View Full Version : White House debt talks collapse
Republican House Speaker John Boehner has walked away from crunch debt ceiling talks at the White House with US President Barack Obama.
Mr Obama said Mr Boehner had rejected an "extraordinarily fair deal" that would have included $650bn (£400bn) of cuts to entitlement programmes.
The president said he had been willing to take "a lot of heat" from his party.
Mr Boehner told a news conference afterwards that Mr Obama had "moved the goal posts" by demanding a tax hike.
President Obama said he wanted a meeting with congressional leaders, including Mr Boehner, at the White House at 1100 (1500 GMT) on Saturday.
'Left at the altar'
The negotiations are aimed at avoiding what analysts say would be an economically catastrophic US debt default on 2 August.
"It is hard to understand why Speaker Boehner would walk away from this kind of deal," President Obama said at a news conference on Friday evening.
"There are a lot of Republicans who are puzzled as to why it couldn't get done."
As well as cutting $650bn from Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlements, the president said he was offering to slash $1tr in discretionary spending, while seeking $1.2tr in revenues, which could have been achieved by raising income tax rates.
In a rebuttal news conference later on Friday evening, Mr Boehner said they had been close to a deal until Mr Obama had demanded $400bn in tax increases on top of about $800bn in revenues that would have been reaped through a comprehensive rewrite of the tax code.
"Dealing with the White House is like dealing with a bowl of Jell-O," Mr Boehner said.
He told reporters he did not think his relationship with Mr Obama had been "irreparably damaged", and that he would attend Saturday's meeting.
White House correspondents said Mr Obama looked visibly angry as he told reporters he, too, thought a deal had been close until Mr Boehner did not return a phone call made by the president earlier on Friday.
"I've been left at the altar now a couple of times," Mr Obama said of the talks with Mr Boehner.
For the first time, Mr Obama publicly countenanced the possibility of the US not meeting its financial obligations.
"If we default, then we're going to have to make adjustments," he said.
Moments later, the president added he remained confident the $14.3tn limit on US borrowing would be raised by the 2 August deadline.
Mr Obama also said he was "fed up" with political posturing.
'We couldn't connect'
In a letter to the Republican rank and file, Mr Boehner said: "A deal was never reached, and was never really close.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14258888
Note: 23 July 2011 Last updated at 01:10 GMT
Talk to Bernanke, about that ... maybe he can push up some £ banknotes also...:hmmm:
Its amazing that these people who we trust just can not or will not do anything right. Sounds like the US has got a bunch of monkeys just like here in the UK. And the likes of the every day folk are always the ones who get it in the neck.
krashkart
07-23-11, 11:32 AM
In summary:
Rather than do the reasonable thing and try a little harder to reach a compromise with the President, Boehner gave up and walked away in a tiff. Thanks a trillion, John. Now I know what you're really made of. :up:
I think I'm just gonna go cry for a little while, ladies and gentlemen. :O:
Its amazing that these people who we trust just can not or will not do anything right. Sounds like the US has got a bunch of monkeys just like here in the UK. And the likes of the every day folk are always the ones who get it in the neck.
It's a small world after all. :DL
Sounds like the US has got a bunch of monkeys
Did that constant smelly american patriotism you often read and hear about everywhere on the internet and at tv ever made you have any doubt about that ?
The Strauss Kahn affair alone sums up the frailty of the country and its judicial system. To sum up things shortly, the conclusion of what we've got to hear at tv in here is "well, yes, as you can see, the american legal system doesn't look like ours at all. Different, yes, but we should not consider it inferior to ours, after all that guy got the best lawyers there, so let's see what's going to happen. We should not underestimate the united states of America, even though they've been showing him at tv surrounded by cops just as if he was guilty. We are just not used to make anything look cinematic, they are used to make everything look as if it came out of an Hollywood movie".
I've never supported the political movement that guy is part of. Plus he definitely is famous in here for being found deceiving his wife a certain number of times. But still, seeing his name and himself - one of the wealthiest persons in the country, purely and simply - being dragged through that mud the american media is - that made it all look like the greatest ass-kicking of all time - by a *cough* cleaning lady whose husband got involved in drug trafficking, without any presumption of innocence (that's supposed to be the right of every accused person) in the beginning, really makes me wonder about the legitimacy and lawfulness of the american judicial system and media. That woman has been no more than a tool in that affair, but still : that bast%rd went from the status of accused to the one of accuser in a matter of days, how incongruous is that ?!
Yet I'm sure someone will show up shortly just to say he's so proud of being A(!)merican. Just let me say I'm ROFLing, and I'm not the only one.
I'm thankful to the united states though, I must admit.
I've never appreciated my country, I mean, never, especially when it comes to social inequalities, breach of moral standards, absence of ethics of the media, and the like. I only start appreciating it nowadays, now that I see what takes place on the other side of the Atlantic.
joegrundman
07-23-11, 01:03 PM
it's hardly the same thing as in the UK.
the UK is ultimately just a bigger version of Greece. It can get away with this stuff.
The US is different.
You default, the whole western project is in great danger. The US cannot survive in its present form with a default.
It amounts to pure robbery of China, and you cannot be the country you are and do that.
It is time to grow up and do the right thing. Raise the debt limit. Then argue like hell about how to pay off the debt.
You have to accept the Democrats are the legitimate government of the day so they have to be allowed to have the deciding vote. The repubs can argue against it, win the next election and put into effect THEIR plan for deficit reduction. But in the meantime they must not crash the car rather than let the dems drive. That's how democracy must be allowed to work.
If you don't do it you a) seriously risk the economic foundation of the western system (and europe is not presently in a position to pick up the slack) and b) you demonstrate the fundamental weakness of democracy as a long term system at a very important time in the world-historical trajectory.
krashkart
07-23-11, 01:50 PM
Then argue like hell about how to pay off the debt.
That's what they've been doing all along. That is all they have been doing. There is no agreement at this point about which programs to trim and which taxes to raise. What we have right now is one half of the system effectively walking off the field because they will not compromise with the President. They absolutely refuse to yield to common sense and take the higher road in this matter. They want the upper hand, no matter the cost to the rest of us.
joegrundman
07-23-11, 02:08 PM
i know. but let the debt ceiling rise - then carry on the argument.
my bet is that this is still just brinkmanship and there will be a deal once they feel that every last concession that can be wrung has been.
But we are nonetheless staring into the abyss here.
krashkart
07-23-11, 02:19 PM
I hope you're right, joe. :salute:
mookiemookie
07-23-11, 02:46 PM
Obama had a good quote on this situation:
“Unfortunately, Congress consistently brings the Government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility—two things that set us apart from much of the world.”
Just kidding. That was Reagan. This crap has been going on for years. Ideological idiots on both sides.
sidslotm
07-23-11, 04:05 PM
tomorrow is coming and with it new problems:yawn:
joegrundman
07-23-11, 04:10 PM
i shouldn't be too sanguine, mookie mookie. things are not A-OK in planet america.
Kazuaki Shimazaki II
07-23-11, 09:44 PM
What good is the Executive Branch of government, if it can't make decisions that need making faster than the Legislative branch can make it?
gimpy117
07-23-11, 11:24 PM
boo hoo! my rich buddies might actually have to pony up a little bit more after a decade of almost unprecedented prosperity! I'm taking my marbles and going home!
just the party of no refusing to compromise on anything. we say black they say white, we say how about a shade of grey and they say no, and precede to hold to USA hostage to get their way. I keep waiting to see if they'll get a clue and realize that a balanced budget and the bush tax cuts is way harder than if we took a more balanced approach.
the sad part is, the Gang of six is going to have to propose a lowering of the top tax rate just to get the debt ceiling raised. I'm sure the uber rich are already rubbing their palms together, because even though they are taxed 35%, they only pay something like 18% effectively ( I myself pay more than that), and with the cuts they may pay 14-16% after this deal (assuming they don't close some major loopholes).
I think it's sad that somebody who makes millions, has shiny cars, big houses...the good life can get away with a lower contribution to a society that has been so good to them than somebody making enough for the lowest tax bracket.
Sailor Steve
07-23-11, 11:40 PM
Still playing partisan political games, eh Gimpy? Can't resist any opportunity to slam the other side.
You default, the whole western project is in great danger. The US cannot survive in its present form with a default.
It amounts to pure robbery of China, and you cannot be the country you are and do that.
You have to accept the Democrats are the legitimate government of the day so they have to be allowed to have the deciding vote. The repubs can argue against it, win the next election and put into effect THEIR plan for deficit reduction. But in the meantime they must not crash the car rather than let the dems drive. That's how democracy must be allowed to work.
You couldn't be more wrong.
First off, going past the deadline will not bring about a default. The Gov't has all the money coming in from taxes every month. Only if Obama spends that on other things AND refuses to pay the interest due, will there be a default. (He is legally obligated to pay the debt, before other expenses.)
A default would be bad, but an out of control despot who just spends the nation into oblivion without the consent of the people, would be worse. Better to default on the debt, than default on the Constitution.
If there are doubts about paying the debt now, how is taking on more debt helpful? Refusing to make substantial cuts in spending adds to doubts about the US economy, at home and abroad. For congress to simply kick the can down the road and agree to postpone any remedy for someone else to deal with, would be criminally irresponsible.
It is time to grow up and do the right thing. Raise the debt limit. Then argue like hell about how to pay off the debt.
The right thing is for the Republicans to insist that spending cuts (real ones!) be made. Obama is unwilling to accept this. For decades, the debt limit has been raised and paying it has been put off for later. That is why we are in the present situation. Anyone who thinks that there should be some pretty compromise to sweep the dirt under the rug, doesn't understand the problem, or doesn't really want to solve it.
You have to accept the Democrats are the legitimate government of the day so they have to be allowed to have the deciding vote.
This is nonsense. If you don't have the deciding vote, there is no reason to be "allowed" to have the deciding vote. Democracy doesn't work that way. The Constitution requires budgets to begin in the house. Saying the Dems should have the deciding vote because you like them or because Obama is the President, is to advocate dictatorship or mob rule. This is not in the Constitution and hardly "legitimate". Buy the way, the Dems have not passed a budget through the Senate in two years. The last Obama proposed budget, could not even get Democrat support. The crysis is entirely of his making. He wants to play games, where he proposes cuts ten years in the future and he gets tax increases to spend now. This would be nothing more than a fictional solution, a mirage, worse than nothing. If he refuses to deal with the matter in a serious way, the congress is under no obligation to humor him.
Snestorm
07-24-11, 02:06 AM
You default, the whole western project is in great danger. The US cannot survive in its present form with a default.
It amounts to pure robbery of China, and you cannot be the country you are and do that.
USA can not survive in any form without a default.
It's time the US Government put the US People first.
How much interest is the upcoming generation expected to be enslaved to?
This is long overdue.
To Hell with the Banksters, China, and the "US" (Globalist) Corporations that moved all the industry there (as they demanded more workers to fill the jobs that no longer exist).
Lead on USA. The rest of us will follow, like it or not.
Armistead
07-24-11, 10:07 AM
Both Reagan and Bush raised the debt ceiling numerous times. Sure all presidents have. Clinton gave us a balanced budget.
Obvious spending is the problem, you can't spend what you don't have, but it's stupid to ignore it's also what you bring in and do to the Bush era tax cuts that were supposed to be limited. The bigger issue is loopholes and shelters, with these US corporations pay less taxes than most nations.
The intent of government was less taxes creates jobs, it really doesn't. The issue I have is the tax code does hurt many businesses that operate in the US, but doesn't effect the mass exodus of wealth and jobs corporations send over seas. Adjust the tax code for those that do business here and increase it for those that send jobs overseas.
But that ain't gonna happen, it's the large wealthy corporations doing business overseas and they own the GOP.
Skybird
07-24-11, 10:19 AM
Obvious spending is the problem, you can't spend what you don't have, but it's stupid to ignore it's also what you bring in and do to the Bush era tax cuts that were supposed to be limited. The bigger issue is loopholes and shelters, with these US corporations pay less taxes than most nations.
I posted it before, some weeks ago, and hereby I post it again.
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=67562604-8280-4d56-8af4-a27f59d70de5
If the US defaults China will implode. :yep: And that will not be pretty.
Jimbuna
07-24-11, 11:27 AM
If the US defaults China will implode. :yep: And that will not be pretty.
Aye...a right royal mess :o
If the US defaults China will implode. :yep: And that will not be pretty.
Nah, China will call in the Repo Men and Sky will make a reality TV show about it :woot:
Cheers
Garion
krashkart
07-24-11, 11:38 AM
If the US defaults China will implode. :yep: And that will not be pretty.
I dunno. They really like fireworks. Might be kinda sparkly. :arrgh!:
Ducimus
07-24-11, 01:08 PM
Did that constant smelly american patriotism you often read and hear about everywhere....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUcfvd0X9rg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUcfvd0X9rg
:har:............................................. ...................:up:
joegrundman
07-24-11, 03:25 PM
You couldn't be more wrong.
First off, going past the deadline will not bring about a default. The Gov't has all the money coming in from taxes every month. Only if Obama spends that on other things AND refuses to pay the interest due, will there be a default. (He is legally obligated to pay the debt, before other expenses.)
A default would be bad, but an out of control despot who just spends the nation into oblivion without the consent of the people, would be worse. Better to default on the debt, than default on the Constitution.
If there are doubts about paying the debt now, how is taking on more debt helpful? Refusing to make substantial cuts in spending adds to doubts about the US economy, at home and abroad. For congress to simply kick the can down the road and agree to postpone any remedy for someone else to deal with, would be criminally irresponsible.
The right thing is for the Republicans to insist that spending cuts (real ones!) be made. Obama is unwilling to accept this. For decades, the debt limit has been raised and paying it has been put off for later. That is why we are in the present situation. Anyone who thinks that there should be some pretty compromise to sweep the dirt under the rug, doesn't understand the problem, or doesn't really want to solve it.
This is nonsense. If you don't have the deciding vote, there is no reason to be "allowed" to have the deciding vote. Democracy doesn't work that way. The Constitution requires budgets to begin in the house. Saying the Dems should have the deciding vote because you like them or because Obama is the President, is to advocate dictatorship or mob rule. This is not in the Constitution and hardly "legitimate". Buy the way, the Dems have not passed a budget through the Senate in two years. The last Obama proposed budget, could not even get Democrat support. The crysis is entirely of his making. He wants to play games, where he proposes cuts ten years in the future and he gets tax increases to spend now. This would be nothing more than a fictional solution, a mirage, worse than nothing. If he refuses to deal with the matter in a serious way, the congress is under no obligation to humor him.
thank you, i thought that was interesting. if i understand you correctly, then you are saying that my appraisal of the risk of default and balance of power is wrong.
in your opinion there is no risk of default and the dems ultimately have the weaker hand. all the repubs have to do is hold their ground and the dems will have to fold since the debt obligation must be paid first.
tbh, my main concern is the risk of default, not who , repub or dem, gets the better deal.
mookiemookie
07-24-11, 03:40 PM
[INDENT]You couldn't be more wrong. At the risk of sounding like a child on the playground: no you. You can't be more wrong.
First off, going past the deadline will not bring about a default. Yes it will. Failure to pay your obligations in part or in whole is default. The Gov't has all the money coming in from taxes every month. but not enough to pay all of our monthly obligations. Only if Obama spends that on other things AND refuses to pay the interest due, will there be a default. (He is legally obligated to pay the debt, before other expenses.) Obama doesn't sit there with a calculator and a banker's lamp saying "hmm, let's give away this and this, let's pay this guy..." The government spends, BY LAW, according to the previous year's budget. If there is not enough money to do so, it will cause a default.
A default would be bad, but an out of control despot who just spends the nation into oblivion without the consent of the people, would be worse. Partisan bombast and rhetoric not worthy of a response. Better to default on the debt, than default on the Constitution. Except the Constitution guarantees our debt. It's clear that you've given no thought to the consequences of a default. That you and others seriously think this is a good thing that will somehow balance the budget and purge the system is frightening. A default on a government obligation would skyrocket rates, making the debt more expensive and bigger. A default would throw the country back into recession. A default would slaughter the investment portfolios of already battered municipalities. How on earth is that better than anything?
If there are doubts about paying the debt now, how is taking on more debt helpful? Refusing to make substantial cuts in spending adds to doubts about the US economy, at home and abroad. For congress to simply kick the can down the road and agree to postpone any remedy for someone else to deal with, would be criminally irresponsible. The current proposal is 85% spending cuts, 15% tax increases. To say one or the other is off the table is pure ideological stupidity.
blah blah blah tired of rebutting this.
gimpy117
07-24-11, 04:18 PM
Still playing partisan political games, eh Gimpy? Can't resist any opportunity to slam the other side.
Ill stop when you guys stop.
Jimbuna
07-24-11, 06:25 PM
Ill stop when you guys stop.
Simply wish I understood :o
Sailor Steve
07-24-11, 06:34 PM
Ill stop when you guys stop.
"You guys"? I don't like parties, period. I think they're the bane of all governments.
There has been no reference to partisan politics in this thread until you brought it up. It's not that you take one side or the other, it's that your side and your side alone is right and it's always the other guy's fault. That's all you ever say.
gimpy117
07-24-11, 06:55 PM
"You guys"? I don't like parties, period. I think they're the bane of all governments.
There has been no reference to partisan politics in this thread until you brought it up. It's not that you take one side or the other, it's that your side and your side alone is right and it's always the other guy's fault. That's all you ever say.
it's more than just me who does this on the board. I don't see you calling out anyone else Steve. I'd be more receptive to to what you are saying if you would actually police the right wing people the way you do me.
now maybe you do tell some of the republicans and right wingers to lay off...but i haven't seen it that i can recall
Rockstar
07-24-11, 07:06 PM
An unbiased opinion. This is my first look at this thread. I looked at the last page 1st and saw gimpy117 comment. Ho ho! what is this about I say. So I start from the beginning and read.
My observation is it is an international forum discussing government the debt ceiling in general great round of discussion too. I would also like to add that gimpy117 based on your comments you are very much out of touch with it.
gimpy117
07-24-11, 07:29 PM
An unbiased opinion. This is my first look at this thread. I looked at the last page 1st and saw gimpy117 comment. Ho ho! what is this about I say. So I start from the beginning and read.
My observation is it is an international forum discussing government the debt ceiling in general great round of discussion too. I would also like to add that gimpy117 based on your comments you are very much out of touch with it.
I was more stating what i felt about the situation. not really trying to argue anything...just commenting
Sailor Steve
07-24-11, 08:00 PM
it's more than just me who does this on the board. I don't see you calling out anyone else Steve. I'd be more receptive to to what you are saying if you would actually police the right wing people the way you do me.
now maybe you do tell some of the republicans and right wingers to lay off...but i haven't seen it that i can recall
You weren't around for my wars with Subman1. Did you miss my early comments to Bubblehead1980? Who did you have in mind? Most of the right-wingers here sometimes do actually discuss things, only ocassionally dropping into direct diatribe, and when they do I say something. Contribute more than just hit-and-run politics I'll shut up right away.
gimpy117
07-24-11, 08:38 PM
you know i do from time to time. But personally: and i'll contribute something here, In this case I feel one side: the democrats are willing to compromise, but republicans are attempting to make that compromise a sort of "give us what we want or we all fall into default". That's what prompted my remarks about situation.
but I still feel that people mistake my comments and feelings on a situation as an argument or solid fact. They are neither, I'll say that right out. So please don't get offended when I express how i feel rather than break it down by the numbers. but again, I have an opinion, a strong one...and im not going to play nice to appease people around here
Sailor Steve
07-24-11, 09:02 PM
And I wouldn't expect you kowtow to any coercion from myself or anybody else. As I said, it's not the opinion that gets me going, since I somewhat share it myself, it's the manner in which it's said.
gimpy117
07-24-11, 10:04 PM
I don't sugar coat things Steve. If i think Bohemer is being childish, ill go out and say it. there's too much passive aggressive "i don't wanna just say it so I'm going to imply and dance around it" BS in Washington already.
In this case i think its so. I know we can't always get our way in politics but with so much at stake and to my amazement they are still playing games so they can have their cake and eat it too. I feel like there have been more than enough concessions from the democrats, yet it's still not enough.
Senate Democrats and House Republicans have unveiled competing plans to cut the US budget deficit and raise its debt limit to avoid a default.
Despite weeks of negotiations, the two parties remain at odds over the size of spending cuts and tax increases.
Amid the impasse, President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner will make TV addresses on Monday night.
The US risks default on its $14.3tn (£8.7tn) debt without a deal to raise the borrowing limit by 2 August.
The White House announced that Mr Obama would make a live television address on the debt issue at 21:00 local time (01:00 GMT).
"President Obama, like Democratic and Republican Presidents before him, will make clear that failure to compromise and raise the debt ceiling would, in the words of former President Reagan, do 'incalculable damage'," a White House official said.
Mr Boehner is to speak shortly after his address.
The president and Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate have been negotiating for weeks over legislation to raise the debt ceiling and cut the nation's budget deficit.
The talks have broken down several times. In order to become law, any plan would require agreement from disparate factions within both parties and to pass both chambers of Congress.
Competing plans
In Monday's latest round of bargaining, Senate Democrats introduced a plan that would trim $2.7tn (£1.66tn) over a decade.
The plan would protect social programmes for the poor and elderly and a public pension programme - all popular among Democrats. It would not raise new tax revenue.
"This is an offer that Republicans can't refuse," Senate Democratic Whip Charles Schumer of New York told reporters about the Democrats' plan.
Republicans had agreed to all those cuts at one point or another during the protracted budget and debt limit negotiations, he said.
"If they refuse this offer it simply means they want a default."
That plan would increase the US debt limit enough to give the government borrowing authority through 2012.
The Senate Democrats' plan won immediate endorsement from the White House, which called it "a reasonable approach that should receive the support of both parties."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14285268
Note: Update Record,25 July 2011 Last updated at 23:55 GMT
US President Barack Obama and Republican House Speaker John Boehner have blamed each other for the standoff over the federal debt crisis, as a deadline to avert a default looms.
Mr Obama condemned the Republicans' insistence on steep budget cuts and warned of a "reckless" outcome if the debt ceiling is not raised by Congress.
Mr Boehner responded by accusing the president of seeking a "blank cheque".
The US risks default without a deal to raise the borrowing limit by 2 August.
The federal government runs a budget deficit that topped $1.5tn (£920bn) this year, and has amassed a national debt of $14.3tn.
'Balanced approach'
Votes to raise the US debt limit have historically been a matter of routine in the US Congress, but this year, Republicans - buoyed by a newly elected crop of fiscal conservatives - have refused to agree to a debt increase without significant reductions in the budget deficit.
In negotiations, the chief sticking points are Republican resistance to raising taxes and the Democrats' desire to protect social programmes for the poor and elderly, and a public pension scheme.
In a live televised address on Monday night, Mr Obama said: "Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they'll vote to prevent America's first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach."
The president reiterated his call for a "balanced approach", based on a mixture of spending cuts and tax increases on the rich.
He said the only reason this was not "on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach".
That approach, he added, "doesn't ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all".
He said: "Most Americans, regardless of political party, don't understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don't get."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14286606
Note: Update Record,26 July 2011 Last updated at 12:58 GMT
Armistead
07-26-11, 08:51 AM
I really thought a short term deal would be reached, maybe not.
Both parties have spent us into this mess. The problem is many in the US see the elite getting ever richer why millions each year fall into poverty. Our middle class is being destroyed.
mookiemookie
07-26-11, 09:14 AM
Both parties have spent us into this mess.
Indeed. Anyone who uses this situation as an excuse to rail only against Obama or the Democrats is a partisan hack not worth your time.
Yet the speaker, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all voted for major drivers of the nation’s debt during the past decade: Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and Medicare prescription drug benefits. They also voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, that rescued financial institutions and the auto industry.
Together, a Bloomberg News analysis shows, these initiatives added $3.4 trillion to the nation’s accumulated debt and to its current annual budget deficit of $1.5 trillion.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-26/republican-leaders-voted-for-drivers-of-u-s-debt-they-now-blame-on-obama.html
Armistead
07-26-11, 09:25 AM
We have a nasty system. Corporations keep moving jobs overseas and instead of investing in what jobs they could here, they invest in stock here and abroad. It's a big ponzi scheme to say less taxes for them creates jobs overhere, we gave them the big Bush cuts and they moved more jobs overseas, we gave them the tax holiday, cut jobs here and moved more overseas. It should be obvious with any profits, they will invest them abroad.
The more jobs we lose, the more people go into poverty and need social programs. The more jobs corporations make overseas, the more social help people will demand here. We'll, we can't afford them.
Fubar.
mookiemookie
07-26-11, 09:27 AM
If the U.S. defaults, millions more will lose their jobs. Possibly me included.
Onkel Neal
07-26-11, 09:40 AM
So, I got an email from someone I know, a young MC rider, who asked me "By the way, what's your take on this? Maybe you can explain it to me a bit, sure doesn't seem like a good sign."
Here's my response, which I invite you (left & right wingers) to critique.
It’s not a good sign at all. The United States has always been the most secure and reliable economy since the Great Depression, the world’s leader. But with the debt reaching ~15 trillion and the government spending more and more money they* don’t have, the credit rating agencies are threatening to downgrade our Triple A rating, something that has never happened. The President wants Congress to raise the debt limit so the government can borrow more money (which adds to the federal debt). This has been done many times in the past and govt. borrowing makes sense in certain economic situations, but many feel we have reached the point where we should not keep borrowing (which is essentially a tax on future generations). At this time, the interest on the debt, just the interest the govt (taxpayers) have to pay to the holders of our debt, is somewhere around $240 billion each year. That’s just amazing: The National Park Service budget is $3 billion annually, NASA’s budget is $18 billion.
So, here we are, many Republicans and some Democrats do not want to raise the debt limit this time unless Congress and President Obama agree to significant spending cuts and other ways to curb debt. I completely agree with this, most people say they do (until they see a cut in their services). The big standoff now is Republicans, under pressure from Tea Party activists, want to force the President to make large spending cuts without raising taxes on the wealthy; they say these tax hikes will hurt the economy (that’s a whole nother debate in itself!). The President wants tax hikes to go with the cuts. Naturally, he wants tax increases on people earning more than, say, $250,000 a year. As you may guess, there are not millions and millions of voters who fall in that category, (it’s around 6 million people out of 300 million in the country) so they do not have the voting numbers to affect him in his re-election. BTW, these people currently provide over 45% of the revenues for the govt, if I am not mistaken.
*The government spends money on roads, entitlement programs, national defense, social security, etc. because people want services. Democrats traditionally spend the most, because their voters are usually blue-collar and low income, and they want govt. to “do something for us”. Democrats favor more taxes on “the wealthy “to pay for services that are primarily used by the “poor” and middle class. Republicans generally favor smaller govt and less spending, and lower taxes, but under Bush 2 they were as guilty for overspending as Democrats.
Bear in mind, I am not an expert on this subject.
Armistead
07-26-11, 10:48 AM
Neal, I think you're leaving out what made this country the greatest nation on earth, we built a strong middle class. How was this done, strong regulation that gave workers a fair shake, min wages, benefits, safety protections, breaking monoploies, fair tax codes, trade laws,..on and on.
We had the highest tax rates when we built the middle class and social services were low.
The problem with less regulation and taxes is we think the elite will do the right thing, it doesn't and hasn't worked that way in decades and won't in a global market. We did lessen regulations, tax cuts under Bush, trade laws, NAFTA, etc..told this would create mass jobs, it did the reverse. Study what happened the last corporate holiday, jobs were lost, profits were invested in stock here...no jobs created.
What it did was build and elite class where about 10% now hold 80% of all real wealth. Millions forced into poverty, no health insurance, etc. Both parties saw all the wealth going one direction, so the answer was more social services to keep americans calm why the rich got richer. Now the GOP wants to keep the rich richer and I assume use the herd mentality and let the poor die off. However, the number in poverty has now exceeded what can be paid. The answer, do what we did to create a strong middle class before, but sadly corporate america owns both parties now.
Many really do seem to believe the more breaks you give corporations, the more they will give back.
Our government failed us as the economy went global, instead of setting law to make a global economy work for us, they sold out to special interest and it now only works for a few. Neither party is addressing this, the GOP wants it to continue, so do the Dems, they just want the elite to pay for the social programs since they get so much favor to gain wealth.
Every leading economist, all extreme wealthy men like Gates, Buffet, Trump says our future will be a two class society. Many today still live a middle class life, but they do so in debt, they trust employers for med insurance, etc... Facts show another crisis could throw another 50 million americans into poverty. Studies say another 50 million will lose med insurance in the next decade, but the rich will get even richer. We even here some GOP members like Bachman that want to get rid of min. wage..
Instead of bringing back jobs here the correct way, by undoing all the mess that created the problem, the GOP is saying Americans must get down to the working levels in third world nations.
That we must accept $2 per hour, no benefits, no safety regulation, etc.. If congress isn't willing to bring back laws that keeps jobs here, then no matter what breaks you give corporations they will do business where they can the cheapest. It's very dangerous to use US wealth and assets creating stronger economies in nations that may one day want to run us over.
Armistead
07-26-11, 11:00 AM
I also think it's a joke to say 50-60% of americans pay no taxes. They may not pay it through payroll, but the government gets it other ways. Before I became disabled, the last year I worked I was down to 70K a year. I kept records of all taxes I paid, FICA, property, gas tax, phone tax, sales tax, electric tax, etc... 42% of my income went to taxes... My guess is those numbers would hold down to 30K a year.
Just check, for every product or service you buy there will be a line somewhere with a tax included.
mookiemookie
07-26-11, 11:12 AM
I also think it's a joke to say 50-60% of americans pay no taxes. They may not pay it through payroll, but the government gets it other ways. Before I became disabled, the last year I worked I was down to 70K a year. I kept records of all taxes I paid, FICA, property, gas tax, phone tax, sales tax, electric tax, etc... 42% of my income went to taxes... My guess is those numbers would hold down to 30K a year.
Just check, for every product or service you buy there will be a line somewhere with a tax included.
You're absolutely right. Anyone that parrots that "60% don't pay taxes" line is either ignorant or willfully trying to deceive you. Everyone who earns any income or purchases anything at all pays taxes. And the corporations pass their taxes on to you, the consumer:
On Friday, Congress failed to approve the extension of a bill to keep the Federal Aviation Administration running. Among other things, that meant the agency no longer had the authority to impose the various federal taxes that airlines add to the price of each ticket.
So as of 12:01 a.m. Saturday, the federal government began losing an estimated $25 million a day in tax revenue.
But did airlines simply pass on this savings to customers?
No, they did not.
Last week, evidently in anticipation of the tax’s expiring, some airlines quietly began raising fares — on average, roughly by the same amount as the federal taxes. Others did the same over the weekend, and most of the rest joined in on Monday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/business/airlines-raise-fares-as-federal-taxes-expire.html
Onkel Neal
07-26-11, 11:33 AM
I also think it's a joke to say 50-60% of americans pay no taxes.
Ah, I didn't say that.
AVGWarhawk
07-26-11, 11:53 AM
It's very dangerous to use US wealth and assets creating stronger economies in nations that may one day want to run us over.
Never a truer statement!
gimpy117
07-26-11, 05:42 PM
nail was struck on the heard Amistead. We can't expect to bring this country back from the brink with only a few holding so much wealth.
Tchocky
07-26-11, 06:23 PM
The big standoff now is Republicans, under pressure from Tea Party activists, want to force the President to make large spending cuts without raising taxes on the wealthy
Just a minor point Neal - it's nothing to do with just the wealthy. Almost all of the Republican House have signed a pledge to never ever raise taxes in any circumstance. Closing loopholes etc is included in this. I'm strongly in agreement with Tom Friedman in saying this is an "abdication of their governing responsibilities in a period of incredibly rapid change and financial stress".
Platapus
07-26-11, 06:23 PM
What is interesting is that in all the discussions in the media, there is little mention on the Federal Revenue.
Time is the only magazine I have been able to find that published the numbers indicating that, as a ratio of our GDP, Federal Revenue is the lowest it has been since the early 1950s.
This is why reports on the tax rate is misleading. Tax rates are only a place where tax laws and tax lawyers start from. With all the deductions and loopholes the effective tax rate is lower.
It was a most interesting and informative article in Time.
Before we start talking about raising taxes, perhaps we need to start closing the deductions/loopholes to raise the Federal Revenue at the same time we cut Federal Spending.
Madox58
07-26-11, 06:31 PM
It's very dangerous to use US wealth and assets
creating stronger economies in nations that may one day want to run us over.
Too Late.
We assisted Japan and other Countries to do just that!
Then We passed Laws that allowed Jobs to pour out of the U.S.A.
all the while giveing huge breaks to the Companies that did just that.
Now it's getting close to 'Pay the Piper Time'.
gimpy117
07-26-11, 06:41 PM
Before we start talking about raising taxes, perhaps we need to start closing the deductions/loopholes to raise the Federal Revenue at the same time we cut Federal Spending.
they still think fo that as an increase. and any increases will have team R holing. :shifty:
Platapus
07-26-11, 07:39 PM
Perhaps, this fiasco may convince people to vote for the person and not just the initial behind a candidate's name.
It really is time to get some adults in congress who are truly interested in running the country and not just party politics
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
Like that will ever happen in America. I kill myself sometimes.
Madox58
07-26-11, 07:45 PM
Yea, I'll spend 100 Million for a Position that only pays what?
A Million a year for 4 years?
Think about that!
nikimcbee
07-26-11, 08:06 PM
Yea, I'll spend 100 Million for a Position that only pays what?
A Million a year for 4 years?
Think about that!
They like to freebase the power.:dead: They should pay all of those guys minimum wage and no benefits.
Schöneboom
07-26-11, 08:17 PM
Hoo-Yeah, let's go even deeper in debt and print even more money! At the rate we're going, we'll all be rolling in dough, like this!
http://www.caseyresearch.com/sites/default/files/image23.jpg
Madox58
07-26-11, 08:24 PM
It just pisses me off the Gov can print money.
But if I do it it's a Crime!!
My printers are pretty good!
:haha:
Armistead
07-26-11, 09:21 PM
Ah, I didn't say that.
I know, just stating as I tire that we're told 50% of us pay no taxes.
Onkel Neal
07-26-11, 09:29 PM
I know, just stating as I tire that 50% of us pay no taxes.
??? :-? What are you talking about?
Nevermind.
Armistead
07-26-11, 10:20 PM
Hehe, see your post 49
Jimbuna
07-27-11, 06:33 AM
It just pisses me off the Gov can print money.
But if I do it it's a Crime!!
My printers are pretty good!
:haha:
I'm not a US citizen Jeff and my printers are damn good....I'll send you some over :03:
http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/5816/50large.gif (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/842/50large.gif/)
Yes these notes above, is not entirely unfamiliar, so there is a need in the market apparently, :O:
The White House has warned that President Obama could veto a debt limit plan proposed by top House Republicans.
Meanwhile, Speaker John Boehner's plan to trim public spending and raise the limit met with resistance from rank-and-file members of his own party.
A House of Representatives vote on the plan was delayed from Wednesday after doubts arose over the cuts it proposed.
Washington remains deadlocked as a deadline to increase the government's borrowing authority looms on 2 August.
The US runs a budget deficit that topped $1.5tn (£920bn) this year, and has amassed a national debt of $14.3tn.
The government's authority to borrow more money has expired, and the US risks a default on its debt obligations if congressional and White House negotiators are unable to agree on a plan to increase the debt limit by 2 August.
The debt limit has been raised dozens of times in recent decades, mostly without partisan debate.
This year, though, conservative Republicans refused to allow an increase unaccompanied by dramatic cuts to the US budget deficit.
House of scorecards
The latest round of bargaining began on Monday when Mr Boehner and Senate Democrats offered competing plans to raise the debt limit and cut spending.
The plans differed in size and scope, and neither would raise new tax revenue - in recognition of Republicans' intransigence on that point.
Mr Boehner's plan would also require another debt limit agreement in about six months, something Mr Obama has publicly declared he will not accept.
On Tuesday, the White House budget office said in a statement that the Obama administration "strongly opposes" Mr Boehner's plan, adding that if it is presented to Mr Obama "the president's senior advisors would recommend that he veto this bill".
Mr Boehner was forced to rewrite his plan after the Congressional Budget Office, the official non-partisan score-keeper in fiscal legislation, said it would generate less than the $1.2tn (£730bn) in budget savings he had initially announced.
It was also slow to win support from rank-and-file Republicans in the House of Representatives, who have been pushing for steeper cuts.
Reports on Tuesday night said the legislation, scheduled for debate in the House on Wednesday, would now not make it to the floor until Thursday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14303325
Note: Update Record,27 July 2011 Last updated at 02:12 GMT
Jimbuna
07-27-11, 09:32 AM
Print more money!
http://www.mastkarachi.com/images/Money%20printing%20machine.gif
Yes, I see, the technology is patented, in Jimbuna Group Inc :DL
Top Republican John Boehner and leading Democrat Harry Reid are tweaking their budget plans after nonpartisan analysts said their sums did not add up.
The US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said neither Mr Boehner's plan nor Mr Reid's would cut the deficit by as much as they had both estimated.
House Republicans have been meeting behind closed doors to discuss the Boehner plan.
Mr Reid said Mr Boehner's proposal could not pass the Senate.
The US runs a budget deficit that topped $1.5tn (£920bn) this year, and has amassed a national debt of $14.3tn.
'No off-ramps'
Lawmakers have been locked in weeks of bitter negotiations over raising the US borrowing limit by the deadline of 2 August.
The bill proposed by Mr Boehner was being rewritten on Wednesday after the CBO said it would cut spending less than had been advertised - about $850bn over 10 years, rather than $1.2tn.
Republicans planned a House vote for Thursday on the reworked plan.
Mr Reid's office told the BBC the Senate majority leader was also revising his plan after the CBO said the proposal would cut $2.2tn from deficits, about $500bn less than had been claimed.
Mr Reid has not said when his bill would reach Congress for a vote.
The White House warned on Wednesday that time was quickly running out to reach a compromise on the US debt limit.
"That deadline is hard and fast," White House spokesman Jay Carney said of next Tuesday's expiry date on the debt ceiling.
"People keep looking for off-ramps. They don't exist," he added.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14318377
Note: Update Record,27 July 2011 Last updated at 19:14 GMT
A revised Republican bill to raise the US debt ceiling, cut spending and avert a federal default is set for a crunch House of Representatives vote later.
But House Speaker John Boehner's bill faces a conservative revolt, unanimous opposition by Senate Democrats and a White House veto threat.
Republicans hold 240 of the 433 votes to be cast, and need 217 of their members to back the bill to pass it.
Mr Boehner told dissenting colleagues on Wednesday: "Get your ass in line."
The US Treasury has warned the government will run out of money to pay all its bills unless a $14.3tn borrowing limit is increased by next Tuesday.
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/4691/54317062balancecongress.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/703/54317062balancecongress.jpg/)
Mr Boehner's plan would trim $917bn from the US budget deficit over 10 years and raise the debt limit by up to $900bn.
President Barack Obama supports another plan by top Senate Democrat Harry Reid, which would cut $2.2tn from deficits, and raise the debt ceiling by $2.7tn.
But that is thought unlikely in its current form to pass the Republican-controlled House.
Both Republican and Democratic plans underwent revisions on Wednesday after congressional budget analysts said the savings advertised by each one had been overstated.
The Boehner and Reid plans overlap in key ways - trimming spending over 10 years, shunning President Obama's call for tax increases on the wealthy and creating special lawmaker committees to craft future cuts.
But Mr Boehner's approach would force another debt-limit showdown during next year's presidential campaign, something Mr Obama has fiercely opposed.
Senate Majority Leader Reid's plan would see the ceiling lifted until after the November 2012 elections.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14328183
Note: 28 July 2011 Last updated at 14:07 GMT
Tchocky
07-28-11, 01:02 PM
Great Leonhardt piece - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/business/economy/lessons-from-the-us-economys-malaise.html
The place where economic knowledge gets murkier is how to best deal with many of our biggest problems.
We cannot know, for example, what would happen if the government raised taxes to cut the deficit. A moderate increase seems unlikely to do much damage to economic growth, given that the increases by George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton did not prevent the 1990s boom — and that George W. Bush’s tax cuts were followed by mediocre growth (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/were-the-bush-tax-cuts-good-for-growth/). All things equal, though, tax increases do not lift growth.
The basic point has been lost that while raising more revenue from taxes isn't going to automatically solve anything, it won't be catastrophic to the economy either. That's why it breaks my mind to hear politicians referring to a minor revenue increase as "JOB-KILLING".
A Republican bill to raise the US debt ceiling, cut spending and avert default on US debt is set for back-to-back votes in the House and Senate.
But House Speaker John Boehner's bill faces a conservative revolt, unanimous opposition by Senate Democrats and a White House veto threat.
Ahead of the votes, Republicans challenged Democrats to back the bill or take political blame for default.
Congress must raise the US debt limit by a deadline of next Tuesday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14328183
Note: Update Record,28 July 2011 Last updated at 19:49 GMT
Jimbuna
07-28-11, 06:06 PM
Cut and paste rules :DL
Cut and paste rules :DL THANKS A very respectfully, sir, but here it is that the news is need to kept up to date, and then it works hand in force and not "cut and paste".... but on the other hand, no one reads anyway ....:cool:
Jimbuna
07-28-11, 06:46 PM
THANKS A very respectfully, sir, but here it is that the news is need to kept up to date, and then it works hand in force and not "cut and paste".... but on the other hand, no one reads anyway ....:cool:
Of the latter part you are mostly correct :yep:
mookiemookie
07-28-11, 06:57 PM
Great Leonhardt piece - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/business/economy/lessons-from-the-us-economys-malaise.html
The basic point has been lost that while raising more revenue from taxes isn't going to automatically solve anything, it won't be catastrophic to the economy either. That's why it breaks my mind to hear politicians referring to a minor revenue increase as "JOB-KILLING".
You're right. Absolutely brilliant piece. Shame that most people can't see the forest for the trees.
Nothing unusual in other words.
Armistead
07-28-11, 08:20 PM
Doesn't matter what they do, it will all change in 4 years and we'll be in a bigger mess with both still blaming.
but they must understand the meaning of the word, compromise, and there certainly a political expression.
Hows it going?
If worst comes to worst have lots of sex, I know it will not solve the money problem but your all be relaxed. :DL
^+1:haha:
Interesting commentary on the situation from this side of the pond. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/now-its-d-for-dunces-as-us-debt-crisis-grows-20110728-1i20s.html
mookiemookie
07-29-11, 08:31 AM
Watching the Tea Party terrorists (and make no mistake, they are indeed terrorists as they are willing to inflict harm on innocent people in order to achieve their political goals) cannibalise the Republicans and John Boehner would be hilarious if the end result wasn't that we would be absolutely screwed if they don't get a deal done.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14344411
Note: Update Record,29 July 2011 Last updated at 13:26 GMT
Platapus
07-29-11, 07:07 PM
Watching the Tea Party terrorists (and make no mistake, they are indeed terrorists as they are willing to inflict harm on innocent people in order to achieve their political goals) cannibalise the Republicans and John Boehner would be hilarious if the end result wasn't that we would be absolutely screwed if they don't get a deal done.
While I disagree with you use of the term terrorist, it is interesting watching them eat each other like that from within.
In order to get any deal passed Boehner will have to compromise with Democrats just to counter his own party. :o
Politics makes strange bedfellows. :yep:
The US House of Representatives has passed a Republican bill proposed by Speaker John Boehner to increase the nation's debt ceiling.
Mr Boehner's plan passed the House by a vote of 218-210, with 22 Republicans and every Democrat voting against.
It includes $900bn of spending cuts but quickly ran in trouble in the Senate, where it was voted down by 59-41.
The US risks defaulting on its financial obligations if a federal budget deal is not struck by 2 August.
Continued disagreements
Prior to the vote, Mr Boehner told Congress the plan advanced the "great cause of a balanced budget amendment".
Mr Boehner appeared heated in front of his colleagues in the House, slamming his fist on a podium on Friday evening and calling for lawmakers to pass his proposal.
His plan calls for a vote on an amendment to the US constitution - a move Democrats say is certain to be rejected by the Senate.
Mr Boehner said Republicans had tried their "level best" to reach a deal.
"I stuck my neck out a mile to get an agreement with the president of the United States," Mr Boehner said, referring to negotiations with President Barack Obama that twice broke down.
"My colleagues, I can tell you I have worked with the president and the administration since the beginning of this year to avoid being in this spot," he added.
"A lot of people in this town can never say yes," Mr Boehner said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14351148
Note: 30 July 2011 Last updated at 00:45 GMT
Platapus
07-29-11, 10:27 PM
T
"A lot of people in this town can never say yes," Mr Boehner said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VprmD6oXpFQ&feature=related
Freiwillige
07-29-11, 11:34 PM
Tea Party terrorists? Because they are conservatives that know more of the same isn't working? Raise taxes so that the Government can spend more and have to raise taxes again? Rinse and repeat!
I loooooooove what the tea party is doing! This train of debt is coming off of its tracks. At current levels the Government is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar to pay for its bloated programs and passing the buck.
The democrats have stated that they will kill any balanced budget amendment....Who is the terrorists?
Sorry unless it is an emergency the government should not spend more than it takes in. And its both the (R) and the (D) that have been sticking us with this bill for 50 years its time to swallow our medicine and level this thing out before this country collapses under its almost impossible debt burden. Raise taxes, cut spending, get out of all these damn wars. what ever it takes its past time to do it. Just my thoughts but the tea party seems to be the only one's with enough sense to see that more borrowing is the problem not the fricken solution!
gimpy117
07-29-11, 11:38 PM
Tea Party terrorists? Because they are conservatives that know more of the same isn't working? Raise taxes so that the Government can spend more and have to raise taxes again? Rinse and repeat!!
I'd say taking hostages to get what you want makes you a terrorist. In this case the hostages are the american people.
Snestorm
07-30-11, 01:47 AM
I'd say taking hostages to get what you want makes you a terrorist. In this case the hostages are the american people.
I'd say the american people have been held hostage by the american government, for far too long.
Time to pull Uncle Sam's credit card.
The upcoming generation can't afford the vig.
The American people threw themselves on the telephone and the Internet after Barack Obama today's television speech once again urged the public to hear from the members of Congress and urge them to reach a compromise.
I'd say the american people have been held hostage by the american government, for far too long.
Time to pull Uncle Sam's credit card.
The upcoming generation can't afford the vig.
Should have really been done two decades ago. I think it would cause more damage to America now than it would solve. :yep:
mookiemookie
07-30-11, 08:46 AM
This sums it up nicely.
http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/20110730_WWD000.jpg
John Boehner: ''I stuck my neck out a mile to get an agreement with the president"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14351148
Note:30 July 2011 Last updated at 02:03 GMT
Armistead
07-30-11, 09:21 AM
What a joke. It was already a given that Boehner's plan passed congress, it wouldn't the senate. We know Reid's plan won't pass congress. So in the background they've been working on plan C...Why waste all this time voting for two plans that all knew would be doomed to failure and just keep working on one plane, instead of all this time wasted.
Who know, they keep saying we won't default, but seems possible. No doubt we'll lose our rating.
The government cooks it's numbers to adjust inflation, anything they do, but economic groups that look at real numbers say we're gonna be in a double dip recession and by next summer many say it will be much worse.
What a joke. It was already a given that Boehner's plan passed congress, it wouldn't the senate. We know Reid's plan won't pass congress. So in the background they've been working on plan C...Why waste all this time voting for two plans that all knew would be doomed to failure and just keep working on one plane, instead of all this time wasted.
Who know, they keep saying we won't default, but seems possible. No doubt we'll lose our rating.
The government cooks it's numbers to adjust inflation, anything they do, but economic groups that look at real numbers say we're gonna be in a double dip recession and by next summer many say it will be much worse.
Why is it where ever you live in the world that the average man on the street can see it and politicians can not or will not?
Good post. :up:
mookiemookie
07-30-11, 09:52 AM
What a joke. It was already a given that Boehner's plan passed congress, it wouldn't the senate. We know Reid's plan won't pass congress. So in the background they've been working on plan C...Why waste all this time voting for two plans that all knew would be doomed to failure and just keep working on one plane, instead of all this time wasted.
I've been thinking the same. The time for symbolic plans or votes that have no chance of garnering support from the other side has long since passed, yet they still keep doing it and still keep blaming the other side. Ridiculous.
Tchocky
07-30-11, 10:20 AM
http://www.economist.com/node/21524951?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/kalscartoonjune28th
The paradox of it is to get a sustainable solution, the whole world may be shaken if there is not an adequate decision, as most countries are directly dependent on the U.S.and their market is leading, in many different fields.
Platapus
07-30-11, 01:10 PM
Why is it where ever you live in the world that the average man on the street can see it and politicians can not or will not?
Good post. :up:
Because the average man on the street does not have the responsibility of actually running a country. He can freely express his opinions and there are no consequences if he is wrong.
As much as I despise our congress, and I do, I do recognize that Congress has a difficult job of not only running the country, not just a select few issues, but at the same time dealing with necessary compromises both within the legislative branch as well as with the Executive branch neither of which may be cooperative at any one time.
Decisions which may appear to be "self evident" to the average man on the street, may in actuality be rather complex and complicated.
What the average man on the street does not know about running a country can fill a large database.
Yeah congress stynks, but a congress is the best of the worst ways of running a representative government.
I can respect the difficulties that congress faces, but I can still despise them for not doing their fricking job. :stare:
Congress: Just do your fricking job of running the country and not just running for re-election.
:har::har::har::har::har:
Like that will ever happen. If it were not so frickin depressing, it might actually be funny. :cry:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: "There is no more time for delaying tactics"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14354088
Note: Update Record, 30 July 2011 Last updated at 20:56 GMT
Jimbuna
07-30-11, 07:55 PM
I've been thinking the same. The time for symbolic plans or votes that have no chance of garnering support from the other side has long since passed, yet they still keep doing it and still keep blaming the other side. Ridiculous.
Got clued up checking the worldwide news Mark and I must agree :yep:
Snestorm
07-30-11, 08:32 PM
This is an example how responsible the US Government ISN'T, with the US Peolple's Money:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fotvZ4C7ecA
Over a billion dollars per year to import people, to "fill jobs", that no longer exist.
Resulting in more Welfare Cases, that those who are supporting themselves have to carry, resultting in even more Debt, Taxes, and Interest for the nrxt generation (your kids!) to be enslaved to.
You, and your children, can't afford to not cut up the credit card.
The rest of us will follow, for the same reasons, like it or not.
Tribesman
07-31-11, 03:06 AM
This is an example how responsible the US Government ISN'T, with the US Peolple's Money:
Hmmmmm.....CAPS LOCK.:hmmm:
I wonder how accurate this post is.
Over a billion dollars per year to import people
Errrr.....no:har::har::har::har:
to "fill jobs"
errrrrr.....no:har::har::har::har:
that no longer exist.
errrrr......even without 1&2 being false that is still a no:har::har::har::har:
How can someone be so wrong?
Oh yeah ......White Power:rock:
There is some shocking stuff in there though, how comes the chicken factory wasn't closed down a decade ago when it was still using illegal immigrants?
Castout
07-31-11, 03:39 AM
USA is broken. Its politicians are broken. Many of its member of society are broken as well.
I actually kind of like Obama but the situation he is in atm is not a position of envy.
If you look at history what brings down great empires are mostly a combination of uncontrolled external power and the corruption of its own people in ethics, moral or otherwise. Chaos cannot prevail to rule. It will bring down the entire empire with it. Corrupt people are functional chaos at best. And functional chaos at best is a detrimental one at it, to lesser degree or otherwise. It is not the system it is always the people in it that's at fault.
Democrats and Republicans have expressed cautious optimism about the chances of raising the US debt limit by Tuesday and averting possible default.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14354088
Note: Update Record,31 July 2011 Last updated at 03:57 GMT
Jimbuna
07-31-11, 09:57 AM
USA is broken. Its politicians are broken. Many of its member of society are broken as well.
I actually kind of like Obama but the situation he is in atm is not a position of envy.
If you look at history what brings down great empires are mostly a combination of uncontrolled external power and the corruption of its own people in ethics, moral or otherwise. Chaos cannot prevail to rule. It will bring down the entire empire with it. Corrupt people are functional chaos at best. And functional chaos at best is a detrimental one at it, to lesser degree or otherwise. It is not the system it is always the people in it that's at fault.
Well I'm not usually the gambling type but I'm betting a deal will be struck just in the nick of time.
Torplexed
07-31-11, 10:24 AM
What we've been watching these past few days is the accumulation of talking points. There has been on both sides a deliberate, conscious effort to make political hay that will serve, in the coming election, as evidence, as unassailable truth, for their claims of ideological purity, fidelity, honesty, superiority. Each side has labored to make a spectacular show of failure (a show only, none want to die) so they can loudly proclaim how the other side has acted "treasonously".
Fix in your mind now what's been happening and compare for yourself the self-serving events of the this ongoing debacle and compare them to the hyper-patriotic claims to come. Prepare to be dazzled by the gap. Or just watch football. Much more satisfying and enjoyable. At least somebody wins instead of nobody.
Armistead
07-31-11, 10:28 AM
Well I'm not usually the gambling type but I'm betting a deal will be struck just in the nick of time.
I think so. I was afraid the GOP would bluff and do nothing hoping Obama could increase it himself, the mess will continue and that way they could put all the blame on Obama for the next election.
Today the GOP says a deal is now very close, now the deal is 3 trillion in cuts, instead of 2.4.
However, the last deal of 2.4 those real brains out of government looked at the plan and said it would really cut only about 900 billion.
Say it is 3 trillion, the credit rating agencies say 4 trillion is needed to stop a rating downgrade. Seems we could cut loopholes for corporation that have trillions hidden in offshore shelters.
Even if they pass a bill, it's not set by law, they could change it again. No doubt they will argue on exact cuts, as in if they cut defense, they have to decide and agree what to cut.
Without a Balanced Budget Amd. they could easily revert back to old ways and after the next election we'll see both wanting to spend again.
We have troops protecting borders in Korea, MidEast, all across Europe, just none on ours, be a good cut.
Jimbuna
07-31-11, 10:41 AM
Doesn't the POTUS have the power of veto? :hmmm:
nikimcbee
07-31-11, 10:45 AM
Doesn't the POTUS have the power of veto? :hmmm:
Yes, but they can over-ride his veto (2/3 majority to over-ride?)
Takeda Shingen
07-31-11, 11:08 AM
We all knew that there would be a deal. All the rest is political kabuki.
Tchocky
07-31-11, 11:12 AM
We all knew that there would be a deal. All the rest is political kabuki.
Destructive, dangerous, stupid and wasteful theatre. Although probably closer to Noh than to Kabuki ;)
Destructive, dangerous, stupid and wasteful theatre. Although probably closer to Noh than to Kabuki ;) :haha:
mookiemookie
07-31-11, 01:18 PM
Or just watch football. Much more satisfying and enjoyable. At least somebody wins instead of nobody.
This is the best idea. :yep:
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7346/543603120125712981.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/687/543603120125712981.jpg/)
Corridors of power: Senator Harry Reid (left) walks back to his office on Saturday.
Jimbuna
07-31-11, 03:08 PM
Yes, but they can over-ride his veto (2/3 majority to over-ride?)
I should imagine that would be a big ask because unless I'm sadly mistaken neither side have a majority that big...or do they?
We all knew that there would be a deal. All the rest is political kabuki.
Rgr that....they're starting to make our political wasters look something approaching sensible.
Platapus
07-31-11, 06:44 PM
We all knew that there would be a deal. All the rest is political kabuki.
QFT
I guess it is clear that both houses are truly party before country. :nope:
Perhaps the best solution is to increase the other political parties to the extent that coalitions need to be formed in order to get a majority. Maybe that would bring more moderation to our system.
Skybird
07-31-11, 07:30 PM
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/images/memorialts_1/4450702/2.jpg?format=formatOriginal (javascript:HCF.layer.hide())
Der Tagesspiegel
Snestorm
08-01-11, 02:02 AM
There is some shocking stuff in there though, how comes the chicken factory wasn't closed down a decade ago when it was still using illegal immigrants?
That's a realy good question, that should be put to USA's government.
Tribesman
08-01-11, 02:20 AM
That's a realy good question, that should be put to USA's government
The only question to you from that post is why just about every single thing you had written there was complete bull.
Oh yeah ....White Power:rock:.....explains it all.
Though I must say I did get a really good laugh about the complaint in the video that people haggle over costs, perhaps te politicians should get better at haggling when they are spending instead of paying full price tag plus a huge tip
President Barack Obama says Republican and Democratic leaders have struck a deal to raise the US debt limit.
Under the proposal, which is set for debate and votes in Congress on Monday, the US debt ceiling would rise by up to $2.4tn from the current $14.3tn.
The US government deficit will be cut by a similar amount over 10 years, and a special bipartisan committee will also be set up to agree spending cuts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14361383
Note: Update Record,1 August 2011 Last updated at 12:00 GMT
"The Sergeant at arms will remove the disturbance from the gallery!"
So it can get lively in Congress...I was beginning to wonder. :haha:
Skybird
08-01-11, 04:52 PM
The market reaction today showed what the "deal" is worth if looked at with reason: almost nothing, it does not adress the structural problems of America, the economy remains to be weak (shown by recent numbers again), and the debt burden is beyond imagination. Putin today called the US' way of economically acting as "irresponsible", "pulling down all the world alongside with it", and "parasitic". I must admit that here he is right, with all three.
Former American ambassador to Germany John Kornblum, who now lives in Germany I think, made some good points in an analysis in a German newspaper yesterday, saying two things:
first, the Republicans are loosing their traditional voters, white Americans of European culture and value heritage and conservative orientation, because the ethnic changes in the Us population will mean that around 2040 or 2041 they will no longer form the majority group in the melting pot's population mixture, but that the Hispanics will then have become the majority group. This will mean that the conservative wing of the Republican party can be expected to kick and hit all around blindly even more desperately. Second, the events about the debt limit and budget plan must be understood as the most obvious sign that the major social conflict of imminent future has reached the USD (and Europe) by now, and that is the distribution war between young and old. The demographic change and overaging of population means that few and fwer working people paying taxes must come up for the support of more and more older people who do not work anymore. This means a cataclysmic overload of the social system in Europe as well as the already much thinner social security system in the US. Political parties servinbg different client group'S interest will clash in bitter fights over saving netto tax payers from being overtaxed versus socially qeak and old people not being left in the dust for committing suicide.
Great fun ahead, both in the UZS and europe. And politicians refused to admit it although they should and could have seen it coming since the 80s. Populrity, you know, and how the desire to be popular makes them lie about unwanted truths.
It is a social timebomb that when it explodes will cause several times as much misery and communal desintegration in Western states than the great depression or the past 3 years of fincial crisis did. Take a grab and fasten your seatbelts - we're going down, and it promises to become one hell of a crashdive.
The left in the Democratic party must be fuming over Obama's "compromises", too. The deal is absolutely hollowing out the complete health care reform, and thgus the major project of this amdinsitration. Also, the rich do not get taxed more (a major left demand that was), and there has been no report in German newspaper abvout closing tax loopholes for big comopanies. The tea party has won this confronation, and achieved a tactical victory: it did major damage to Obama, to a degree that - once it became obvious to the majority of the ordinary population what these cuts and sving will mean - the relection of Obama no longer is a self-runner from now on. The race is open again, and this means that due to this defeat today the chances are growing that a tea party candidate has better chances in the upcoming campaign.
But does it really matter when you are left with the only choices between plague and cholera?
A third power seems to be needed, one that is independent both from the established political structures and the economical lobbies, and that is powerfiul enough so that it can just ignore and bypass the usual ideological trench warfare that paralyses the daily political business. And it'S goal must be not to just win and claim power inside the ruleset of the established system - but to overthrow and replace the rotten, FUBARed system itself, both parties and political systems, and economical lobby networks. And that is true not only for the US, but for Europe as well.
Sounds drastic. And it is.
Platapus
08-01-11, 05:15 PM
Pa special bipartisan committee will also be set up to agree spending cuts.
Great so the solution the big brains in congress kindergarden is to form a committee to look at it later. :o
Wow, that's a pretty gutsy decision.
And this took them how many months to decide?
What sin have we committed to be punished with a congress like this :down:
Tchocky
08-01-11, 06:18 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14367754
Passed.
What a mess. I can understand why some Democratic Party members are unhappy with this bill, but it's hard to see what options were available to the President and Congressional leaders at this late stage, in terms of getting legislation out the door by August 2nd.
Regarding the argument that this was pretty much inevitable throughout the process - I agree to a degree, but the fact that the consequences of default make a deal inevitable does not excuse thee horrifically adolescent behaviour of some elcted representatives. Really shocking :nope:
Platapus
08-01-11, 06:33 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/01/debt.talks/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
A number of Republicans worried about cuts in defense spending and the lack of a required balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. Progressive Democrats were livid over the extent of the deal's domestic spending cuts, as well as the absence of any immediate tax hikes on wealthier Americans.
Well if both sides are pissed, it must be a good compromise. :)
However it still does not address the fact that as a ration to our GDP, Federal Revenue is at the lowest since the 1950's.
Jimbuna
08-01-11, 07:39 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14367754
Passed.
What a mess. I can understand why some Democratic Party members are unhappy with this bill, but it's hard to see what options were available to the President and Congressional leaders at this late stage, in terms of getting legislation out the door by August 2nd.
Regarding the argument that this was pretty much inevitable throughout the process - I agree to a degree, but the fact that the consequences of default make a deal inevitable does not excuse thee horrifically adolescent behaviour of some elcted representatives. Really shocking :nope:
Must agree with you :yep:
The US Senate is to vote on a bill to raise the nation's debt limit, one day after the House of Representatives backed it and hours before a deadline.
Monday's vote in the House appears to have averted the prospect of the first full-scale US federal debt default.
Members of the 100-seat Senate will vote at midday (16:00 GMT) on Tuesday. If approved it will be signed into law by President Barack Obama.
The deal ties a $2.4tn (£1.5tn) debt increase to spending cuts.
The Senate vote will take place barely 12 hours before Washington is due - according to the US treasury department - to cease to be able to meet all its bills.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14375146
Note: Update Record, 2 August 2011 Last updated at 12:24 GMT
The bill has passed.
Barry will be making a speech shortly.
Ducimus
08-02-11, 12:05 PM
the Republicans are loosing their traditional voters, white Americans of European culture and value heritage and conservative orientation, because the ethnic changes in the Us population will mean that around 2040 or 2041 they will no longer form the majority group in the melting pot's population mixture, but that the Hispanics will then have become the majority group.
Hell, we're well on our way to having reason for just changing the damn name of the country to United States of Mexico.
http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/sites/default/files/styles/logo-thumbnail/public/0016/0250/brand.gif
Osmium Steele
08-02-11, 12:33 PM
A third power seems to be needed, one that is independent both from the established political structures and the economical lobbies, and that is powerfiul enough so that it can just ignore and bypass the usual ideological trench warfare that paralyses the daily political business. And it'S goal must be not to just win and claim power inside the ruleset of the established system - but to overthrow and replace the rotten, FUBARed system itself, both parties and political systems, and economical lobby networks. And that is true not only for the US, but for Europe as well.
Sounds drastic. And it is.
Heil Hitler! :stare:
I call Godwins Law:
http://knowyourmeme.com/i/000/039/090/original/godwins-law1.png
Ducimus
08-02-11, 12:43 PM
Isn't 9 pages a little early for the thread to be godwin'ed for subsim? Id expect 12 or 14 pages before that happened.
But.. it has indeed been Godwin'ed. :har:
Hottentot
08-02-11, 12:47 PM
Refreshing, a change in ideological bullet points.
frau kaleun
08-02-11, 01:39 PM
http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/06219840-69f8-4993-af67-59b833b0704f.jpg
CaptainMattJ.
08-02-11, 02:00 PM
Hear hear!
Sailor Steve
08-02-11, 02:04 PM
Godwin'ed. :har:
Godwined, or Godwinned. No apostrophe.
Now it's been Grammar-Godwined. :O:
frau kaleun
08-02-11, 02:35 PM
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/tarc0917/grammar-nazi.jpg
:O: (from one GN to another)
Sailor Steve
08-02-11, 03:24 PM
Hey, a guy's gotta have a hobby. :D
mookiemookie
08-02-11, 03:32 PM
Relevant:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/The-Duel.png
Jimbuna
08-02-11, 05:06 PM
Short term fix...due to be revisited early next year at the latest.
Platapus
08-02-11, 07:01 PM
Short term fix...due to be revisited early next year at the latest.
Band-aid on the Titanic
If you read the fine print it does not reduce the debt, does not reduce the growth of the debt, but reduces the rate of growth of the debt.
It is a step in the right direction, but I hope there will be many more bigger steps in the future.
A lot of the rhetoric over the past several weeks has been over the concept of a balanced budget amendment. The far right conservatives have been touting this idea as a virtual panacea for the budget ills of the U.S. for many, many years; curiously whenever the GOP is in control of the Congress, the idea seems to fade away. I like the idea of a Constutional amendment to call for a balanced budget, but I think, if we are going to do this, we should do it right (no far right). First, I think the gist of Frau Kaleun's posting above with the "minimum wage" idea is sound; there has to be some penalty for the violation of the amendment in order to make it effective and it has to be directed at Congress; they are the ones ultimately responsible for the final budget. Second, the amendment should also include the provision of a line item veto of expenditures in the budget and require a 3/4ths (super-majority) vote to override any veto of a line item. Lastly, although this may be rather difficult to achieve, a provision should be made to require that any funding bill be restricted to a single funding matter and not allow the so-called riders and other pork that gets attached to bills having no realtion to the rider itself. If something is worth spend tax money on, it should be voted on separatelt and openly, no hidden in the tag-along amendments of a general spending bill.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14379240
Platapus
08-02-11, 07:56 PM
Fortunately the Line Item Veto has been declared unconstitutional.
the LIV may appear to be a good solution but would be a terrible solution.
Giving one person (POTUS) that much power over legislation is not a good thing.
The Legislative Branch makes the laws, the Executive Branch carries out the laws. The President signing laws is supposed to be more an acknowledgment and a commitment to carry out the law and less an approval of the law. The only legitimate reason for the president to veto a law is if there is a conflict with existing laws or regulations that would prevent the president from following the law.
A president should not be able to veto a law just because he/she does not like it or because it is not in agreement with the POTUS' party agenda.
I would actually prefer moving to the other direction and removing the veto entirely from the Presidency. I don't like the idea of a president being able to veto a law just because the opposing party, which may be in the majority, approved it.
But I also think that some legislation needs a simple majority and other types of legislation needs a super majority vote from congress.
Although technically the US President does not have true veto power, he has the authority to return the proposed law back to the congress for changes. An actual veto is the power to kill a law and if congress wants it, they have to restart the entire legislative process.
But that's a picky nit. :D:D
China's central bank governor has welcomed measures taken by the US to avoid a default on government debt obligations.
The comments come after the US took measures to raise the debt ceiling.
Zhou Xiaochuan said the People's Bank of China (PBC) would "closely observe its implementation", in a statement on the PBC website.
Separately, Chinese rating agency Dagong downgraded the US credit rating, according to Xinhua news agency.
Mr Zhou said China, which is the largest holder of US debt, hopes that the US takes responsible policy measures to handle its debt issues, while keeping the interests of the rest of the world in mind.
But he reaffirmed that China would continue to diversify its reserve assets to minimize the negative impact of fluctuations in the international financial markets on the Chinese economy.
Rating downgrade
In a separate move, the little known Chinese ratings agency, Dagong, has lowered the credit rating of the United States from A+ to A, with a negative outlook.
Dagong, said in a statement that the decision to lift the debt ceiling will not change the fact that the US national debt growth has outpaced that of its overall economy and fiscal revenue, which will lead to a decline in its debt-paying ability, according to Xinhua.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14383570
Note: Update Record, 3 August 2011 Last updated at 02:10 GMT
The Legislative Branch makes the laws, the Executive Branch carries out the laws. The President signing laws is supposed to be more an acknowledgment and a commitment to carry out the law and less an approval of the law. The only legitimate reason for the president to veto a law is if there is a conflict with existing laws or regulations that would prevent the president from following the law.
A president should not be able to veto a law just because he/she does not like it or because it is not in agreement with the POTUS' party agenda.
I would actually prefer moving to the other direction and removing the veto entirely from the Presidency. I don't like the idea of a president being able to veto a law just because the opposing party, which may be in the majority, approved it.
Laws have been vetoed by president's because of a president's dislike of a bill on purely philosophical or politaical reasons since almost the birth of our nation. The rationale may be couched in double-speak legalese, but the botom line is the bill was vetoed purely because the president at the time, either due to party loyalties, a wish to avoid a "wrong" public perception, or philosophical opposition to the subject matter of the bill. The Congress is no stranger to the "poison pill" strategy in passing bills they know won't be signed, particularly if the occupant of the White House is from the opposing party. You have only to look at the FAA shutdown to see the gamesmanship at work; the Republican leadership made a deliberate target of rural airports, in mainly Democratic districts, and attached language to roll back union rights to proposed legislation to extend the ability of the FAA to function:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/08/03/who-is-to-blame-for-the-faa-shutdown
For the sake of political one-upmanship, the nation's air transport is put at risk and thousands of people are laid-off. The simple solution would have been a bare bones bill to just keep the Agency operating; instead the GOP leadership decided it was more important to stick it to the Dems and the unions and pssibly score brownie points with the Tea Party and the conservatie right of their party.
You are correct: "A president should not be able to veto a law just because he/she does not like it...", but let's be realistic, it ahs happened before, is happenning now, and will happen in the future. As I said, I like the idea of a "balanced budget amendment", but simply saying "You gotta balance the budget" alone is not going to accomplish anything. It needs teeth and should cut both ways against the Congress and POTUS. In California, an state constitutional amendment initiative was passed requiring a balanced budget on a certain deadline; failure to pass a balanced budget results in the suspension of all salary, per diems, and perks for the state assembly until such time as the budget, balanced is passed. Several years ago, another initiative was passed barring the "piggy-backing" of any matter/amedment not relevant to the main topic of an initiative or referendum. The line item veto is already a feature of the California budget process. It was fairly recently upheld:
http://www.calchamber.com/headlines/pages/courtupholdsgovernorslineitemvetopower.aspx
Over forty states have line item veto provisions; President Reagan asked Congress, in his 1986 State of the Union address to give the president the authority and power of the line item veto. It seems the only place where accountability is sorely lacking is in the halls of Congress...
Sailor Steve
08-03-11, 06:46 PM
A side-note: Until Andrew Jackson no president vetoed any bills because he didn't like them or disagreed with them. Presidents Washington, Madison and Monroe only vetoed bills on strict constitutional grounds. Adams, Jefferson and Quincy Adams didn't use the veto at all.
Well, the Moderates of America can rejoice!
Those evil Tea Party extremists have been defeated.
We got the GREAT COMPROMISE that "everyone" wanted. But will we be happy with it?
Does it reduce the debt?
No, it will go up another couple trillion dollars, but who's counting.
Does it reduce spending?
Not really. They will tell you there are spending cuts, but these are Phoney-DC-Phantasy cuts. They are scored off a baseline of increasing spending. (A spending freeze would be scored as a 9 trillion dollar "cut", over 10 years. This is really typical of how dysfunctional DC is.) Furthermore, most of these "cuts" are to be made 8 or 10 years into the future. Anyone want to bet on whether they will be actually be made or not? Obama will not be President and there will be a different Congress. None of the parties involved will be obligated to honor these promises. It is really a political fiction more than a serious plan.
Does it preserve the US credit rating?
Only for the moment. Without real spending cuts, this is all a house of cards. How would you rate an institution that borrows more money, year after year, but refuses to control it's spending.
Does it prevent the Federal Gov't from raising taxes?
No. The "Bush" tax cuts are set to expire if congress does nothing. Also, the Obama health-care bill has taxes that are due to go into effect.
Will this help the economy?
Only if you believe in miracles.
Will the "super-congressional commitee" help tackle the deficit?
No, but it will allow the congressional leadership to continue with their tax and borrow policies, while evading responsibility. And after all, isn't that what is really important?
Americans, don't be discouraged by thinking that the ~16 trillion debt limit is too large. The 2.4 trillion dollars is just the down payment. When Obama burns through that, the limit will have to be raised yet again. (After all, what else can they do. You didn't think congress would actually reduce spending, did you?)
I'm sure everone feels better now that a "compromise" has been reached. :yeah::yeah::yeah::yeah::yeah:
mookiemookie
08-03-11, 08:13 PM
This is a bit closer to reality:
Obama: Debt Ceiling Deal Required Tough Concessions By Both Democrats And Democrats Alike
WASHINGTON—A day after signing legislation that raised the government debt ceiling and authorized steep budget cuts, President Obama thanked Democrats as well as Democrats for their willingness to make tough, but necessary, concessions during negotiations. "I'm truly grateful that both Democrats and their Democratic counterparts were able to reach this consensus, accepting an agreement that is far from perfect not just for Democrats, but also for Democrats," Obama said Wednesday of the deal that cut federal spending $2.1 trillion over 10 years but included no revenue increases of any kind.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-debt-ceiling-deal-required-tough-concessions,21067/
It'd be funny if it weren't so true....
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.