(07-28-2011 08:47 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Buddy, the only reason balance is being thrown into the equation this time is because the Republicans are insisting that future spending cuts be tied to raising the debt ceiling (which is required to pay-off PAST spending). Never before in our history has a rise in the debt ceiling been held hostage for future spending cuts.

Well, Walt, I guess we are in agreement here that this is not our grandfather's debt ceiling increase.

Just when we are all getting buddy-buddy again (no pun intended), let me throw a question out there, and see what people think:

If the Reid and Boehner plans were to be somehow reconciled/compromsed into a single plan, and it passed both the House and Senate and landed on Obama's desk Monday, would he sign it if it held no tax increases? Minimal tax increases? I keep thinking of what he said - something like, Put a bill on my desk that I can sign. Am I emphasizing the word "can" too much?

(07-28-2011 11:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just when we are all getting buddy-buddy again (no pun intended), let me throw a question out there, and see what people think:

If the Reid and Boehner plans were to be somehow reconciled/compromsed into a single plan, and it passed both the House and Senate and landed on Obama's desk Monday, would he sign it if it held no tax increases? Minimal tax increases? I keep thinking of what he said - something like, Put a bill on my desk that I can sign. Am I emphasizing the word "can" too much?

If Boehner had any sense, this is exactly what he would have done. He should have done it as soon as the Obama talks broke down. Do this and the pressure shifts to Obama. Plus it becomes incredibly obvious that Obama has no ability to lead on the issue. I think he signs it. I don't think he has any choice.

Since neither the Boehner nor the Reid plan is any good, it doesn't really accomplish much. But it is a step in the right direction. And they really aren't that far apart. Do that, and then give your asses in gear speech, John.

(07-28-2011 11:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just when we are all getting buddy-buddy again (no pun intended), let me throw a question out there, and see what people think:

If the Reid and Boehner plans were to be somehow reconciled/compromsed into a single plan, and it passed both the House and Senate and landed on Obama's desk Monday, would he sign it if it held no tax increases? Minimal tax increases? I keep thinking of what he said - something like, Put a bill on my desk that I can sign. Am I emphasizing the word "can" too much?

The only way those two plans get merged is if Boehner backs off his short-term solution and the ridiculous balanced budget amendment. However, the Prez has already indicated he would sign Reid's plan,which includes nothing on the revenue side, but raises the debt ceiling through 2012, and the spending cuts do not impact the entitlement programs.

(07-28-2011 12:20 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  The only way those two plans get merged is if Boehner backs off his short-term solution and the ridiculous balanced budget amendment. However, the Prez has already indicated he would sign Reid's plan,which includes nothing on the revenue side, but raises the debt ceiling through 2012, and the spending cuts do not impact the entitlement programs.

That's the key - and I think it's more likely now that Boehner just announced an indefinite delay on the vote on his plan - he doesn't have the votes in his own caucus. I think we'll end up with a combo plan with a fig leaf non-binding protest vote to get enough Rs to support it. And in some sense it will be "bi-partisan". [Clarification: I mean it will include something like in the McConnell plan where Obama can raise the ceiling again before 2012 unilaterally, but Rs get to vote 'no' even though it's non-binding.}

This whole episode has just reinforced my feeling that the debt ceiling is an incredibly stupid thing to have. We should have these debates during the budget process, not after we already passed the budget.

And we should be passing a second stimulus now, not cutting spending. But that's a different thread.

And also we should switch to a parliamentary system. But that's an even different thread.

(07-28-2011 04:47 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  This whole episode has just reinforced my feeling that the debt ceiling is an incredibly stupid thing to have. We should have these debates during the budget process, not after we already passed the budget.

No.
If it weren't for this, we wouldn't be addressing these issues at all.
Yeah, it's been a huge partisan thing, both ways.
But sometimes the only way you get an issue addressed is to get everybody riled up about it.

Quote:And we should be passing a second stimulus now, not cutting spending. But that's a different thread.

No, no, no, a thousand times no. The more we try to "stimulate" the worse things will be and the longer it will take to get out of this. I know you don't believe that. If we're still "stimulating" and things still suck in 2020, will you believe then? Unfortunately, that's where I think we're headed.

Quote:And also we should switch to a parliamentary system. But that's an even different thread.

Definitely some parliamentary elements worth considering here, if not a full parliamentary system. Proportional representation, for one.

(07-28-2011 12:20 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-28-2011 11:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just when we are all getting buddy-buddy again (no pun intended), let me throw a question out there, and see what people think:

If the Reid and Boehner plans were to be somehow reconciled/compromsed into a single plan, and it passed both the House and Senate and landed on Obama's desk Monday, would he sign it if it held no tax increases? Minimal tax increases? I keep thinking of what he said - something like, Put a bill on my desk that I can sign. Am I emphasizing the word "can" too much?

The only way those two plans get merged is if Boehner backs off his short-term solution and the ridiculous balanced budget amendment. However, the Prez has already indicated he would sign Reid's plan,which includes nothing on the revenue side, but raises the debt ceiling through 2012, and the spending cuts do not impact the entitlement programs.

Redstate.com thinks the most likely scenario is Boehner's bill either loses in the House (costing him major street cred) or, if it passes, the Senate. The Senate will then pass some version of the Reid-McConnell "fallback plan" that would allow Obama to raise the debt ceiling over Congressional votes of "disapproval", which would require 2/3 vote of Congress, and then dare Boehner to not pass what would in essence be a bipartisan Senate bill.

A quick thought re: President raising the debt limit subject to Congressional "disapproval" votes. How is that possibly constitutional? The Supreme Court said ~30-40 years ago in INS v. Chadha that Congressional action that changes the law or rights of a party requires bicameralism and presentment, i.e., the act must be done by majority vote in each house and presented to the President for his signature. How does the "disapproval" plan pass muster under that test?

(07-28-2011 06:18 PM)jwn Wrote:  

(07-28-2011 12:20 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-28-2011 11:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just when we are all getting buddy-buddy again (no pun intended), let me throw a question out there, and see what people think:

If the Reid and Boehner plans were to be somehow reconciled/compromsed into a single plan, and it passed both the House and Senate and landed on Obama's desk Monday, would he sign it if it held no tax increases? Minimal tax increases? I keep thinking of what he said - something like, Put a bill on my desk that I can sign. Am I emphasizing the word "can" too much?

The only way those two plans get merged is if Boehner backs off his short-term solution and the ridiculous balanced budget amendment. However, the Prez has already indicated he would sign Reid's plan,which includes nothing on the revenue side, but raises the debt ceiling through 2012, and the spending cuts do not impact the entitlement programs.

Redstate.com thinks the most likely scenario is Boehner's bill either loses in the House (costing him major street cred) or, if it passes, the Senate. The Senate will then pass some version of the Reid-McConnell "fallback plan" that would allow Obama to raise the debt ceiling over Congressional votes of "disapproval", which would require 2/3 vote of Congress, and then dare Boehner to not pass what would in essence be a bipartisan Senate bill.

A quick thought re: President raising the debt limit subject to Congressional "disapproval" votes. How is that possibly constitutional? The Supreme Court said ~30-40 years ago in INS v. Chadha that Congressional action that changes the law or rights of a party requires bicameralism and presentment, i.e., the act must be done by majority vote in each house and presented to the President for his signature. How does the "disapproval" plan pass muster under that test?

Not surprising that's what redstates.com thinks. However, at this point,McConnell's "old" proposal would not fly in the Democratic senate or with the White House. I'd be VERY surprised at this point if Obama accepts-- or the market accepts-- a series of 3-6 months debt ceiling votes. That doesn't provide the stability or diminish the sense of uncertainty in the markets or with the credit rating agencies. All it does is provide an "out" for the Republicans (allowing them to say they didn't vote for it and they disapprove) and does absolutely nothing for Obama or the nation.

If I were a betting man at this point, I think the final outcome will either be: (1) a compromise between the Reid and Boehner plans-- presuming the Boehner plan ever gets the requisite votes need to pass the House and then immediately die in the Senate-- with the Dems getting the raise in the debt ceiling through 2012 and the Reps getting something like $2.5MM in spending cuts; or (2) an 11th hour, one-sentence bill raising the debt ceiling through 2012, as has been the norm for this type of thing in the past (which would be a total win for Obama). In the end, the Republican leadership, who are funded largely by big business, is going to be forced to cave with the minimalist solution should not compromise be reached.

I think I'm pretty much with this guy.

it's worse than you think

Video from Morning Joe re why the current sturm and drang is just a distraction re the gap btwn entitlements (medicare) and revenue.

See, that wasn't so hard was it? It's "bipartisan" and everyone hates it. I *must* be good!

(08-02-2011 01:24 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  See, that wasn't so hard was it? It's "bipartisan" and everyone hates it. I *must* be good!

This lunchtime within literally 5 minutes I heard both that this is a complete capitulation by Obama to the Republicans AND that it's one more step toward us becoming a "European socialist state". So, unless the Tea Party has declared that its new goal is to turn America into a European socialist state, and I just missed it, I think I give up trying to understand American politics....

You listen to Rush Limbaugh?

I know you don't ascribe to his world (not sure if you do or don't hear it at times). But don't forget that the political spectrum isn't a line, but more like a circle where the extreme ends meet.

We were never going to default. First, the parties were always going to reach some agreement at the last minute, after all the posturing was done. Second, even if no deal had been done, we were not going to default. There is enough cash coming in to pay some things, and debt service would be at the top of that list.

So all the talk about default was simply disingenous political posturing. In other words, lies.

Prediction: You can "stimluate" all you want to, but in the end, this economy is not going to come back until we eliminate, or at least reduce substantially, both a) our federal budget deficit, and b) our balance of trade deficit. Each is close to a trillion dollars a year, and both need to go away.

If we try to address a) by raising tax rates on the "rich" and corporations, we make this country a less attractive place to do business, and that makes b) worse. What we need to do is to follow the recommendations of Bowles-Simpson and broaden the tax base by eliminating exclusions and deductions, while lowering and flattening the tax rate structure (and we could add a consumption tax, as recommended by Rivlin and Domenici). We can add $300 billion a year in revenues at the same time we make ourselves more competitive in the worldwide economy, and that helps with b).

On the spending side, there's probably $100 billion a year to be saved on defense, without weakening us noticeably, if at all, by bringing the troops home from Germany and Japan, replacing a signficant number of active duty slots with much cheaper reserve slots, getting out of the nation-building business, revsiing our procurement to get more bang for the buck by combining low-cost, proven techniques with high-cost, cutting-edge technologies, and, most importantly, never fighting a war we don't intend to win.

Reform the welfare safety net by adopting the Boortz-Linder prefund (or Friedman's negative income tax) plus French health care, thus making redundant the alphabet soup of exiisting agencies that spend more on administration than benefits. Spend about $100 billion a year less, put more money in the hands of truly needy recipients--and crater the market for McMansions in suburban Virginia and Maryland.

With the revised tax structure, US corporations can compete without corporate welfare. Cut $500 billion from that and other discretionary programs.

That gets you a trillion dollars in annual savings. And that gets you a balanced budget.

(07-18-2011 03:56 PM)Philoso-Owl Wrote:  All indications are that negotiating with Boehner is plainly impossible. There are two basic ways to address the debt crisis, and to start off by taking one of them off the table is no longer negotiating.

Neither is giving up your biggest bargaining chip just to get them started. Whether you agree with them or not, the Republicans (especially the new ones) were elected to cut spending. That's what their constituents told them to do. If it takes raising taxes (something Obama himself, just a few months ago under a Democratic Congress said would damage the economy, but now under a split one it is necessary?) Most Democratic constituents are telling THEM to cut spending as well.

(07-24-2011 05:49 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  It is reported that they are about to present (tomorrow) a proposal that calls for a short-term (3 - 6 months) increase in the debt ceiling, despite the fact that Obama has already made it very clear he would veto any such proposal, and the reality that the credit rating agencies would downgrade the U.S. bonds (resulting in an increase in across-the-board interest rates, which will effect EVERYONE)...

A short-term solution does absolutely nothing...and both the credit rating agencies and market will react accordingly...and it will not be pretty.

The market has already reacted to this. It expected this (a budget battle with a last-minute stop gap). It does not wait for the rating agencies to downgrade before reacting. If you ever see a AAA credit trading cheaper than a AA, it is because the markets anticipate that the ratings will soon be changing.

Whether ANYONE wants to admit it or not, pushing our artificially drawn debt ceiling limit is not the problem in the world markets. It is our increasing debt/gdp. That is REALLY the only thing that matters. The rest of this is gamesmanship.

(07-27-2011 12:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The bottom line is that the rich are going to get rich anyway. You can't tax it away. If you could, Nancy Pelosi wouldn't be paying 15% and Warren Buffett wouldn't be paying 13% and D1ck Cheney wouldn't be paying 6%. On the corporate side, look at GE.

Progressive income tax structures aren't. They don't work. That's what the last 2, or 10, or 20 years are actually saying.

I think they're really saying that the TRULY wealthy, meaning those 400 or so who make as much as the bottom 150mm (50%) COMBINED, don't need what we call income. The only way to close that loophope is to continue to try and redefine "income"... and the more we try, the better they get at beating it. Make municipal bond income not "tax free" if you make too much money... so they don't buy munies and the cost of schools and roads goes up.... whoops. The easiest example is AMT. It was "designed" so that wealthy people would NEVER pay less than 25%. Given your numbers above, it seems that they've not only beaten that design, but buried it and pi$$ed on its grave. The TRULY wealthy don't care WHAT you do with income rates because obviously from the above, they aren't being taxed at that rate anyway. The more you raise taxes, the more valuable all of these ways to avoid them become... thus, the rich get richer... meanwhile, the ALMOST rich simply pay higher taxes... and because revenues don't come in as expected... the poor get less.

There IS a way to do it... but "income tax" isn't it.

(07-28-2011 08:47 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Buddy, the only reason balance is being thrown into the equation this time is because the Republicans are insisting that future spending cuts be tied to raising the debt ceiling (which is required to pay-off PAST spending). Never before in our history has a rise in the debt ceiling been held hostage for future spending cuts.

This seems tautological to me. Future needs for hikes in the debt ceiling are or will be the RESULT of excess spending. The only way to ensure that future hikes don't simply lead to MORE future hikes is to tie them together. Besides, as you know... we've already "spent" the next 3-12 months worth of income. Any cuts agreed to today won't really have an impact for a year or more.

(07-28-2011 09:20 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  The level of waste in defense spending exceeds even that in medicare/medicaid; it absolutely has to be addressed.

Herein lies the problem... and something that allowed Clinton to run an annual (though certainly never overall) surplus. Military planning, staffing, designing etc requires years and sometimes decades of planning. My father was Chairman of BUPERS (Navy Personell) in the 70's, and the big deal during the late 80's and 90's was outsourcing projects to avoid the long term pension costs and peace-time overhead of a large military. Makes perfect sense... So when the next "need" comes along, we contract with KBR etc to do the work. While more expensive on an annual basis, when the contract eneds, so do the payments... as opposed to keeping a ready force and their pensione "forever". We THOUGHT the next war would be Nuclear... or Tactical... and we find that it is actually guerilla... something we weren't really prepared for (unarmored humvees)... so we "pay up" to get it done fast... not to mention the questionable hiring

Why do we use KBR and the like anyway?? Because TYPICAL of a government operation, if you want to bid for a contract, you have to be able to supply EVERYTHING the contract provides for. You can't use B&R for Construction and SYSCO for food service etc etc... it requires one-stop shopping... which pretty well prohibits most competition.

Bottom line, while there is certainly waste in this and virtually EVERY project... singling out one project (by EITHER side) just puts you right back to where we supposedly started.

I'm a HUGE fan of making EVERYONE pay SOMETHING directly tied to taxes. Even those entirely subsidized should have to pay something... This is along the lines of Owl's "prefund"... If we decide that someone needs $200 in aid, we should give them $250 and then bill them $50. THAT way, when the next vote comes up that would give them an extra $100, but COST them $10, they might decide they'd rather keep the $10 than have the $100 in benefits they may not need. Sort of like the millions we waste putting manditory lettuce and tomato on school burgers, 90% of which ends up in the trash, rather than spend that same money on leaner beef. The best way to determine if someone really needs something is to give them a choice. If they need it, it is there. If not, let's not just throw it in the garbage with the lettuce.

(08-02-2011 03:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We were never going to default. First, the parties were always going to reach some agreement at the last minute, after all the posturing was done. Second, even if no deal had been done, we were not going to default. There is enough cash coming in to pay some things, and debt service would be at the top of that list.

So all the talk about default was simply disingenous political posturing. In other words, lies.

Prediction: You can "stimluate" all you want to, but in the end, this economy is not going to come back until we eliminate, or at least reduce substantially, both a) our federal budget deficit, and b) our balance of trade deficit. Each is close to a trillion dollars a year, and both need to go away.

If we try to address a) by raising tax rates on the "rich" and corporations, we make this country a less attractive place to do business, and that makes b) worse. What we need to do is to follow the recommendations of Bowles-Simpson and broaden the tax base by eliminating exclusions and deductions, while lowering and flattening the tax rate structure (and we could add a consumption tax, as recommended by Rivlin and Domenici). We can add $300 billion a year in revenues at the same time we make ourselves more competitive in the worldwide economy, and that helps with b).

On the spending side, there's probably $100 billion a year to be saved on defense, without weakening us noticeably, if at all, by bringing the troops home from Germany and Japan, replacing a signficant number of active duty slots with much cheaper reserve slots, getting out of the nation-building business, revsiing our procurement to get more bang for the buck by combining low-cost, proven techniques with high-cost, cutting-edge technologies, and, most importantly, never fighting a war we don't intend to win.

Reform the welfare safety net by adopting the Boortz-Linder prefund (or Friedman's negative income tax) plus French health care, thus making redundant the alphabet soup of exiisting agencies that spend more on administration than benefits. Spend about $100 billion a year less, put more money in the hands of truly needy recipients--and crater the market for McMansions in suburban Virginia and Maryland.

With the revised tax structure, US corporations can compete without corporate welfare. Cut $500 billion from that and other discretionary programs.

That gets you a trillion dollars in annual savings. And that gets you a balanced budget.

+1. I'm pretty much in agreement with this approach and, believe it or not, I believe most Democrats (save for the far left wing of the party) would be also. The problem is going to be the Republicans in the House who will adamantly refuse to put tax reform and defense on the table (and both McConnell and Boehner has already indicated that their designated 6 Republican representatives to the Super Congressional Committee of 12 will not vote for any increase in revenues). Entitlement reform must be put on the table, but only if defense spending and tax reform are included, as well. BTW, the number I heard today on the incremental revenues from tax reform was $13 Trillion over 10 years, and that all comes from cleaning up the loopholes...while allowing across-the-board decreases in the tax rate.

Go ahead and call me a partisan Democrat, but everything the Republicans are doing at the moment-- including this latest debt ceiling deal-- have one purpose, and only one purpose in mind; namely, to ensure that the economy continues to struggle through next year's election.

(08-02-2011 05:53 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Go ahead and call me a partisan Democrat, but everything the Republicans are doing at the moment-- including this latest debt ceiling deal-- have one purpose, and only one purpose in mind; namely, to ensure that the economy continues to struggle through next year's election.

Walt, think about what you just said. It is one thing to say this could be the results of what Republicans are doing - quite another to say it is a planned goal.
Do you really want to attribute this level of malevolence to us, your fellow Americans?

(08-02-2011 09:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-02-2011 05:53 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Go ahead and call me a partisan Democrat, but everything the Republicans are doing at the moment-- including this latest debt ceiling deal-- have one purpose, and only one purpose in mind; namely, to ensure that the economy continues to struggle through next year's election.

Walt, think about what you just said. It is one thing to say this could be the results of what Republicans are doing - quite another to say it is a planned goal.
Do you really want to attribute this level of malevolence to us, your fellow Americans?

Um, Buddy, it was McConnell, himself, who publically stated following last year's elections that his #1 priority was to make Obama a one-term president. Straight from the horse's mouth. What better way to ensure that, but to ensure the economy stays in a rut? No way the economy is going to bounceback, let alone employment, with near-term spending cuts. That's reality...and despite all their public rhetoric to the contrary, the Republicans have done absolutely nothing to further job-creating legislation. In fact, they've done everything in their power to inhibit it.

(08-02-2011 09:37 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Um, Buddy, it was McConnell, himself, who publically stated following last year's elections that his #1 priority was to make Obama a one-term president. Straight from the horse's mouth. What better way to ensure that, but to ensure the economy stays in a rut?

No shocker that an opposition leader would want to limit a President of the other party to one term. I am sure that was the intent of Democrats during the first term of every Republican president, unless you know of some times they said a second term would be good. Insuring the economy stays in a rut is YOUR idea of the best way to get a change in the Presidency, not something McC said.

(08-02-2011 09:37 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(08-02-2011 09:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-02-2011 05:53 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Go ahead and call me a partisan Democrat, but everything the Republicans are doing at the moment-- including this latest debt ceiling deal-- have one purpose, and only one purpose in mind; namely, to ensure that the economy continues to struggle through next year's election.

Walt, think about what you just said. It is one thing to say this could be the results of what Republicans are doing - quite another to say it is a planned goal.
Do you really want to attribute this level of malevolence to us, your fellow Americans?

Um, Buddy, it was McConnell, himself, who publically stated following last year's elections that his #1 priority was to make Obama a one-term president. Straight from the horse's mouth. What better way to ensure that, but to ensure the economy stays in a rut? No way the economy is going to bounceback, let alone unemployment, with near-term spending cuts. That's reality...and despite all their public rhetoric to the contrary, the Republicans have done absolutely nothing to further job-creating legislation. In fact, they've done everything in their power to inhibit it.

Um, Walt, it's quite a stretch from McConnell's comment to your statement. And there are plenty of reasons why it is an unjustified stretch. I would guess that making Shrub a one-termer was the #1 goal of any democrat leader in 2003, or that making Clinton a one-termer was Newt's #1 goal in 1995, or pretty much the same with the opposition during any president's first term. That doesn't get you to the statement you made.

You said it yourself. You are a partisan democrat, and your partisanship has very obviously been on display in this thread.

Suppose the republicans believe--as I do, and as I believe at least most of them do--that the "job-creating" legislation that the democrats have proposed is in realty job-destroying legislation. We spent $800 billion on the "stimulus" and despite all the calculations of jobs createdorsaved as a result, we have fewer people working today than there were before the "stimulus" was passed. Maybe the "stimulus" did more to destroy jobs than create them--the crowding out of investment capital, the uncertainty over what taxes might be imposed to pay off the debt created, and the concurrent uncertainty about the impact of Obamacare on labor costs would certainly be reasonably expected to reduce private sector job creation. That would certainly constitute a reasonable basis for republicans to respond the way they have--with no hint of the motives which you seek to attribute to them.

Republican efforts to create jobs would include things like cutting taxes on business profits and investment income, impeding the expansion of growth-inhibiting regulations, and simplifying administrative requirements. Those things would a) get nowhere with democrats and b) create way more jobs than the "stimulus" did.