Debt Limit Bottom Line

[KiffinKiller]

Because liberals are stupid. Great answer. If I wanted to hear meaningless partisan insults tossed around by airheaded idiots, I'd turn on talk radio. Step your game up.

Also, any time anybody reaches into the old talking points bag about Obama and pulls out socialist without demonstrating working knowledge of what it means, I'm tuning out from then on.


I'd say that if freaks people out, there is legitimate concern from the left that he is open to serious reforms. Clinton signed off on bigger welfare cuts than either Reagan or the Bushes. I have never bought the "he's a socialist" pants-crapping from the right about PBO, I do think he is legitimately open to making serious cuts to the big three.

As far as taxes, I think it's mainly a function of the Democratic caucus. This thing was never going to get accomplished without a tax hike, wouldn't have mattered who was in office.

I loved Clinton. I get the impression many here hated him - is it just partisan bias or am I missing something.

 

[milohimself]

there were plenty of republicans taht though bush wasn't socially conservative enough. plenty of idiots to go around. people thinking obama is now a conservative is evidence of nothing. all it is evidence of is the wackjobs taking control of the party.

as for the socialist manta what pray tell does it mean to you? if you want to go by the textbook definition there hasn't been a single socialist leader in the history of any country. anyone denying obama is pushing euro style socialism hard has their head in the ground.

Could have left it at the first paragraph. Regulation is one thing, but this socialist rhetoric is exactly on the same level of crazy as the left trying to make legitimate claims that Bush II was fascist.

Bernie Goldberg (of all people) made a good point that I remember on Hannity a while ago -- the lunacy from the right so far during PBO's tenure has been an equal backlash from the loony left days of GWB -- if he came up with a cure for cancer, the left would have gone out of their way to find more fault in him. The same level of idiotic fanaticism has now been coming from the right, and it has resulted in a number of legislators who will now budge on absolutely nothing, including this debt limit increase.

 

[droski]

I honestly don;t understand the complete mix on that. I know the goal is $4 trillion over ten years. I did hear some commentary this morning on Bloomberg about the issue of whether to do it up front or overtime. The one argument I heard on that as I drove in was that there is some concern that making the cuts too deep too fast might have some real negative effects on the economy.

I think it fair to say that if a deal of this magnitude was reached ($4 trillion over ten years), and the debt ceiling coincidentally increased thereby, and maybe if some sort of solution to the European issues might evolve, then you could see some real turn around. I know I'm no expert on it, but the commentary does seem to be that if the debt were under control and the banking industry felt safer, maybe the money that is sitting on the sidelines gets freed up to invest and create demand, etc. It just feels like we are slipping back now into morass and feeble growth, but that we are in a moment where things could, if everyone would bite their respective bullets, turn around in quick fashion.

and yet you don't understand why this isn't seen as real cuts? you don't want to cut anything now for fear the economy can't take it. what are the chances it gets cut down the road when the economy recovers and we have more money?

no investor isn't investing in america because the debt ceiling is too low.

 

[droski]

Could have left it at the first paragraph. Regulation is one thing, but this socialist rhetoric is exactly on the same level of crazy as the left trying to make legitimate claims that Bush II was fascist.

Bernie Goldberg (of all people) made a good point that I remember on Hannity a while ago -- the lunacy from the right so far during PBO's tenure has been an equal backlash from the loony left days of GWB -- if he came up with a cure for cancer, the left would have gone out of their way to find more fault in him. The same level of idiotic fanaticism has now been coming from the right, and it has resulted in a number of legislators who will now budge on absolutely nothing, including this debt limit increase.

the left had some good points about bush. he spent too much money, did say and do some pretty dumb things, generally considered himself a maverick who could do wahtever he wanted. the right also ahve some good points about obama. and if obama isn't a socialist who would you consider to be one? i recently had a bunch of democrats argue that obama was right wing to me. why? they listed tarp and extending the bush tax cuts etc. when i asked who was further left wing than him in the democratic party all i got was blank stares.

 

[milohimself]

they don't need every republican to pass it. the vitrol from obama is very similar to his prior actions. complain of lack of comprimise from teh republicans despite not willing to comprimise yourself. everytime he pullls the "let's screw the rich because if we don't little johnnie might die" card he alienates anyone who might be willing to agree to resonable plan.

Again, I don't think his earning the ire of of the majority of the loony left across the country is baseless and because of some weak-ass take that "because liberals are all idiots."

If increased tax revenue is on the table, so is serious change with the big three.

I loved Clinton. I get the impression many here hated him - is it just partisan bias or am I missing something.

Partly partisan bias, I'm sure. Also a small demonstration of what I think is the vastly overstated importance of the POTUS office in these sorts of decisions.

 

[utvolpj]

do you really believe a new Congress and Pres are going to hold to a promise from a 1-term Pres made 10yrs prior?

 

[lawgator1]

and yet you don't understand why this isn't seen as real cuts? you don't want to cut anything now for fear the economy can't take it. what are the chances it gets cut down the road when the economy recovers and we have more money?

no investor isn't investing in america because the debt ceiling is too low.

First, I'm not referring to some objective measure of whether the ceiling is too low or too high. Its only too low if you need to raise it to meet your current obligations. Its too high if you can plausibly claim that the obligations themselves are the problem.

I think any objective person would have to admit that both of those are correct. Short term, we have to raise it pay the obligations. Long term, we have to reduce the obligations. So now we debate, how long term is short enough?

Let me ask you this: If the Dems agreed to a total of $2 trillion in cuts, with half coming in the first three years and the rest based on the remainder of the ten year period, would you at least in principal support one trillion in additional revenue, with half of that coming in the first three years, the other over the remaining seven?

So, a two-for-one swap of debt to revenue, with $1.5 trillion of it in place before 2015, and another $1.5 trillion prior to 2022? See whether an improving economy has helped otherwise reduce the debt by, say, 2015 or 2016?

 

[droski]

Again, I don't think his earning the ire of of the majority of the loony left across the country is baseless and because of some weak-ass take that "because liberals are all idiots."

If increased tax revenue is on the table, so is serious change with the big three.

.

i don't think he's earning the ire of a majority of democrats. that's absurd. there are always going to be some democrats thinking that anything but raising the maximum tax rate to carter levels means you are in the pockets of the rich and corporatations. i didn't say all liberals are idiots, only the ones arguing he hasn't been left enough.

 

[volinbham]

The Reps have a good offer on taxes IMHO - use the Debt Commission recommendations on rates and elimination of loopholes (goodbye corp jets/oil subsidies just like Obama wants).

Problem? Obama won't agree to the tax reform his own bi-partisan commission proposed. Hmmmmm.

 

[droski]

First, I'm not referring to some objective measure of whether the ceiling is too low or too high. Its only too low if you need to raise it to meet your current obligations. Its too high if you can plausibly claim that the obligations themselves are the problem.

I think any objective person would have to admit that both of those are correct. Short term, we have to raise it pay the obligations. Long term, we have to reduce the obligations. So now we debate, how long term is short enough?

Let me ask you this: If the Dems agreed to a total of $2 trillion in cuts, with half coming in the first three years and the rest based on the remainder of the ten year period, would you at least in principal support one trillion in additional revenue, with half of that coming in the first three years, the other over the remaining seven?

So, a two-for-one swap of debt to revenue, with $1.5 trillion of it in place before 2015, and another $1.5 trillion prior to 2022? See whether an improving economy has helped otherwise reduce the debt by, say, 2015 or 2016?

tax revenue is unpredictable. spending is more definite. i would surely support a trillion in cuts in the next 3 years and another trillion after taht soley because that's probably the best one could imagine. i'd be in favor of small tax increases for everyone. spread the wealth as obama says. class warfare isn't something i enjoy or support. i'd also be in favor of eliminating certain loopholes. the working rich are getting screwed. it's the real estate investors in this country ****ing everyone else.

 

[volinbham]

i don't think he's earning the ire of a majority of democrats. that's absurd. there are always going to be some democrats thinking that anything but raising the maximum tax rate to carter levels means you are in the pockets of the rich and corporatations. i didn't say all liberals are idiots, only the ones arguing he hasn't been left enough.

Schumer and others say entitlements are off the table (how that's not considered as intransigent as Reps on taxes I don't know).

A recent Dem election committee memo shows that Dems are playing as much politics with entitlements as Reps are accused of doing with taxes. For some reason only the Reps are the bad guys here.

 

[KiffinKiller]

Partly partisan bias, I'm sure. Also a small demonstration of what I think is the vastly overstated importance of the POTUS office in these sorts of decisions.

It's either that or the social conservatives dismissing/hating him for his indiscretions. I still think he was one of our smartest presidents.

 

[utvolpj]

It's either that or the social conservatives dismissing/hating him for his indiscretions. I still think he was one of our smartest presidents.

only after 1994

 

[milohimself]

the left had some good points about bush. he spent too much money, did say and do some pretty dumb things, generally considered himself a maverick who could do wahtever he wanted. the right also ahve some good points about obama. and if obama isn't a socialist who would you consider to be one? i recently had a bunch of democrats argue that obama was right wing to me. why? they listed tarp and extending the bush tax cuts etc. when i asked who was further left wing than him in the democratic party all i got was blank stares.

Now you're speaking more sensibly -- there were a lot of people, mostly on the left, during the GWB years who saw the problems the two wars would bring us, particularly how we were paying for them. The right also has good points. Although I know it's tough to prove, I still get the feeling that business owners are sandbagging until PBO is out, but his rhetoric takes a lot of blame for that.

As for who is further left, Pelosi and Sanders to give the two most prominent names who come to mind that are further left. But no doubt that assuming the presidency requires some drastic change in action.

Back to the thread at hand, I do have some level of fear -- quite grounded, I think -- that the absolute refusal to budge by either side is going to carry us into default for a short while before an emergency vote a'la '08.

Paulson had a brief moment of having to abandon his ideals in order to avoid further catastrophe. Saddens me that it seems we've forgotten this already, just three years later.

Related note, heard a story on NPR the other day, talking about the last time we had a partial default. Happened in 1979, when $120million in bonds were not repaid due to a "technical error" (nobody knows for sure), and the interest for the remaining trillion-ish for the next year was raised by six tenths of a percent and cost us around six billion.

Forget who is and isn't getting paid for a moment, there is the last example we have of a real, measurable impact of default. Stakes are a lot higher this time, as you know. And the rhetoric I've heard from the TP -- among others -- is that they are willing to ride this thing right off the cliff if it means no more taxes.

 

[droski]

i'll give you an example. real estate allows free exchanges of property (1031 exchange). no other investment allows that. i cannot sell one stock and buy another and not pay capital gains. a passive loss in real estate is deductable up to $25K a year for an individual. a passive loss in any other venture is not. and let's not forget depreciation expense for real estate. it's a racket. why doesn't obama fix that garbage rather than go after people who actually work for a living?

 

[volinbham]

Forget who is and isn't getting paid for a moment, there is the last example we have of a real, measurable impact of default. Stakes are a lot higher this time, as you know. And the rhetoric I've heard from the TP -- among others -- is that they are willing to ride this thing right off the cliff if it means no more taxes.

But Dems are entrenched too. Many prominent senators say entitlements are off the table. What Obama is saying he'll agree to is very mild WRT entitlement reform. Further, Obama said he will absolutlely not sign a short-term (even for a year) deal.

These are line in the sand positions too. It takes two entrenched sides to prevent a deal. The Reps are getting the press but in reality both are holding out.

 

[volinbham]

i'll give you an example. real estate allows free exchanges of property (1031 exchange). no other investment allows that. i cannot sell one stock and buy another and not pay capital gains. a passive loss in real estate is deductable up to $25K a year for an individual. a passive loss in any other venture is not. and let's not forget depreciation expense for real estate. it's a racket. why doesn't obama fix that garbage rather than go after people who actually work for a living?

Again, Obama's deficit reduction committee proposed tax reform with overall lowered rates but elimination of all these special deal breaks. The revenue projections are significantly higher under the proposal.

 

[droski]

Although I know it's tough to prove, I still get the feeling that business owners are sandbagging until PBO is out, but his rhetoric takes a lot of blame for that..

Back to the thread at hand, I do have some level of fear -- quite grounded, I think -- that the absolute refusal to budge by either side is going to carry us into default for a short while before an emergency vote a'la '08.

Paulson had a brief moment of having to abandon his ideals in order to avoid further catastrophe. Saddens me that it seems we've forgotten this already, just three years later.

Related note, heard a story on NPR the other day, talking about the last time we had a partial default. Happened in 1979, when $120million in bonds were not repaid due to a "technical error" (nobody knows for sure), and the interest for the remaining trillion-ish for the next year was raised by six tenths of a percent and cost us around six billion.

Forget who is and isn't getting paid for a moment, there is the last example we have of a real, measurable impact of default. Stakes are a lot higher this time, as you know. And the rhetoric I've heard from the TP -- among others -- is that they are willing to ride this thing right off the cliff if it means no more taxes.

how are business owners sandbagging? i assure you that the average business owner wants to make as much money as possible. gibbs himself as president isn't going to stop them from hiring people if they think there is profit to be made.

even a technical default would cause a 20% drop in the stock market. no one president is that stupid. worst case is we delay raising it officially another month.

 

[KiffinKiller]

Now you're speaking more sensibly -- there were a lot of people, mostly on the left, during the GWB years who saw the problems the two wars would bring us, particularly how we were paying for them. The right also has good points. Although I know it's tough to prove, I still get the feeling that business owners are sandbagging until PBO is out, but his rhetoric takes a lot of blame for that.

As for who is further left, Pelosi and Sanders to give the two most prominent names who come to mind that are further left. But no doubt that assuming the presidency requires some drastic change in action.

Back to the thread at hand, I do have some level of fear -- quite grounded, I think -- that the absolute refusal to budge by either side is going to carry us into default for a short while before an emergency vote a'la '08.

Paulson had a brief moment of having to abandon his ideals in order to avoid further catastrophe. Saddens me that it seems we've forgotten this already, just three years later.

Related note, heard a story on NPR the other day, talking about the last time we had a partial default. Happened in 1979, when $120million in bonds were not repaid due to a "technical error" (nobody knows for sure), and the interest for the remaining trillion-ish for the next year was raised by six tenths of a percent and cost us around six billion.

Forget who is and isn't getting paid for a moment, there is the last example we have of a real, measurable impact of default. Stakes are a lot higher this time, as you know. And the rhetoric I've heard from the TP -- among others -- is that they are willing to ride this thing right off the cliff if it means no more taxes.

This is the problem I have. People refuse to try and fix the problem...just delay with bandaids.

 

[milohimself]

i don't think he's earning the ire of a majority of democrats. that's absurd. there are always going to be some democrats thinking that anything but raising the maximum tax rate to carter levels means you are in the pockets of the rich and corporatations. i didn't say all liberals are idiots, only the ones arguing he hasn't been left enough.

I didn't say democrats, I said the loony left.

Schumer and others say entitlements are off the table (how that's not considered as intransigent as Reps on taxes I don't know).

A recent Dem election committee memo shows that Dems are playing as much politics with entitlements as Reps are accused of doing with taxes. For some reason only the Reps are the bad guys here.

I haven't seen the same level of rhetoric, let alone written election promises, from Democrats about things in the way of the debt deal as I have from Republicans. I haven't heard anything from them about why default might be okay. I agree, they are being boneheads, but when push comes to shove I feel that D's will be the first to cave. That is, unless we do default in a big way and this whole economic Armageddon thing happens.

 

[milohimself]

But Dems are entrenched too. Many prominent senators say entitlements are off the table. What Obama is saying he'll agree to is very mild WRT entitlement reform. Further, Obama said he will absolutlely not sign a short-term (even for a year) deal.

These are line in the sand positions too. It takes two entrenched sides to prevent a deal. The Reps are getting the press but in reality both are holding out.

I agree with this. But, as I just said, I can see the Dems caving -- I don't see the GOP doing the same prior to the deadline.

 

[droski]

Again, Obama's deficit reduction committee proposed tax reform with overall lowered rates but elimination of all these special deal breaks. The revenue projections are significantly higher under the proposal.

the revenues aren't relavant here. the democrats and obama want their pint of blood from the rich. telling americans they are eliminating loopholes doesn't win votes come november.

 

[volinbham]

I didn't say democrats, I said the loony left.


I haven't seen the same level of rhetoric, let alone written election promises, from Democrats about things in the way of the debt deal as I have from Republicans. I haven't heard anything from them about why default might be okay. I agree, they are being boneheads, but when push comes to shove I feel that D's will be the first to cave. That is, unless we do default in a big way and this whole economic Armageddon thing happens.

Haven't seen the rhetoric? They are saying Rs want to intentionally destroy the economy!

Obama is saying Rs want to screw seniors, kids and everyone in between.

They've been called Hezbollah, terrorists and worst.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[JayVols]

I've reached the point where I'm fine with there being give and take on both sides to fix some long-term problems, including small tax increases as long as there is reciprocal legitimate spending cuts.

The problem is I'm not sure there is a single person in Washington with the guts to a) propose such a thing, and b) implement it.

Solid post.

Would never work though. Compromise? Come on. Way too much common sense for the 'my way or the highway' political climate of today.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volinbham]

the revenues aren't relavant here. the democrats and obama want their pint of blood from the rich. telling americans they are eliminating loopholes doesn't win votes come november.

Oh I know - just saying if revenues were the issue there's a much better fix that Rs would agree to easily.