Support NeoGAF

[Gr1mLock]

Whats the fallout of this entire thing going to be? it would be nice to think that these kind of situations and the people who put us in them would be voted out. However time and time again I underestimate the voting publics apetite for mysogeny. When will enough be enough? Theres no real tangible consequences for the batshit insane members of the govt who seem to not even pretend theyre elected public servants anymore. What will be the straw that breaks the peoples back and causes a serious reaction to all this nonsense?

 

[SlipperySlope]

You realize that by cutting 2.4 trillion dollars, you are taking 2.4 trillion dollars from circulating in the economy?

Well, what's your solution?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Well, what's your solution?

How about we pass a clean ceiling raise, let the Bush tax cuts expire for top earners at end of 2012, continue phasing down the wars, completely end the Libya farce, lift the income cap on Social Security allow the government to negotiate perscription drug costs, and implement the health care law as planned. There, I've solved the issue.

 

[SlipperySlope]

Wait, what?
My brain hurts, I really don't understand what you're saying.

The ceiling is not the budget, the budget is the budget, the only thing the ceiling adjustment amount affect is when's the next time we'll have this dog and pony show.

Why does it matter to anything?
Anything other than partisan high stakes poker, which is what this is all about.
The GOP want to have this crap again in an election year and the dems don't.

This is all that remains (after the dems caved completely).

So you're not questioning the math or the need for cuts, but that the extension is being directly tied to cuts in one bill?

The idea there is to put fire under Congress to rethink spending. And for a time, they almost did. Budgets don't give congress people the fire they need to get something big changed. They need a spark. The spark of impending doom is the only thing that seems to worry them.

Changing social security, medicare, or medicaid won't get done in a regular budget process. In the ceiling negotiations, they almost did. If Republicans would have had one or two more branches, it would have been done. But alas, it wasn't meant to be. Yet.

It's for this reason I like the debt ceiling. Nothing else gets Congress to think "OMG! We're almost broke! We need to do something!" like a debt ceiling. Hopefully one day the ceiling will be a fixed cap.

 

[ronito]

How about we pass a clean ceiling raise, let the Bush tax cuts expire for top earners at end of 2012, continue phasing down the wars, completely end the Libya farce, lift the income cap on Social Security allow the government to negotiate perscription drug costs, and implement the health care law as planned. There, I've solved the issue.

done and done!

 

[Chichikov]

So you're not questioning the math or the need for cuts, but that the extension is being directly tied to cuts in one bill?

I am questioning what does this ratio has to do with anything.
I keep hearing this talking point but it makes no sense to me.

The idea there is to put fire under Congress to rethink spending. And for a time, they almost did. Budgets don't give congress people the fire they need to get something big changed. They need a spark. The spark of impending doom is the only thing that seems to worry them.

Changing social security, medicare, or medicaid won't get done in a regular budget process. In the ceiling negotiations, they almost did. If Republicans would have had one or two more branches, it would have been done. But alas, it wasn't meant to be. Yet.

It's for this reason I like the debt ceiling. Nothing else gets Congress to think "OMG! We're almost broke! We need to do something!" like a debt ceiling. Hopefully one day the ceiling will be a fixed cap.

So you admit this is nothing more than hostage taking in order to advance a political goal?

And listen man, even if it advances a goal you believe in, how the fuck is that a good way to run a government?

The framers did not meant for the house to the ultimate say about everything, at the threat of economic ruin.

 

[Mr. E. Yis]

Slippery Slope:

Just making cuts to Medicare and SS is huge difference from changing the system and costs of Medicare and SS. One will make save money in the long run, and the other will spend more at the same time as being a disaster for the American people.

And you still didn't respond as to why is SS and Medicare solely targeted for cuttin debt when taking away the Bush tax cuts will do multiples more.

 

[Chichikov]

Just making cuts to Medicare and SS is huge difference from changing the system and costs of Medicare and SS. One will make save money in the long run, and the other will spend more at the same time as being a disaster for the American people.

And you still didn't respond as to why is SS and Medicare solely targeted for cuttin debt when taking away the Bush tax cuts will do multiples more.

Social Security is pretty much unrelated to the debt.

 

[SlipperySlope]

How about we pass a clean ceiling raise, let the Bush tax cuts expire for top earners at end of 2012, continue phasing down the wars, completely end the Libya farce, lift the income cap on Social Security allow the government to negotiate perscription drug costs, and implement the health care law as planned. There, I've solved the issue.

Deficit currently stands at 1.5 trillion. Time for some simple math.

1) Letting tax cuts for the rich expire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

2.2 trillion over 10 years, or if cut evenly, 220 billion a year.

2) The wars cost what? 100 billion a year?

3) How much does Libya cost?

4) The goal of lifting the cap on social security is to keep it from going into the negative. The net effect on the budget would be zero as the social security funds are kept separate.

5) Drug negotiations. I agree that this needs to happen. Not sure how much it would exactly affect costs.

6) The health care law is supposed to be deficit neutral. I think the CBO described a slight surplus. I don't remember the amount.

So anyway, from the things I can actually count, the deficit is down to a $1.18 trillion deficit. Do you have savings estimates on the others? By the way, good luck raising the social security cap. Social security is more likely to get the age bumped up. Regardless, neither touches the budget until social security hits zero.

done and done!

Not quite.

 

[SlipperySlope]

A bit of good news. I'm sure it's been talked about, but I missed any threads about it.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/29/us.libya.al.obeidy.relocates/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

I thought she was dead.

 

[avaya]

This is such a fake crisis. It was known decades ago the US would not ever pay back it's debt. The sudden paranoia over debt is simply am attempt to create market volatility where there is none. This is the environment we really live in, it is more profitable for the algo hedge funds that volatility stays higher above VIX 15. The reality is that the mega funds actually set the trend, banks are just enablers and follow. The funds are lawless parasites.

End of the day the political grandstanding from the Tea Party is ridiculous, the military industrial complex and bank lobby will not allow default, this is a national security issue. The ceiling will be raised.

 

[The Chosen One]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60125_Page3.html#ixzz1TT7qI97J



i suppose enlisting phil gramm to drum up support is better than passing out industry checks, but still... :lol

He's basically pimping the GOP retirement plan. Becoming a corporate lobbyist.

 

[ViperVisor]

Starting the equation and racing to zero from the worst case scenario, aka now, is unfair.

The hole will need to be filled but lets not drive the fucking truck into it after we dump the the dirt we could move on a tank of fuel.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Deficit currently stands at 1.5 trillion. Time for some simple math.

1) Letting tax cuts for the rich expire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

2.2 trillion over 10 years, or if cut evenly, 220 billion a year.

2) The wars cost what? 100 billion a year?

3) How much does Libya cost?

4) The goal of lifting the cap on social security is to keep it from going into the negative. The net effect on the budget would be zero as the social security funds are kept separate.

5) Drug negotiations. I agree that this needs to happen. Not sure how much it would exactly affect costs.

6) The health care law is supposed to be deficit neutral. I think the CBO described a slight surplus. I don't remember the amount.

So anyway, from the things I can actually count, the deficit is down to a $1.18 trillion deficit. Do you have savings estimates on the others? By the way, good luck raising the social security cap. Social security is more likely to get the age bumped up. Regardless, neither touches the budget until social security hits zero.



Not quite.

The majority of my proposals are unlikely, not just the SS. Many commentators and economists have said the deficit can be neutralized by simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire and doing nothing else; since I assume the lower income brackets will not be allowed to expire, I add some other things in there to partially make up for that revenue.

I don't have exact numbers. And if your numbers are correct and this plan lowered the deficit to a trillion dollars, we'd be in pretty damn good shape if you ask me.

 

[RustyNails]

1) Keep our finances from falling off of a cliff
2) Keep damage to the economy as minimal as possible

I know this has been said a zillion times, but it is simply worth repeating. I wonder where this fiscal acuity was when bush cut taxes for the super rich and started two unpaid wars. Just to keep in mind next time you see anyone in the congress or otherwise talking about fiscal responsibility.

 

[Cyan]

Changing social security, medicare, or medicaid won't get done in a regular budget process. In the ceiling negotiations, they almost did. If Republicans would have had one or two more branches, it would have been done. But alas, it wasn't meant to be. Yet.

Dude. If the Republicans had the Presidency, the ceiling would've been raised six months ago, with nary a peep about spending or cuts.

 

[reilo]

2) The wars cost what? 100 billion a year?

AHAHAHA.

A single year of the Iraq war ($300bil last time I remembered) would cover the entire UHC cost for half a decade.

My god.

$100bil for two wars a year? Hahahahahaha.

 

[SlipperySlope]

The majority of my proposals are unlikely, not just the SS. Many commentators and economists have said the deficit can be neutralized by simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire and doing nothing else; since I assume the lower income brackets will not be allowed to expire, I add some other things in there to partially make up for that revenue.

I don't have exact numbers. And if your numbers are correct and this plan lowered the deficit to a trillion dollars, we'd be in pretty damn good shape if you ask me.

They're wrong. The imbalance is just too large. In the Wikipedia article I posted, the CBO estimated that the cost of the cuts on everybody, not just the rich, comes to about 3.3 trillion over 10 years. Our current deficit hits that amount in two years.

Simple math, but divide that by 10, it amounts to about 22% of our current deficit. The issue is that every forecast of our economy since the recession has started has been far too rosy. The economy has stalled, which was not predicted even three months ago. I remember reading a report a year or two ago that by FY 2012, with no changes we are supposed to be back at about 1 trillion in deficits. The problem? Deficits increased every year since the report, not decreased.

So no, ending the tax cuts in and of themselves will not solve the deficit problem. Remember, we are spending 40% more than we are receiving.

Anyway, last post tonight for me.

 

[RustyNails]

by the way, my co-champion PantherLotus is banned.

 

[SlipperySlope]

AHAHAHA.

A single year of the Iraq war ($300bil last time I remembered) would cover the entire UHC cost for half a decade.

My god.

$100bil for two wars a year? Hahahahahaha.

Alright, I have to reply to this. After looking into it, my number was a bit low, hence my guess and the question mark. But it is still far closer than your number.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

FY2011 Obama administration proposes around $159.3 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.[8]

Not sure where you got 300 billion from for one war in one year.

Edit - Some advice. It is best not to try to make fun of somebody when your number is way off. Makes you look like a fool.

About half the deficit is due to the recession, and is cyclical rather than structural. I would make some short-term investments to jump start job growth and the payroll base (starting with getting the 99rs back on UI). I would also:

Steeply raise taxes on the rich, adding several new tax brackets starting at $1m.

Eliminate a wide swath of personal and business deductions, such as mortgage interest on second homes.

Tax capital gains as regular income taxes for individuals and small businesses earning over $200k.

Raise the gas tax a good $0.15 or so, to boost the highway trust fund. Direct the additional funds to tip toward mass transit (name of the fund be damned).

Lower the Medicare eligibility age to 55. Make the Medicare payroll tax progressive and raise it on upper incomes to pay for the additional members.

In addition to the items already listed and we're pretty much set. And this is about half of what I'd do. I'd have us in a surplus in a couple years.

Wow, all tax and spending. Part of that (spending), was already attempted to try to restart the economy. Didn't work.

Your proposal is about as far left as mine is right.

 

[Oblivion]

How about we pass a clean ceiling raise, let the Bush tax cuts expire for top earners at end of 2012, continue phasing down the wars, completely end the Libya farce, lift the income cap on Social Security allow the government to negotiate perscription drug costs, and implement the health care law as planned. There, I've solved the issue.

I got a better idea. We have deficits because government is spending more than it's taking in, so how about we STOP the spending?

omg so hard

Spoiler

just trying help a brotha (bigsicily) out is all

 

[GhaleonEB]

So anyway, from the things I can actually count, the deficit is down to a $1.18 trillion deficit. Do you have savings estimates on the others? By the way, good luck raising the social security cap. Social security is more likely to get the age bumped up. Regardless, neither touches the budget until social security hits zero.

Not quite.

About half the deficit is due to the recession, and is cyclical rather than structural. I would make some short-term investments to jump start job growth and the payroll base (starting with getting the 99rs back on UI). I would also:

Steeply raise taxes on the rich, adding several new tax brackets starting at $1m.

Eliminate a wide swath of personal and business deductions, such as mortgage interest on second homes.

Tax capital gains as regular income taxes for individuals and small businesses earning over $200k.

Raise the gas tax a good $0.15 or so, to boost the highway trust fund. Direct the additional funds to tip toward mass transit (name of the fund be damned).

Lower the Medicare eligibility age to 55. Make the Medicare payroll tax progressive and raise it on upper incomes to pay for the additional members.

In addition to the items already listed and we're pretty much set. And this is about half of what I'd do. I'd have us in a surplus in a couple years.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Wow, all tax and spending. Part of that (spending), was already attempted to try to restart the economy. Didn't work.

Very little spending was actually done. Nowhere near enough what many economists said was needed. Lot's of tax cuts though!

 

[TacticalFox88]

About half the deficit is due to the recession, and is cyclical rather than structural. I would make some short-term investments to jump start job growth and the payroll base (starting with getting the 99rs back on UI). I would also:

Steeply raise taxes on the rich, adding several new tax brackets starting at $1m.

Eliminate a wide swath of personal and business deductions, such as mortgage interest on second homes.

Tax capital gains as regular income taxes for individuals and small businesses earning over $200k.

Raise the gas tax a good $0.15 or so, to boost the highway trust fund. Direct the additional funds to tip toward mass transit (name of the fund be damned).

Lower the Medicare eligibility age to 55. Make the Medicare payroll tax progressive and raise it on upper incomes to pay for the additional members.

In addition to the items already listed and we're pretty much set. And this is about half of what I'd do. I'd have us in a surplus in a couple years.

Lower the Medicare age? Wouldn't that put more burden on our taxes 5 years earlier?

 

[Oblivion]

Wow, all tax and spending.

Sorry, I'm gonna be kind of a dick real quick like...

What the hell does that even MEAN? No, seriously, you guys on the right have this uncanny ability to take harmless and/or meaningless words and phrases and turn them into the most sinister sounding things ever.

The government taxes SO THAT IT COULD SPEND. THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT! Otherwise there would be no need for taxes. Jesus fuck, man.

 

[polyh3dron]

You know what would be simpler? Massive cuts to the artifice of the military industrial complex. Eliminate tax loopholes and the Bush tax cuts. Create universal healthcare and regulate the industry correctly so that we don't all piss our income into a voracious and bottomless pit of middlemen. And stabilze the markets by regulating the shit out of Wall Street. And reform campaign finance once and for all.

And by simpler, I mean better.

There needs to be a "Tea Party" movement in the Republican party that resets the party to a sensible meaningful institution and not just a foxhle of religion, racism and corporatism.

If we're going to have a two party system they should both be serious about governing and building this country. Right now, things are hopelessly fucked.

The problem is that the GOP is so far down the proverbial rabbit hole that if you take away all of that, they don't stand for anything really.

 

[polyh3dron]

Wow, all tax and spending. Part of that (spending), was already attempted to try to restart the economy. Didn't work.

Are you aware that the republicans were able to cripple the shit out of the stimulus legislation even though they didn't end up voting for it and that most economists said that it was nowhere near big enough to accomplish its mission? Are you also aware that in a huge and unsuccessful pandering gesture to the right wingers in said stimulus bill, an incredibly large amount of it was comprised of tax cuts?

 

[Diablos]

If by "modifying Reid's plan so it makes Republicans more accepting" they mean "extend it by only six months" and Obama signs it, then he is essentially handing the GOP 2012 on a golden platter. There won't even be a need to vote. A lot of Democrats have caving at the last second etched into their DNA, so it wouldn't surprise me if they're seriously considering it at this point.

Seriously, the outcome of this is going to have a significant impact on the election. If it goes beyond 2012 then the President's chances stay the same which are quite frankly looking worse. If it's only six months the GOP will be putting the next vote front and center at a time when Obama's going to be up against the wall anyway.

It is unbelievable how dysfunctional our Congress has become. Reagan did this 18 times. I know the economy is pretty bad right now, but the debt ceiling should not be an issue. Period. It should have been passed with relative ease.

I believe what Voinovich reportedly said. It just goes to show you it's not a joke when you call the Tea Party wing ideological terrorists. They are hell bent on destroying this country just so they can have their way. All the talk of Obama being a radical and such was clearly used as a ploy to mask true intentions by a great many of those who oppose him.

I can only hope the GOP can calm the Tea Party's antics (as if the GOP's weren't bad enough, what the fuck is happening to my country) down or we're in big trouble. Congress is going to stay in the GOP's hands for a long time, and whether they win back the WH in 2012, 2016, 2020, or 2024, if the Tea Party is the new brand, we're fucked. Seriously, fucked. You think it's bad now...

That's the part that is really, well, horrific. These people are next in line for whenever the Republicans get back the White House. Someday, they'll get it back. And they're more insane than ever before.

 

[GaimeGuy]

at this rate we'll be lucky to get out of this with a ceiling raise and a downgrade only 1 level

 

[GaimeGuy]

Are you aware that the republicans were able to cripple the shit out of the stimulus legislation even though they didn't end up voting for it and that most economists said that it was nowhere near big enough to accomplish its mission? Are you also aware that in a huge and unsuccessful pandering gesture to the right wingers in said stimulus bill, an incredibly large amount of it was comprised of tax cuts?

the largest part of it, actually

 

[Measley]

The definitions of treason are: 1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign. 2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state. 3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Looks like the Republicans' actions certainly qualify as treasonous and as such I believe Obama will be left to rely on the confusing language of the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling by fiat and then battle it out in court.

 

[gcubed]

Sorry, I'm gonna be kind of a dick real quick like...

What the hell does that even MEAN? No, seriously, you guys on the right have this uncanny ability to take harmless and/or meaningless words and phrases and turn them into the most sinister sounding things ever.

The government taxes SO THAT IT COULD SPEND. THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT! Otherwise there would be no need for taxes. Jesus fuck, man.

Tax and spend means we are taxing people to be able to afford all the programs the majority of people like and use so we can keep our fiscal house in order. The other option is more widely employed by the GOP, bitch and spend, bitch about liberals and run up insane deficits. One is based in reality, one is not.

Like the reality of slipperyslopes argument that SS funds are seperate. If they are truly seperate then were is all the surplus money to be able to handle the coming deficits without changing benefits? You can't have it both ways

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I feel sorry for class of 2012. Holy shit. (((

D:

That's ME!
If my Pell Grant is defunded, I can't go to college, it's as simple as that

 

[GaimeGuy]

D:

That's ME!
If my Pell Grant is defunded, I can't go to college, it's as simple as that

Write your representative and senators. Make your voice heard. That's all you can do a t this point :/

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Write your representative and senators. Make your voice heard. That's all you can do a t this point :/

I'll become a deadbeat and live off welfare forever to spite 'em for ruining my chances at a career.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Are you aware that the republicans were able to cripple the shit out of the stimulus legislation

Rahm said they got everything they wanted at the time of the signing. Quit spreading bullshit.

Perhaps more importantly, Mr Summers didn't decide on the size of the stimulus. That call was made by Rahm Emanuel, who opted for a total smaller than what Mr Summers advocated.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/01/economic_policy

 

[adamsappel]

I know this has been said a zillion times, but it is simply worth repeating. I wonder where this fiscal acuity was when bush cut taxes for the super rich and started two unpaid wars. Just to keep in mind next time you see anyone in the congress or otherwise talking about fiscal responsibility.

 

[Byakuya769]

I love how we're attempting to "fix" the debt to GDP ratio by a bunch of measures that will cut GDP more than they cut the debt.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I love how we're attempting to "fix" the debt to GDP ratio by a bunch of measures that will cut GDP more than they cut the debt.

no one is trying to fix the debt to GDP ratio. they're just trying to starve the beast by cutting spending (so they can cut taxes even further).

Spending isn't even that high. As a percentage of GDP, it could even be considered low. Tax revenues are ridiculously low though, hence the deficits we get.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

no one is trying to fix the debt to GDP ratio. they're just trying to starve the beast by cutting spending (so they can cut taxes even further).

Spending isn't even that high. As a percentage of GDP, it could even be considered low. Tax revenues are ridiculously low though, hence the deficits we get.

Spending has nearly doubled over the last 10 years.

 

[Byakuya769]

Spending has nearly doubled over the last 10 years.

On what? And are we looking at cutting from those areas?

 

[ToxicAdam]

If only we could return government spending as a percentage of the GDP back to the 1950's levels. That's when the economy was booming. /wink

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html

 

[empty vessel]

Spending has nearly doubled over the last 10 years.

There is nothing scary about that graphic.

And let's not forget the "do nothing" "solution" to our "spending problem."

Invented crises are the worst crises. You're being manipulated, Bulbo. I don't understand how it doesn't piss you off that other people literally have control of your mind.

If only we could return government spending as a percentage of the GDP back to the 1950's levels. That's when the economy was booming. /wink

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html

Sure, if you can make this go back to where it was:

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I knew you would come back with that : )
I should have made myself more clear. I was talking total federal outlays. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z1.xls
Federal government spending has nearly doubled. It's a fact.

 

[ToxicAdam]

1Q GDP downgraded from 1.9 to .4 growth. 2Q at 1.3.

I suspect the 2Q will be downgraded also. Looks like we may already be dipping our toes into the next recession.

 

[YuriLowell]

Spending has nearly doubled over the last 10 years.

Where does this logic come from?

 

[Barrett2]

At what point will the AAA rating actually be downgraded? I find it insane there are actually enough Republican congressman who would be ok with a downgrade.

 

[Plinko]

What a tweest.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/28/religious-leaders-arreste_n_912337.html

*Slow clap*

This is what I'll never get. The GOP is tied in with Christianity yet, for some reason, all of their economic policy goes completely against the message of Christianity.

 

[Clevinger]

*Slow clap*

This is what I'll never get. The GOP is tied in with Christianity yet, for some reason, all of their economic policy goes completely against the message of Christianity.

The GOP has an out: CHARITY!

 

[Incognito]

expounds on what rich lowry was talking about earlier. anyway, it's pretty nauseating

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/1...-over-pell-grant-funding-in-boehner-debt-bill

House conservatives who have stalled legislation to raise the national debt limit are angry that it includes $17 billion in supplemental spending for Pell Grants, which some compare to welfare.

Legislation crafted by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to raise the debt limit by $900 billion would directly appropriate $9 billion for Pell Grants in 2012 and another $8 billion in 2013.

This has shocked some conservative House freshmen who say they were elected to cut spending, not increase it. Some House Republicans think of it as being akin to welfare.

The inclusion of the extra money for Pell Grants could cost Republican votes.

Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) has compared Pell Grants to “welfare”.

"So you can go to college on Pell Grants — maybe I should not be telling anybody this because it’s turning out to be the welfare of the 21st century," Rehberg told Blog Talk Radio in April. "You can go to school, collect your Pell Grants, get food stamps, low-income energy assistance, Section 8 housing, and all of a sudden we find ourselves subsidizing people that don’t have to graduate from college.”