Support NeoGAF

[loosus]

I never thought I'd say this, but I honestly think Obama is the most level-headed, most genuine in the bunch regarding the debt ceiling. What he's said about a massive push to cut the deficit with both large spending cuts and tax increases just makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. I can't believe he's being attacked for this.

 

[mckmas8808]

Yes, Obama is affirmatively pro-austerity. It's not "caving." I don't know why anybody would be cheering him on right now, seeing as how he is willfully attacking the American people. He should be getting relentlessly assailed. That he is not is why we find ourselves where we are: screwed.

What if he wants to do it in order to get some tax increases? Just asking....

 

[Byakuya769]

What if he wants to do it in order to get some tax increases? Just asking....

Austerity can include tax increases. What's the point of getting tax increases through hurting the poor directly?

 

[mckmas8808]

Austerity can include tax increases. What's the point of getting tax increases through hurting the poor directly?

Because at some point we do need to cut spending. All liberals and regular "DEMs" should agree with that. The argument is over what to cut.

Our spending can't continue to be at 24% of GDP. Within the next few years we will have to get that down to 20%. We all have to acknowledge that. Even with tax increases spending just has to come down. The math doesn't work out if we don't.

And no getting rid of all the Bush tax cuts is not enough.

 

[Crisis]

wtf, Chuck Todd.

 

[mckmas8808]

wtf, Chuck Todd.

Can you at least tell us what Chuck said?

 

[Crisis]

Can you at least tell us what Chuck said?

He kept going on about "selling Republicans" and "getting Republicans onboard" in regards to the budget cuts and tax increases on corporations and the wealthiest. I mean, really stuck with it to the point where he interrupted President Obama a few times when he was trying to answer it. President Obama replied that "the American people are sold. 80% of them favor the approach where we have meaningful budget cuts and increasing revenues. It's not a matter of Republicans or Congress 'not being sold', it's about Congress doing its job."

 

[Byakuya769]

Because at some point we do need to cut spending. All liberals and regular "DEMs" should agree with that. The argument is over what to cut.

Our spending can't continue to be at 24% of GDP. Within the next few years we will have to get that down to 20%. We all have to acknowledge that. Even with tax increases spending just has to come down. The math doesn't work out if we don't.

And no getting rid of all the Bush tax cuts is not enough.

Regurgitated straight from @BarackObama on twitter? The only thing of size and scope needed to fulfill your new found balanced budget zeal is pretty much medicare. That is a spending efficiency problem not one that simply can be fixed by cutting disbursements. Cutting disbursements (what Obama has put on the table by effectively raising the ages) simply shifts debt to households, which isn't really going to help productivity or decrease budget deficits in the long run when revenues are affected again.

The second biggest contributor is of course Bush tax cuts, but the third right behind it is the economic down turn. Since Obama isn't serious about fighting to reverse our flaccid growth, I can only assume he's not really that serious about decreasing our deficits in the long run, that or he just buys into the "if we lower our deficits, demand will come" bull shit.

You believe that stuff?

 

[Doc Holliday]

We agree that spending needs to be cut, it's the timing that is in question. When consumers aren't spending and corporations aren't hiring it is the goverment that should step in and get things going. This austerity bullshit during recessions never works. When we were flying high during the 90's was the time fix the deficit. We were on our way until of course we cut taxes, medicare plan B, a couple of wars, dot com bubble and 9/11 fucked us over.

Lets get the people back to work then worry about the fucking deficit that only matters when a democrat is in power :/

 

[mckmas8808]

Regurgitated straight from @BarackObama on twitter? The only thing of size and scope needed to fulfill your new found balanced budget zeal is pretty much medicare. That is a spending efficiency problem not one that simply can be fixed by cutting disbursements. Cutting disbursements (what Obama has put on the table by effectively raising the ages) simply shifts debt to households, which isn't really going to help productivity or decrease budget deficits in the long run when revenues are affected again.

The second biggest contributor is of course Bush tax cuts, but the third right behind it is the economic down turn. Since Obama isn't serious about fighting to reverse our flaccid growth, I can only assume he's not really that serious about decreasing our deficits in the long run, that or he just buys into the "if we lower our deficits, demand will come" bull shit.

You believe that stuff?

No it's not regurgitated, but the truth. I agree with you that it's a spending efficiency problem. I disagree with raising the age of Medicare. But spending does still need to be taken down a notch and a great place to do that is in Defense and negoiating drug prices in Medicare and Medicaid. I don't think we have to cut benefits.

And shouldn't you blame the GOP in the House and the Senate for not wanting to pass bills that will grow the economy? I just seen that Obama would like to put an unemployment extension to the debt ceiling if possible. Don't you think that would be a good way for gov't to spend money to help grow the economy?

And it'll be nice if republicans around the country would stop ending rail projects. Some of which can from the Recovery Act.

We agree that spending needs to be cut, it's the timing that is in question. When consumers aren't spending and corporations aren't hiring it is the goverment that should step in and get things going. This austerity bullshit during recessions never works. When we were flying high during the 90's was the time fix the deficit. We were on our way until of course we cut taxes, medicare plan B, a couple of wars, dot com bubble and 9/11 fucked us over.

Lets get the people back to work then worry about the fucking deficit that only matters when a democrat is in power :/

First we aren't in a recession anymore. And I agree with you that any true deficit reduction shouldn't start this year or next year. But in 2013 at the earliest. And in that 18 months time it'll be nice if we could straight up focus on job creation.

 

[Byakuya769]

No it's not regurgitated, but the truth. I agree with you that it's a spending efficiency problem. I disagree with raising the age of Medicare. But spending does still need to be taken down a notch and a great place to do that is in Defense and negotiating drug prices in Medicare and Medicaid. I don't think we have to cut benefits.

Then why are you responding to people attacking Obama's proposals. Since he has offered several regressive measures and been mum on large defense spending cuts?

And shouldn't you blame the GOP in the House and the Senate for not wanting to pass bills that will grow the economy? I just seen that Obama would like to put an unemployment extension to the debt ceiling if possible. Don't you think that would be a good way for gov't to spend money to help grow the economy?

I know what the policy preferences of republicans are, that's why I don't vote for them. However, I expect the Democrats that I support to not just act like fiscally conservative Republicans from two decades ago.

And the unemployment extension(s) is/are good but a disproportionately weak response to a large crisis.

And it'll be nice if republicans around the country would stop ending rail projects. Some of which can from the Recovery Act.

Those rail projects were too small to begin with, as was the Recovery Act, which was too tilted towards unemployment extensions (should have been handled separately) and tax cuts. The best way to get Republican's on the state level to stop ending rail projects is to stop requiring states to put money in on them.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Obviously the core problem is the Republicans have been so successful in pulling the discussion so far to the right that Dems, per usual, are unwilling to firmly take a stand that they fear would be portrayed as far left, even though it'd actually be in line with what was considered a moderate, even Republican ideals of a few decades ago.

 

[empty vessel]

Because at some point we do need to cut spending. All liberals and regular "DEMs" should agree with that. The argument is over what to cut.

We do not need to cut spending. We need to increase spending. Desperately. That we need to cut spending is a right-wing myth.

 

[mckmas8808]

We do not need to cut spending. We need to increase spending. Desperately. That we need to cut spending is a right-wing myth.

"IF" we took your route, then wouldn't we have to raise taxes on 100s of millions of people?

 

[GhaleonEB]

"IF" we took your route, then wouldn't we have to raise taxes on 100s of millions of people?

Sort of.

Me, the rich would be taxed quite heavily, and I'd increase the gas tax a fair amount - it hasn't been raised in decades - which would fuel a sustained increase in infastructure spending.

 

[Chichikov]

We agree that spending needs to be cut

No wait, I do not agree with that in the abstract.
Like, I don't think that by and large the government provide too many services in the US and need to be cut.

I really fucking hate that framing, spending is not a policy.
Spending is paying for policy.

If you think there are specific government programs that need to be cut (and I'm sure there are countless), call them out.

If not, set revenue at sustainable levels.

 

[GaimeGuy]

"IF" we took your route, then wouldn't we have to raise taxes on 100s of millions of people?

considering the top 20% of the country own 85%+ of the net worth and 93+% of the financial wealth in the country, not necessarily.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

"IF" we took your route, then wouldn't we have to raise taxes on 100s of millions of people?

Or perhaps millions of people who make millions or hundreds of millions of dollars?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I really fucking hate that framing, spending is not a policy.
Spending is paying for policy.

One thousand times this.

Sidebar: I'm developing a handprint on my forehead from smacking myself every time Republicans claim we're on the precipice of a debt crisis. People are lending to us at below three percent interest, goddam

 

[mckmas8808]

Sort of.

Me, the rich would be taxed quite heavily, and I'd increase the gas tax a fair amount - it hasn't been raised in decades - which would fuel a sustained increase in infastructure spending.

I like the sound of this. Would you cut defense spending by at least $50 Billion a year too?

Or perhaps millions of people who make millions or hundreds of millions of dollars?

But that wouldn't be enough to close the gap, so we'd have to go bigger!

 

[Chichikov]

"IF" we took your route, then wouldn't we have to raise taxes on 100s of millions of people?

100s of millions?
No, we can most certainly get revenue to sustainable levels without raising taxes on over 2/3 of tax payers.

Sidebar: I'm developing a handprint on my forehead from smacking myself every time Republicans claim we're on the precipice of a debt crisis. People are lending to us at below three percent interest, goddam

No, you got it wrong, leverage is bad.
Unless we're talking about banks of course.
Then it's good.
Great even!

 

[AndyD]

considering the top 20% of the country own 85%+ of the net worth and 93+% of the financial wealth in the country, not necessarily.

This. Reforming the tax system to create revenue does not necessarily mean higher taxes for everyone.

I also don't agree to the framing that eliminating a tax break means a tax increase. A tax break is just that, a break, and we should not take them for granted, but enjoy them while they last. No one complained when the cash for clunkers "tax break" ended and no one said why are you raising taxes? And that's because it was properly portrayed as a temporary thing.

 

[GaimeGuy]

oh, and the numbers I posted were from 2007. They've gone up since then.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I like the sound of this. Would you cut defense spending by at least $50 Billion a year too?

I'd cut our defense budget in half, and split the savings between deficit reduction and infastructure modernization. Tanks don't help the econonmy after they're built, but having a world class national rail system is something we need.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I'd cut our defense budget in half, and split the savings between deficit reduction and infastructure modernization. Tanks don't help the econonmy after their built, but having a world class national rail system is something we need.

You obviously hate our military and want us to be attacked by Al Qaeda. Admit it!

 

[Byakuya769]

I'd cut our defense budget in half, and split the savings between deficit reduction and infastructure modernization. Tanks don't help the econonmy after their built, but having a world class national rail system is something we need.

Sounds like a job killer to me. Think of all the consistently over budget and late weapons and military vehicle development you're going to end.

 

[loosus]

We do need huge spending cuts.

However, I will say that we need to increase taxes, as well. People are so fucking worried about losing jobs because of tax increases. Well, what exactly as low taxes gotten us? Jack shit. I am not even sure that higher taxes won't kill some jobs, but the job market is so anemic and has been for so long that I am willing to just try higher taxes for the hell of it. If it really does end up killing jobs en masse, we can repeal the taxes at a later date.

 

[mckmas8808]

100s of millions?
No, we can most certainly get revenue to sustainable levels without raising taxes on over 2/3 of tax payers.

Not if we increase spending like Empty Vessel wants to do.

 

[reilo]

We do need huge spending cuts.

However, I will say that we need to increase taxes, as well. People are so fucking worried about losing jobs because of tax increases. Well, what exactly as low taxes gotten us? Jack shit. I am not even sure that higher taxes won't kill some jobs, but the job market is so anemic and has been for so long that I am willing to just try higher taxes for the hell of it. If it really does end up killing jobs en masse, we can repeal the taxes at a later date.

I'm willing to listen to an argument that having low corporate taxes can be detrimental to company growth and employment numbers. That's totally fine.

But where I get lost in this whole tax debate is when we discuss taxes on personal income (paid salary) as some sort of detriment to job growth. I know I've hammered this before, but when the CEO of GM a few years back was receiving millions in salary and bonuses, how would taxing his income slightly more affect the company's hiring practices? That's where this debate gets extremely silly.

 

[aronnov reborn]

This is getting old... Just read an article that says republicans haven't offered a serious deal...and then another that said democrats haven't offered a serious deal...

JUST MAKE A FRICKEN DEAL!

Boehner and obama just need to go into a room.. make a deal happen.. then boehner tell the house to suck it up.

 

[PhoenixDark]

So next week Boehner will hold a symbolic vote in the house, wasting more time. I trust Boehner in the sense that he clearly knows what's at stake, and I tend to take his actions as being a dog and pony show for tea partiers; he's got to at least seem like he's willing to blow up the country to appease them.

McConnell may be an ass but he's not an utter fool. Plus he has significantly less leverage than anyone else at the table. On the other hand Cantor almost seems willing to let the world burn just so he can become Speaker.

I figured a deal would at least be on the table after Wall Street stepped in last week, but this week has gone by with little progress and a lot of bickering. There's no doubt in my mind the ceiling will be raised, I'm just beginning to question what the cost will be. I'm not sold on the idea that Obama will hold firm here.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

This is getting old... Just read an article that says republicans haven't offered a serious deal...and then another that said democrats haven't offered a serious deal...

JUST MAKE A FRICKEN DEAL!

Boehner and obama just need to go into a room.. make a deal happen.. then boehner tell the house to suck it up.

The problem is Boehner wants to keep his job and he is so concerned that by upsetting the delicate Tea Party folk he won't. It's unfortunate that the Dem party doesn't have a Tea Party type of group of its own.

 

[mckmas8808]

I'd cut our defense budget in half, and split the savings between deficit reduction and infastructure modernization. Tanks don't help the econonmy after they're built, but having a world class national rail system is something we need.

Again sounds nice to me. It's like you are sexting my ears lol. But would you do it in a gradual way? Like starting at $50 billion a year for the first 2 years, then the next two increasing that to $100 billion, then the next 2 years increasing that to $200 billion, etc?

Or would you just go straight for the jugular vein at start at $300 billion less per year within a couple years.

 

[Chichikov]

Not if we increase spending like Empty Vessel wants to do.

There are about 300 millions people in the US.
Hundreds of millions, is at the very least 200 million.
Considering our current wealth distribution, and considering our current corporate tax code, I think we can afford a budgetary expansion without raising taxes on every person outside the bottom 33% of earners.

We do need huge spending cuts.

What cuts do we need?
Enough with this abstract bullshit.
You seem to think that there are certain government programs that we'll be better off if they're cut.
And I agree.
But this discussion have to be about the details.
Not that cuts vs taxes dollar ratio silliness.

 

[mckmas8808]

The problem is Boehner wants to keep his job and he is so concerned that by upsetting the delicate Tea Party folk he won't. It's unfortunate that the Dem party doesn't have a Tea Party type of group of its own.

Oh god!!!!!!! I'd say it's fortunate. A DEM "tea party" would be a disaster. Thank god we don't have that crap.

 

[reilo]

It's unfortunate that the Dem party doesn't have a Tea Party type of group of its own.

We have plenty of groups that are extremely left and volatile. The difference is that the Democratic Caucus sees them for what they are: a fringe group with extreme ideas.

 

[Dude Abides]

This is getting old... Just read an article that says republicans haven't offered a serious deal...and then another that said democrats haven't offered a serious deal...

JUST MAKE A FRICKEN DEAL!

Boehner and obama just need to go into a room.. make a deal happen.. then boehner tell the house to suck it up.

The problem is it's not clear that the House would listen to him.

Oh god!!!!!!! I'd say it's fortunate. A DEM "tea party" would be a disaster. Thank god we don't have that crap.

I know right? A strong organized Left in Congress and at the grassroots might have kept us out of Iraq and Libya, prevented the Bush tax cuts, etc. Would have been horrible.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

We have plenty of groups that are extremely left and volatile. The difference is that the Democratic Caucus sees them for what they are: a fringe group with extreme ideas.

I'm not talking about loons like the Tea Party who don't know what they're talking about. I am talking about an organized group that is able to truly put the fear of God into our representatives to cease cowtowing to corporate lobbyists and other groups who are only concerned about their own bank accounts instead of the well being of the middle class and poor.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

If the US just reform the tax code so there would be no loopholes, there will be a lot of revenues, especially on corporate tax, without raising taxes.

Here is an example, I am pretty sure you guys know about this.

Edit:

Key Findings

Offshore tax havens cost taxpayers revenue totaling as much as $100 billion per year - $1 trillion over 10 years. Individuals and corporations based in the U.S. who pay taxes on their revenues must shoulder this burden for those who do not.

Making up for this lost revenue costs each taxpayer an average of $500 per year. That’s a month’s worth of groceries for an average family of four6 or a year’s worth of health care for a child.

http://www.uspirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/tax--budget-policy/tax--budget-policy--reports/tax-shell-game-what-do-tax-dodgers-cost-you

 

[RustyNails]

All it takes to have our own teaparty styled "grassroots" base is cash. Right now, our loony left is made up of extreme fringe environmentalists.

Get that GAFPAC rolling. Although I think ColbertPAC can do some pretty good damage if used effectively.

 

[Clipjoint]

Of course we need to increase spending. The #1 priority right now needs to be job growth not deficit reduction. Get people working, get the economy running, get people paying taxes, THEN you tackle the deficit. Everything else you're hearing right now is just bullshit. Decreasing spending while in a recession is so unbelievably stupid. Obama is a massive failure as a president for allowing this rhetoric to take over and adopting the Republican policies as his own.

 

[Suikoguy]

All it takes to have our own teaparty styled "grassroots" base is cash. Right now, our loony left is made up of extreme fringe environmentalists.

Get that GAFPAC rolling. Although I think ColbertPAC can do some pretty good damage if used effectively.

The colbertpac, if managed correctly could make people question the whole current political fundraising system. It's going to need to pull some serious stunts to get media attention to do it, and I'm not sure Viacom will let them.

Of course we need to increase spending. The #1 priority right now needs to be job growth not deficit reduction. Get people working, get the economy running, get people paying taxes, THEN you tackle the deficit. Everything else you're hearing right now is just bullshit. Decreasing spending while in a recession is so unbelievably stupid. Obama is a massive failure as a president for allowing this rhetoric to take over and adopting the Republican policies as his own.

This is a good point. Whenever I talk to my dad about politics, he says almost the same thing. As I said in another thread, we have one party ran by corporations, and another afraid of them.

 

[mckmas8808]

I know right? A strong organized Left in Congress and at the grassroots might have kept us out of Iraq and Libya, prevented the Bush tax cuts, etc. Would have been horrible.

You're acting like the Tea party and people that ran on that platform are honest and non-hypocritical about their message.

An equal to the tea party on the left would be arguing for less wars while wanting to meddle in more country's business overseas. I don't have a perfect analogy on the mind right now, but they would be crappy.

Okay how about this one.....an equal left tea party would argue to make education better in this country would be to spend 20% more money, while not making any reforms and making sure you go out of your way to not fire any teachers or admin staff.

 

[PhoenixDark]

All it takes to have our own teaparty styled "grassroots" base is cash. Right now, our loony left is made up of extreme fringe environmentalists.

Get that GAFPAC rolling. Although I think ColbertPAC can do some pretty good damage if used effectively.

That's simply not true. The tea party has an impact because they have full corporate backing. a liberal group could never have as much impact considering most of the things they'd advocate would be anti-corporations.

There's a reason Obama hasn't paid any attention to liberal budgets from the senate. He doesn't care, and no one else in power does either.

 

[mckmas8808]

Of course we need to increase spending. The #1 priority right now needs to be job growth not deficit reduction. Get people working, get the economy running, get people paying taxes, THEN you tackle the deficit. Everything else you're hearing right now is just bullshit. Decreasing spending while in a recession is so unbelievably stupid. Obama is a massive failure as a president for allowing this rhetoric to take over and adopting the Republican policies as his own.

We AREN'T in a recession!!! We are in a slow growth period.

 

[Cyan]

The Bachmann campaign finally comes out with its defense on the "barbarians need discipline!" tape: it's fake!

Critics of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) have been having a field day with a 2010 recording of Bachmann's husband Marcus calling gay people "barbarians."
...

Asked about what has become a central part of the coverage of Michele Bachmann's run for the White House lately, Marcus told the Star-Tribune whole thing was made up.

"Bachmann said that someone must have doctored the recording of the interview, in which he addressed child discipline as well as homosexuality and sex education," the paper reports.

"I was talking in reference to children. Nothing, nothing to do with homosexuality," Bachmann said. "That's not my mindset. That's not my belief system. That's not the way I would talk."
...

So far, there's no evidence that the tape is doctored. The Star-Tribune looked into it and found nothing.

"Calls to 'Point of View' were not returned Thursday," the paper reports. "Online archived recordings of the show don't go back to May 2010, when Bachmann's interview took place."

Hmm...

 

[Cygnus X-1]

I never thought I'd say this, but I honestly think Obama is the most level-headed, most genuine in the bunch regarding the debt ceiling. What he's said about a massive push to cut the deficit with both large spending cuts and tax increases just makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. I can't believe he's being attacked for this.

I think it's the only balanced way to proceed with. Unfortunately GOP has other ideas.

 

[empty vessel]

You're acting like the Tea party and people that ran on that platform are honest and non-hypocritical about their message.

An equal to the tea party on the left would be arguing for less wars while wanting to meddle in more country's business overseas. I don't have a perfect analogy on the mind right now, but they would be crappy.

Okay how about this one.....an equal left tea party would argue to make education better in this country would be to spend 20% more money, while not making any reforms and making sure you go out of your way to not fire any teachers or admin staff.

I don't think anybody is saying we need an equally inane and incoherent movement as the tea party for the left. The point is that there ought to be an organized movement period to discipline elected officials (and, importantly, to given them negotiating leverage). That is all that is meant. We would all agree that a left movement ought to be coherent and rooted in serving the best interests of the American public as a whole, i.e., not incoherent and manipulated like the tea party.

We AREN'T in a recession!!! We are in a slow growth period.

We are in a woefully sluggish economy with painfully high unemployment that could very easily slip back into recession!!!

 

[HylianTom]

The colbertpac, if managed correctly could make people question the whole current political fundraising system.

One of the big things I'll be paying attention to in the Election of 2012 will be what ColbertPAC does with its money. I've largely given-up hope on national politics, but if there's one organization that I might be willing to support financially, it's Colbert's organization.

At the very least, we'll see some laughs as a result of this. I think humor (absurdity, ridicule, etc) is one of the most under-used political weapons of our time, and the Left in this country has it as an under-used resource.. although I'm convinced that the weapon of humor was what effectively rendered Palin a non-starter on the national scene.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I don't think anybody is saying we need an equally inane and incoherent movement as the tea party for the left. The point is that there ought to be an organized movement period to discipline elected officials (and, importantly, to given them negotiating leverage). That is all that is meant. We would all agree that a left movement ought to be coherent and rooted in serving the best interests of the American public as a whole, i.e., not incoherent and manipulated like the tea party.

Yep, thats what I meant. I never thought I'd see the day when the Republican leadership was actually hesitant in doing what Wall Street commanded of it and yet, here we are. The Republican leadership doesn't know who to listen to: the Tea Party or big business. The Tea Party has put fear into the Republican machine to either do as they say or they will be out of a job.