....

What's your point?

Charts r fun

petegz28
07-25-2011, 09:32 PM
Well after reading your post my point is that you don't read graphs well.

I read your graph....I didn't see Libya, Afghan surge or Bush tax cut extension specifically

petegz28
07-25-2011, 09:32 PM
He y Zach, go get a graph of unemployment......

|Zach|
07-25-2011, 09:35 PM
I read your graph....I didn't see Libya, Afghan surge or Bush tax cut extension specifically

Your additions for a 2nd term under something that is already projected to 2017 is cute. Lots of assumptions there. lol

No worries though. We will be seeing soon enough exactly what Obama plans to do with his second term.

petegz28
07-25-2011, 09:36 PM
Your additions for a 2nd term under something that is already projected to 2017 is cute. Lots of assumptions there. lol

No worries though. We will be seeing soon enough exactly what Obama plans to do with his second term.

You think that graph projects to 2017???? LMAO......ok

petegz28
07-25-2011, 09:37 PM
So according to Zach's graph...Obama will do no more spending if re-elected. NONE! 0! ZILCH!

HonestChieffan
07-25-2011, 09:37 PM
Another view


http://www.glenturpin.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/WorstPieChartEver.jpg

patteeu
07-25-2011, 09:41 PM
Ok, using your chart, if Obama were to serve 2 terms at the pace he is going he would outspend Bush by $1 tril.

And you left out Obama's extension of the Bush tax cuts, Libya, Afghan surge.....

What's your point?

He didn't leave it out, he just picked a graphic that attributes all of the costs of anything that started during the Bush years to Bush regardless of how fully Obama embraced and sometimes expanded the policies. It's a dishonest graphic intended to deceive rather than inform.