1876 replies to this topic

[Strangelove]

Congress Balks, Boehner Walks

Obama holding Press Conference, He's Ticked.

Update:

Just Finished. Oh Snap, Obama is REALLY PISSED OFF! He summoned all the leaders to the White House at 11 am tomorrow.

New Information: John Boehner Blew off the President of the United States today before releasing letter to the media saying he's cut negotiations.

Update:

The way Boehner's response Press Conference looks pales in comparison to Obama, surprising considering the Speaker is Orange.

You could say, Obama knock the orange right out of him.

[catsi563]

He pretty well did. at this point President Obama has put things on the table that could potentially cost him the election. By doing so hes been the adault in these talks. The republicans have come off as a bunch of spoiled brats that didnt get their way and are currently in the throes of a temper tantrum and holding their breath till they turn blue in the face.

[Insurrection]

http://www.reuters.c...E76M0GX20110723

According to my interpretation via the Factbox by Reuters it seems that the tensions started Tues.-Wed. The White House also says it does not agree with the Republican proposal that the top income tax rate does not exceed 35 percent, or that it should be close to the lower corporate-tax rate.

Then it gets real interesting

JULY 20

Boehner and Cantor meet with Obama and Vice President Joe Biden at the White House. The discussion centers around the trigger: Republicans argue that slashing Medicare and Medicaid would cause political pain for both parties, not just Democrats. Instead, they propose that two central elements of Obama's new healthcare reform -- the requirement that individuals buy health insurance, and an independent board to oversee Medicare -- be struck from that law.
The two sides by this point have reached agreement on a number of other areas.

They have agreed to cut discretionary spending by $1.2 trillion over 10 years, with a guaranteed portion of that coming from the military and other security programs that Republicans normally protect. They have agreed to count an anticipated $1 trillion in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the White House.

On benefit programs, they have agreed to slow the growth of Social Security benefits by changing the way they are indexed to inflation.

On health programs, they have agreed to gradually raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67, negotiating lower prices for prescription drugs, and making other administrative changes.

THURSDAY, JULY 21

The White House refuses the Republican proposal to change its trigger from Medicare and Medicaid to its signature health-reform law. Boehner says he could not sell his fellow Republicans on the higher tax revenues sought by the White House. According to the White House, the two sides still disagree over the amount that would be saved by the Medicaid overhaul as well -- $120 billion vs. $150 billion.

According to the White House, Obama tries to call Boehner in the evening, but does not hear back.

Summary Via LA Times
And TIME


It seems that on Tuesday the Gang of Six Bipartisan Bill threw a big ironic cog in the negotiations because it had an extra $400 Billion in Revenue that the White House wanted to include to the already 800 billion. The GoS Plan had 2 Trillion in Revenue over 10 years with 3.7 Trillion in Cuts. The reason being in they weren't going to get enough Republicans they could have Democratic support and bring more on board to pass it if they could just have additional revenue. The Number was negotiable to help Boehner and could be made less and the difference could be found between them another way.

The plan involved Triggers.

There was a trigger in the plan that said if Congress did not pass Tax Reform the Bush Tax cuts were to expire agreed to the day before the Gang of Six. Republicans also wanted an insurance option, so they wanted a trigger that if Democrats just waited for the Tax Cuts Expire there would be changes to Obamacare suggested by Cantor's cheif of Staff.

The White house dismissed it as a nonstarter and could find another way. By Thursday Obama was seeing Boehner losing more and more GOP support, "bleeding members left and right" according to a senior white house aide. When the plan leaked the Democrats revolted by the Cuts now, Taxes Later approach. Reid was angry and asked why he wasn't included in the discussions and the Caucas threatened open revolt unless more revenue was included. Boehner couldn't see getting 40% more revenue without raising Taxes.

But the GOP found out about the Gang of Six changes were different instead of Obama/Boehner to make the tax rate of 29% to 35%. They were lower. And so that hurt Republican support. On both sides of Congress, support was waining and Boehner decided he was done and pulled the rug out from below Obama. Who still thought there was a deal and was doing his best to get it passed through both houses of Congress, but the line in the sand for Republicans was too steep. And even then the Republicans were uncompromising.

Friday Obama got requests for techinical details by Republicans and thought a deal was going to be made. Then Boehner pulled the plug citing the 400 billion suggested Tuesday, which was only a starting number.

Now here were are.

Another Version of Events: Full Version Here:http://www.huffingto...r_n_907502.html --Click here to view--

On the discretionary spending front, both sides had "identical offers," said one of the officials. There would be $1.2 trillion in cuts over the course of ten years; $1 trillion in savings that would come from the draw-down of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; and $250 billion in savings in Medicare over the course of 10 years. Both sides had also agreed to attach a second piece of legislation, to be decided via the reconciliation budget process, that would have changed the retirement age for Medicare and changed the premium structure for Medicare Part B and D, while eliminating certain kinds of supplemental insurance. That bill would also contain changes to the way Social Security benefits were paid starting in 2015, with buffers put in to protect the lowest-income beneficiaries.

There was, in addition, an informal agreement to try and extend Social Security's solvency by an additional 75 years. How they would get there, however, remained a point of contention, with the president wanting a package of benefit and premium changes and Republicans focusing just on the benefit side. Unable to overcome that impasse, the two sides settled on vague language requiring them to meet that 75-year goal with future reforms.

Where the two sides remained apart were on Medicaid cuts, with Republicans demanding tens of billions of dollars more in cuts than the president was comfortable making. White House officials described that difference as possible to overcome, however.

The revenue component, in the end, remained unbridgeable. According to senior White House officials, each side had agreed to pass tax reform down the road that would result in $800 billion in revenue generated -- the equivalent amount of savings that would be achieved if the top-end Bush tax cuts were simply allowed to expire. The administration wanted $400 billion in revenues on top of that. Republicans wanted zero, and in statements on Friday night GOP leadership aides insisted that the White House had changed the contours of the negotiations by making that demand in recent days.

Obama offered to move off that $400 billion mark should GOP leadership lessen the type of cuts to entitlement programs they were demanding, White House aides said.

In addition, the two sides could not figure out what to do if that aspirational tax reform package wasn't achieved. The White House, at various points, proposed that the fallback option be the actual expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans demanded that they have something as bluntly frightening to Democrats. On Thursday, GOP leadership proposed that the penalty for inaction on tax reform be the repeal of the health care law's individual mandate as well as the newly created Independent Advisory Board, which has been set up to find cost savings in Medicare. The White House balked at the offer.


"Our view was we are not going to put the individual mandate in a deficit reduction package," said a senior White House official. "But we were open to other ideas and there are any number of formulations for us."

All of which does not mean that the big deal is now dead. In fact, White House officials made it abundantly clear that they would welcome GOP leadership back into those discussions.

"The speaker withdrew from the talks. This offer is still available,” said one of those officials.

One Last Tidbit, if we only have a short term deal, America's credit rating will be downgraded. And this McConnell Reid Plan, is pathetic. The Republicans would rather give more power to the executive branch to avoid blame for American default then compromise with Obama. I don't care who you are, the rate that the Legislative Branch in this country is deteriorating we're all screwed. No wonder Obama is ticked.

Screw the Political Wing Ideologes and Professional Lifetime Politicians! Throw out dem bums!

Edited by Insurrection, 23 July 2011 - 09:35 AM.

[Strangelove]

Mhmm 1.2 trillion in 10 years...that is 120 Billion in the budget...BS. We should be looking to balance the budget, so we could pay our debt. Not increase the debt, and slashing a small portion of the bigger problem. The 14 trillion in debt and the liabilities, are a bubble, and is now ready to bust. If we default coming this November of 2012, Americans would be smart not to vote for any of this Repucrats.

[Insurrection]

Tea Party Rejects Boehner Plan

"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."

Psst. Tea Party, if you haven't noticed Americans are telling your pledge to go F*** itself. Along with the rest of the political parties and current government.

Edited by Insurrection, 25 July 2011 - 09:27 PM.

[roninmedia]

Only one way to right rid of debt. You spend less.

Real world people either spend less, get a job or a second job or both. Some politicians are living in their own lalaland.

[Strangelove]

Only one way to right rid of debt. You spend less.

Real world people either spend less, get a job or a second job or both. Some politicians are living in their own lalaland.

Is called fantasy land. Or Neverland...i guess that's just luxury.

[catsi563]

yeah like stopping 2 un-funded wars, and cutting tax loopholes for the rich and corporations, correctly funding medicare D that sort of thing, and actually letting the bush tax cuts expire. common sense things like that. except the tea party wont allow it that would require logic.

[Nate River]

yeah like stopping 2 un-funded wars, and cutting tax loopholes for the rich and corporations, correctly funding medicare D that sort of thing, and actually letting the bush tax cuts expire. common sense things like that. except the tea party wont allow it that would require logic.

Allow me to rephrase....if only the tea party would agree with Obama and the Demoracts in toto and simply go after your bogeymen then everything would be hunky dory despite the fact that they had supermajorities in 2009 and near supermajorities in 2010 and stilled produces deficits exceeding 1 trillion both years. So even under very favorable conditions he still managed to spend like a drunken sailor and yet EVERYTHING is the Tea Parties fault. Oh, and then topping that off with a Obama budget proposal in Feb. 2011 that would have seen those deficits continue in perpertuity. So yeah, Democrats have been totally serious about fighting the budget deficit and debt up until now. Heck, the could have "correctly' funded Part D during that time fram, whatever that means.

I wonder if it's a coincidence that the only thing you ever mention are the things you personally hate? At least you didn't use the words "shared sacrifce."

Of course, we could, you know, do without ObamaCare. We didn't have to pass that Stimulus for shovel ready jobs that were as shovel ready as he thought or the ineffective Homebuyers credit. Or the Cash for Clunkers that only shifted demand while removing servible vehicles from the road. We didn't have to send money to help bail out Greece or bail out FannieMae and Freddie Mac. We could also deal with the entitlement bomb we are sitting on instead of compounding it with programs like ObamaCare, but they didn't do that.

I think it's cute that you still cry about "2 un-funded wars" and the "bush tax cuts" despite the fact that Obama has had the power to end the wars since 2009 and as the commander and chief could have ended regardless of what Congress said. The Republicans could not have stopped them and yet he escalated Afghanistan. He could have closed Gitmo too, but yeah....

And that he is involved the military in Libya "without paying for it." I'm sorry, kinetic military action.

When the Bush tax cuts were set to end in 2010 it was OBAMA who cut the deal with Republicans because he needed the continuing resolution. A resolution he needed because of his and his party couldn't pass a budget when they were supposed to. The extention passed a Democratic Congress after all and even know he talked about taxes kicking in 2013...after the current deal expires anyway and after the 2012 elections.

If such a thing were so vital, then the logical thing to do would have been to end the wars (which he can still do) and let the tax cuts expire. He did neither. It's simply nauseting to listen to him whine about stuff he had complete control over and couldn't end because of his own weakness or ineptitude.

The Tea Party can't prevent this from happening.

If the wars are such a money vacuum Barack..End them now and order the troops home effective tommorow. ALL OF THEM. I can't figure out why he gives a damn that the Republicans who left him at the alter would complain about this.

cutting tax loopholes for the rich and corporations

Since you don't indentify any specific ones you'd like to target it's difficult to say whether this would "require logic" or whether the revenue generated would be at all significant. You just say "loopholes" and "the rich".

One Last Tidbit, if we only have a short term deal, America's credit rating will be downgraded. And this McConnell Reid Plan, is pathetic. The Republicans would rather give more power to the executive branch to avoid blame for American default then compromise with Obama. I don't care who you are, the rate that the Legislative Branch in this country is deteriorating we're all screwed. No wonder Obama is ticked.

Sounded to me like Obama changed the terms at the last second after the Gang of Six and he got pissed when Boehner decided working with him wasn't productive because Obama kept moving the goalposts . This is an adult? Whatever.

[Insurrection]

Sounded to me like Obama changed the terms at the last second after the Gang of Six and he got pissed when Boehner decided working with him wasn't productive because he kept moving the goal posts. This is an adult? Whatever.

Oooh nice use of the talking points. C'mon, both sides are to blame, yes Obama saw he could try to get more, but then tried to call Boehner to say the number could be less then 400 billion because it was never going to pass the House. Boehner couldn't get control of his own caucus that thinks "Pledges" are more important.

To quote Thomas Friedman: "The only Pledge I take is to never vote for a politician who took a pledge."

Let's cut the bull shall we. Nothing was going to pass the House except for what they want, that's become fact with Boehner's speech tonight for Cut, Cap and Balance. Also Boehner's new plan for short term deal is not going to pass for two reasons besides the fact the Senate and Presidency is controlled by Democrats.
1) No One wants to debate this AGAIN BEFORE 2012, except the House Republicans
2) Ratings Agencies will downgrade American Credit if it passes, and if that happens that will cause hardships that will spur the Anti-Washington sentiments among people, Especially Independents.

Even then Boehner and Reid are so ineffective as Congressional Leaders that they can't control or organize correctly. Boehner can't control the Caucus, the Caucus controls him. So he gave another Republican Stump speech at the end of Obama's just like the party has been doing every time he gives an address. Reid...well he likes to cave and has some funny math.

Also Nate, you never responded to the idea of Congress quitting the argument; to give the power of the debt ceiling to the Executive branch so they don't have to deal with it.

Now that my rant is over I should probably mention that Congressional Websites are going down/crashing and no one knows why.

http://www.huffingto...kusaolp00000003

http://www.thedailyb...ites-crash.html

Edited by Insurrection, 26 July 2011 - 08:16 AM.

[catsi563]

and stilled produces deficits exceeding 1 trillion both years

that was because unlike Bush who hand waved the cost of both wars President Obama put them both on the books along with medicare D. once he did that thena nd only then did the defecit go up.

And I would do shared sacrafice.

If only the sacrafice really would be shared.you want to tell me why ceos and corproations as a whole pay lower rates then the people that work for them? Much less the fact that with the loopholes and deductions and other crap in the current tax code the corproations on average pay zilch, zero, nein nix nada in taxes as is. And in point of fact under the current system which needs to be burned they get rewarded by shipping both jobs and their money off shores.

Inssurection hit it on the head. Boehner isnt going to pass anything substantive because hes scared s**tless of the tea party and doesnt have the balls to tell them and grover norquist where they can shove their pledge. Add in that they want to have a political bat they can use against the rpesident in 2012 and no measure will pass the house thats worth the paper its printed on.

the only thing now is to see if President Obama actually has the courage to just flat out unilaterally raise the debt ceiling himself before the clock runs out or not.

[Nate River]

Oooh nice use of the talking points. C'mon, both sides are to blame, yes Obama saw he could try to get more, but then tried to call Boehner to say the number could be less then 400 billion because it was never going to pass the House. Boehner couldn't get control of his own caucus that thinks "Pledges" are more important.

I was disappointed you caught that post before I could delete it because while I meant what I said in terms of substance and don't take any of it back, I was a jackass throughout the post and I regret doing that. I initially avoided the debate because I wasn't sure I could make it through it without being a jackass.

After reading your posts from the beginning of the debate I really don't think you're in any position to complain about people using talking points. I entered this debate because I got sick of people, including you, repeating Democratic talking points an acting like everything (and I do mean everything) was all the Republicans fault as if the last two years of binge spending hadn't happened and that it was Boehner's duty to accept whatever vaporous promises Obama had offered.

You keep saying it's both sides fault, but that only started after I mentioned that the Democrats failed to pass a budget last year and you've offered little of actual substance to back that up. Just generic...throw the bums out statements. Your entitled to your opinion, so I don't care if that's the one you want to take, but I take your claim with a grain of salt when 99% of criticisms go one direction. Even in this rant when you are trying to sound like you are blaming both sides it sounds your just blaming Boehner.

I'm not trying to sound even handed. I'm a conservative who votes Republican 90%+ of the time. Even when I deviate it's almost always at the local level with the exception of Al Gore in 2000. As I said, I entered to provide the conservative/Republican perspective and explain why I thought the offers you guys were trumpting two weeks ago were unserious pieces of junk that Boehner would be stupid to accept (tax increases now for spending cuts later) and why everything that has gone wrong in the universe since the beginning of time isn't the fault of Republicans because everyone was acting like it was. You guys didn't need me to rip Republicans. You were doing fine on your own.

Yes, of course, both sides are at fault: Republicans could have delt with some of this in 2001-2006, but chose instead to create a new entitlement and consistently spend more than they had. When Democrat took control in 2007, spending exploded and the entitlement bomb has been a problem people have seen coming for twenty years, but have been too afraid of seniors to deal with it. The list of people who have helped contribute to this is voluminous.

I didn't say this previously because I thought it came across as fake attempt to bolster myself and an attempt to sound like an impartial mediator; something I wasn't even trying to do.

To quote Thomas Friedman: "The only Pledge I take is to never vote for a politician who took a pledge."

Who cares about Thomas Friedman? I know I don't. And I suspect the reality for him is...."who took a pledge I didn't agree with."

Let's cut the bull shall we. Nothing was going to pass the House except for what they want, that's become fact with Boehner's speech tonight for Cut, Cap and Balance. Also Boehner's new plan for short term deal is not going to pass for two reasons besides the fact the Senate and Presidency is controlled by Democrats.
1) No One wants to debate this AGAIN BEFORE 2012, except the House Republicans
2) Ratings Agencies will downgrade American Credit if it passes, and if that happens that will cause hardships that will spur the Anti-Washington sentiments among people, Especially Independents.

On (1)...replace no one with Barack Obama then you've got it. Reid actually seemed open to a short term deal until he spoke with the President.

Even then Boehner and Reid are so ineffective as Congressional Leaders that they can't control or organize correctly. Boehner can't control the Caucus, the Caucus controls him. So he gave another Republican Stump speech at the end of Obama's just like the party has been doing every time he gives an address. Reid...well he likes to cave and has some funny math.

Define what you mean by "control." What are they supposed to be doing?

Up until this week Reid had been an non-entity in these debate.

Also Nate, you never responded to the idea of Congress quitting the argument; to give the power of the debt ceiling to the Executive branch so they don't have to deal with it.

I was penning a response to this post last night which had my response to that in it, but gave up because it was 12:30 and I wanted to go to bed. Second, that wasn't the purpose of any my previous posts, so there was no reason an no one was spending a lot of time on a bill that as of right now is dead.

But if you want my opinion on it....I despise it. I understand why McConnell made it. I fully understand the political calculations involved and why he offered it especially at the time he did, but I think it was an act of cowardice and I'm not terribly interested in bills whose only purpose is blame shifting.

[Insurrection]

We need to really do these debates when we aren't half asleep.

I was disappointed you caught that post before I could delete it because while I meant what I said in terms of substance and don't take any of it back, I was a jackass throughout the post and I regret doing that. I initially avoided the debate because I wasn't sure I could make it through it without being a jackass.

Thus begins one foundation lesson for the internet. Profthinking. And my problem, insomnia. WHY CAN'T I SLEEP!!!

After reading your posts from the beginning of the debate I really don't think you're in any position to complain about people using talking points. I entered this debate because I got sick of people, including you, repeating Democratic talking points an acting like everything (and I do mean everything) was all the Republicans fault as if the last two years of binge spending hadn't happened and that it was Boehner's duty to accept whatever vaporous promises Obama had offered.

You keep saying it's both sides fault, but that only started after I mentioned that the Democrats failed to pass a budget last year and you've offered little of actual substance to back that up. Just generic...throw the bums out statements. Your entitled to your opinion, so I don't care if that's the one you want to take, but I take your claim with a grain of salt when 99% of criticisms go one direction. Even in this rant when you are trying to sound like you are blaming both sides it sounds your just blaming Boehner.

At this point I'm left with Generic throw out dem bums statements. B-But I don't want to go in one direction, I was trying to be unbiased with the debt talks fact posting I made. But yeah, Democrats failed to pass a budget, Reid getting upset and coming late to the table upsets me. And yes the deficit has increased 54% under Obama. But yeah, I'm mad more at the Republicans I'll admit that (DISCLAIMER), again. Democrats haven't focused on jobs and when they were in power they didn't pass bills because they didn't know how to pass more central bills because of the more independent members. And economically they haven't been as focused as they should've been.

But yeah I'm more mad at R's members because they seem to rather scream then work. And when they do work they won't go to the Democrats to compromise.

I've always considered myself a centrist though.

I'm not trying to sound even handed. I'm a conservative who votes Republican 90%+ of the time. Even when I deviate it's almost always at the local level with the exception of Al Gore in 2000. As I said, I entered to provide the conservative/Republican perspective and explain why I thought the offers you guys were trumpting two weeks ago were unserious pieces of junk that Boehner would be stupid to accept (tax increases now for spending cuts later) and why everything that has gone wrong in the universe since the beginning of time isn't the fault of Republicans because everyone was acting like it was. You guys didn't need me to rip Republicans. You were doing fine on your own.

Hey I'm not trying to discredit your point of view (sometimes I'm just an ass). I didn't know you agreed that these bills are crap (Part of me thinks it's just one giant Kabuki Theater). But from an overall view Republicans decided to be more purist than thou after 2008, and usually that ticks me off. But I can understand why the Democrats made people angry because it's nearly for the same reasons. The Republicans just make it so easy to rip them. So EASY that it's painful to watch . Hey don't say I blame everything in the universe on Republicans, that's Catsi.

Yes, of course, both sides are at fault: Republicans could have delt with some of this in 2001-2006, but chose instead to create a new entitlement and consistently spend more than they had. When Democrat took control in 2007, spending exploded and the entitlement bomb has been a problem people have seen coming for twenty years, but have been too afraid of seniors to deal with it. The list of people who have helped contribute to this is voluminous.

Yeah. I won't argue with that.

I didn't say this previously because I thought it came across as fake attempt to bolster myself and an attempt to sound like an impartial mediator; something I wasn't even trying to do.

Ewwwww.....

Who cares about Thomas Friedman? I know I don't. And I suspect the reality for him is...."who took a pledge I didn't agree with."

I was only using it to help my argument, but yeah I figured that. Though that AmericansElect site is pretty cool.

On (1)...replace no one with Barack Obama then you've got it. Reid actually seemed open to a short term deal until he spoke with the President.

No I mean mmost people, you think people want to see this again in 9 months before an election? Would give me a bigger headache and tune out.

Define what you mean by "control." What are they supposed to be doing?

Up until this week Reid had been an non-entity in these debate.

Yeah, that's mey fault. I meant "control" as in a substantive appearance of leadership, that he creates the strategy and presents it to his party which in turn modifies it and communicate with the other institutions of Government. And your right, Reid has only stuck his name onto bills that aren't his idea. McConnell and Reid, the Senate in effect has been a non-issue except for the Gang of Six. Which was a cause of the stalemate.

I was penning a response to this post last night which had my response to that in it, but gave up because it was 12:30 and I wanted to go to bed. Second, that wasn't the purpose of any my previous posts, so there was no reason an no one was spending a lot of time on a bill that as of right now is dead.

But if you want my opinion on it....I despise it. I understand why McConnell made it. I fully understand the political calculations involved and why he offered it especially at the time he did, but I think it was an act of cowardice and I'm not terribly interested in bills whose only purpose is blame shifting.

QFT.

Edited by Insurrection, 26 July 2011 - 05:48 PM.

[catsi563]

I dont blame the repubs for everything Dems are just as guilty. Im an independent.

How ever that said when I go to throw the blame dart at the board, lately I tend to find a moronic dancing elephantwearing a tea party tee-shirt in front of it screaming HIT ME!! given that the repubs seem to have their noses right in the middle of pretty much every recent foul up by the government its not difficult to do.

Oh and in regards to spending

bushs defecit over 8 years 5 trillion dollars.
Obamas projected defecit over 8 years 1.5 trillion dollars.

and I say again the only reason the defecit jumped under Obama was that he put bushes wars--plural-- on the books along with his medicare part D. remember according to bush the tax cuts pay for themselves and the wars did too.

[Nate River]

I dont blame the repubs for everything Dems are just as guilty. Im an independent.

From where I stand it doesn't sound like it, since I can only thing of one instance you criticized them, but it's up to you what your call yourself. For years, I called myself an independent, but around 03-04 I realized how bogus that actually was.

How ever that said when I go to throw the blame dart at the board, lately I tend to find a moronic dancing elephantwearing a tea party tee-shirt in front of it screaming HIT ME!! given that the repubs seem to have their noses right in the middle of pretty much every recent foul up by the government its not difficult to do.

And statements like this are why when you say you are an independent, I don't believe you. You say you don't blame them for everything then you proceeding to blame them for everything.

Oh and in regards to spending

bushs defecit over 8 years 5 trillion dollars.
Obamas projected defecit over 8 years 1.5 trillion dollars.

You got that from the James Fallows chart, didn't you? I.e. This thing: The Chart

The first problem is that chart doesn't analyze deficits. So, if this is what your using as your data then you mischaraterize what it says. Or rather you first sentence correctly state what it says, but your follow up doesn't. It's states additional spending authorized under each President. What they call new costs.

Based on the 2011 February budget projectionsm the CBO projected trillion dollar deficits for the next 10 years.

That chart makes a static analysis of Bush Tax Cuts (assumes the economy would have run the same regardless of the tax cuts, i.e. they had zero effect on the economy) (and nearly 40% of that number come from that) and looks only at discretionary spending when nearly 2/3 of spending is entitlements and expected to grow as baby boomers continue to retire.

Second, it makes, what I think, is going to a very low projection of what ObamaCare is actually going to cost.

Oh, and I differ philsophically with the notion that a tax cut is the same as spending. The money people doesn't belong to the govenment who then permits them to keep some of it.

and I say again the only reason the defecit jumped under Obama was that he put bushes wars--plural-- on the books along with his medicare part D. remember according to bush the tax cuts pay for themselves and the wars did too.

The deficit also jump because the baby boombers have begun retiring.

Who has ever said the wars "paid" for themselves? I've never heard anyone make that claim. The wars weren't fought to generate economic revenue despite what the people a Code Pink think.

However, you numbers does not prove your assertion regarding the tax cuts. Fallows and whowever worked on that chart with him basically took the economy from 2002-2008 and applied the higher tax rate. It's what I mean when I say static analysis.

To prove that you would need additional information:

1) What the economy would have been in their absence
2) The revenue taken during that economy at the higher rates (number 1 being needed for number 2)

and you would then compare that to the revenue actually taken. And actually you'd have to control for other variables on economic growth.

Static analysis of tax rates are a tax hikers best friend because they assume no negative economic effects from jacking up the rate and no positive benefits from a reduction. Under that type of analysis, tax cuts will always be a net loser for revenue despite history tending not to bear that out. CBO projections and esimates of revenue on such rates are always based on a static analysis and that's a big reason Republicans always complain about them. Under such an analysis, a 100% taxation would generate the most revenue and can't think a single economist that would think this is true. Except for maybe Paul Krugman.

Tax increases have a history of producing less revenue than projected because of this, for example, Maryland's millionair tax, which had the predictible result of the millionaries leaving the statem decreasing the revenue available to taxation.

When people say the tax cuts pay for themselves they mean that the reduction helped spur economic growth that created enough tax income to make up for the reduction in rate. That chart, therefore, doesn't support your claim.

If the wars aren't worthy the money Obama can order them home in the next five minutes and Congress can't stop him. I don't think he should do that, but it's completely dishonest to whine about the cost of them every fifteen minutes while continuing to fight them and while starting a third in Libya. This is one area he has total control over. End them or stop complaining about them.

If he wishes to continue to fight them that's a decision he has to make. So, I don't agree with charts assumption (because he didn't originate the policy) that Obama has no responsibility for spending on them during his administration.

Ditto (for the complaining part) for the Bush Tax Cuts. He had the deal with Republicans. If he's so unhappy about them he shouldn't have cut that deal and let the government shutdown or make sure a 2010 budget got passed. I have no sympathy over his "plight" on this when he was part of the deal that made it happen.

[catsi563]

wont get any argument form me that he shoudl end the wars and the tax cuts. Quite frankly i find his spineless ness to be insulting to all progressives.

You say you don't blame them for everything then you proceeding to blame them for everyth

and statyements like this make me wonder if all conservatives are wearing glasses with the lenses painted. Because they seem to not read the whole statement and cherrypick what they want to make their point. Typical republican.

And your statment about baby boomers retiring causing the defecit to jump is ludicrous and factually inccorect nate. AND YOU KNOW BETTER. Soical security has nothing, zero, squat, nada to do with the defecit and never has. The only problems with Social secuirty is republican politicians sticking their hands in the freaking cookie jar.

As is the equally absurd notion that tax cuts pay for themselves. Because its based on the premise that people ARE WORKING. unfortunately Bushe conomic policies rewarded and are still rewarding companies who broom jobs overseas as fats as possible.

Thus the notion that we are better off at bush tax rates becomes untennable since corporations((which udner Obama are making record proftis, so much for the idea that hes anti business)) are not employing people to tax at the lower rates.


Also you are factually inncorrect that Tax hikes dont produce revenue. Bill Clinton raised taxes and produced a budget surplus ((which bush squandered in his first year in office)) Amazing that. A dem raises taxes and balances the budget. A republican gets into office and not only fails to balance the budget but fails to do so 8 years in a row even with keeping the wars off the books, but raises the debt ceiling 9 times in the process.

fiscal responsibility go figure.

[socermania2]

This is all silly.

The debt is a non-issue, and it holds no water. It is simply being used to distract the populace from the real problem: JOBS. Why are there lower taxes coming in now than around 2006? People can exempt out. Why? They don't have JOBS. Why are people holding out on pumping money into the economy? JOBS. Get people back to work first before we cut money out of the budget or make tax hikes.

As far as dealing with the defecit, raise top tax bracket back to at least the Clinton era. Increase the retirement age to at least 75. Negotiate for chaper drugs for Medicare. Cut some of the defense budget; get rid of bases that aren't needed.

We can start with that.

[catsi563]

You got it Socer

the debt isnt the issue in these negotiations and never was. the issue is and has been since the election getting Obama out of Office. mcconnell stated it and so did the many of the others. its all a political game and we get to be the pieces. And if the American enconomy tanks and we all go into default wlel to quote the speaker of the house "So be it."

[Strangelove]

yeah like stopping 2 un-funded wars, and cutting tax loopholes for the rich and corporations, correctly funding medicare D that sort of thing, and actually letting the bush tax cuts expire. common sense things like that. except the tea party wont allow it that would require logic.

And ending corporate welfare. I think that if you cut funding for the wars, that is a bad idea. If the war is a problem, then end the war, rather than cutting the troops resources, to make it harder for them. Support the Troops by bringing them home, back to they're families and friends, instead of leaving them there to die.

The age of globalization is not made in military expansion, rather it is made in trade and honest friendship with all nations, and entangling military alliances with none.


The counter idea is that this is isolationism, and isolationism created Hitler. That is wrong on many levels, and using such words distorts Historical facts. Isolationism and Non interventionism didn't create Hitler. Hitler was created in World War I, and World War I was caused because of Imperialism. So Imperialism created Hitler, and it has created many monsters after. Including Idi Amin, and the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.



As for the economy...I just bought cheese a week ago, it cost me $2.68 and now today it cost me $3.30 that is an increase of 23% on my price of cheese.

Edited by Strangelove, 28 July 2011 - 01:55 AM.

[Codus N]

I think you misread catsi's intentions in that sentence. I think she meant that the wars needs to be ended right now. By sending the troops back home. (which is what he's been doing now)