Support NeoGAF

[Pctx]

God if there was one thing I wish could be eradicated from this board it's this false equivalency bullshit.

How is it false? Because you know me so well and my opinions on the subject it obviously makes for a great blanket statement right?

So what should the Dems have given that they didn't offer? What should the Republicans have given that they didn't offer?

Again, this goes back to my views on leadership. Its not what wasn't offered, it was the fact that no one had the balls to say okay. I think people in general are missing the point that the ideas that have been kicked around aren't bad but the people in power are completely spineless in terms of offering terms of the agreements. We obviously have debts to countries, debts to seniors, debts to our military vets, debts to social programs, etc, etc. but not even 2 people out of a country of 350+ Million could get ducks in a row on how to move forward.

 

[Averon]

The word "compromise" has been so goddamn twisted and distorted.

 

[Suikoguy]

CBS Evening News was at least responsible enough to explain why it passed.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Obama/Biden voting no

I agree. They were just blatantly lying/deceiving the public purely for political gain. Republicans are actually trying to enact change- whether you agree with it or not.
Obama in 2006 was much more shameful.

 

[mckmas8808]

You're missing the point. Both sides need to give and take, not one or the other. The underlying point that I've made this entire time during this shitfest is that we do not have leaders who will compromise in order for things to get done. Its a sad day when people are so polarized and the people get the short end of the stick.

Jesus FUCK! Obama and the DEMs gave the GOP everything. Do you even know what the plans were?

You seem like you weren't paying attention to the debate the whole time.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Has ANYONE pointed out to these assholes the consequences of would happen if the ceiling isn't raised?

 

[Jonm1010]

Or people crying "false equivalency" with nothing to back up the claim.

TEACHER: Listen Timmy and Jonny, NO more playing marbles in the classroom. You need to give me those 6 marbles or the class is punished.

Timmy: I think you should give me 6 of your marbles to give to teacher!

Jonny: Thats not fair, i'll give 3 and you give 3. We both are responsible for this

Timmy: Nope, i'll let everyone get in trouble unless you give me all six of yours!

Jonny: Fine I really don't think this is fair, heres 4 marbles.

Timmy: Not good enough

Jonny: 5?

Timmy: See class, Im trying to get us out of trouble and Jonny is refusing to compromise.​

Bilbo + pctx : Exactly right Timmy! Both of these people need to compromise! Jonny you need to stop playing games and compromise with Timmy. NOW!

Thats what you all sound like.

 

[SlipperySlope]

I agree. They were just blatantly lying/deceiving the public purely for political gain. Republicans are actually trying to enact change- whether you agree with it or not.
Obama in 2006 was much more shameful.

Yeah, the party of "no" switched sides in the last few months.

 

[Opiate]

I'm asking this honestly, again:

What are Liberals/Keynsians getting out of this "compromise?" What spending increases or, at the very least, tax increases are being enacted?

I'd really like that question answered Pctx/SlipperySlope/Baggins. It's not intended to be a hostile question.

 

[empty vessel]

I agree. They were just blatantly lying/deceiving the public purely for political gain. Republicans are actually trying to enact change- whether you agree with it or not.
Obama in 2006 was much more shameful.

Back in the day, left terrorists used to hijack planes and take hostages to "enact change." Is that noble now? Because I thought that stuff was looked down upon, especially by your kind.

 

[SlipperySlope]

I'm asking this honestly, again:

What are Liberals/Keynsians getting out of this "compromise?" What spending increases or, at the very least, tax increases are being enacted?

I'd really like that question answered Pctx/SlipperySlope/Baggins. It's not intended to be a hostile question.

They got what they wanted in the 2008 stimulus bill. What spending cuts were there in that bill?

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

I took out a subsidized loan from my college recently. What does that mean for me?

 

[Jonm1010]

They got what they wanted in the 2008 stimulus bill. What cuts were there in that bill?

And Republicans got everything they wanted in the 2006 medicare part D plan. Whats your point? That's irrelevant to the current discussion.

 

[gcubed]

I took out a subsidized loan from my college recently. What does that mean for me?

You'll be on the streets broke and alone in 3 months

 

[Opiate]

They got what they wanted in the 2008 stimulus bill. What cuts were there in that bill?

I have an answer for that, but it's not the question at hand.

I'm talking about this bill. What benefits are liberals/Keynesians getting out of this specific bill? Because we're claiming this is a compromise, where both sides get something they want.

 

[Pctx]

Okay, let's flip this debate and look at compromise as both sides getting something they want.

1) Fiscal conservatives / libertarians want to reduce the size of the government and, more specifically, the size of the debt.

We certainly aren't reducing it as greatly as they'd like, but we're clearly reducing it. By more than a trillion dollars a decade.

2) Liberals/Keynsians believe that stimulus is necessary in times of recession. They'd often prefer no deficit reduction at all, but if there must be one, many argue for tax increases, not spending cuts.

What are these people getting? Honest question.

1) While fiscal conservatives want to reduce the size of the government, the terms and means in which they want to accomplish is not feasible. They want to hack sections of the government in such a way that would cause things to spiral into further chaos. I think the other thing that conservatives don't get (when they look at jobs) is the explosion of public sector jobs. Of course this is/could be a talking point for either side to display a chart to either prove or disprove, but the we have had private sector jobs disappear and that isn't a good thing for the economy.

2) Liberals want a surplus again by taxing the upper middle class, the rich and businesses. The problem (IMO) with this mindset, is no matter the tax code, flat tax or otherwise, getting the rich to pay taxes or businesses to pay real taxes is a pipe dream. Ironically our country works so well because of said loopholes. Why do you think CEO's are coming out against Obama and stating that he is hurting business? Obvious answer is revenue. Again, it comes back to what is fair and taxes = increased government revenue of which most people in this thread have convinced most that in order to maintain levels and plan ahead (a good thing), there needs to be a balance to the revenues and the spending. In terms of spending cuts, I think either Liberal or conservative people are pissed that money is being spent on programs that aren't worth it or of little or no value to the overall good of the public. I remember growing up and hearing about $150 Million dollars being spent on the flow of Ketchup. Money well spent? Wish we could get that money back? That's where I think we can see spending cuts and reduce the waste that isn't focused on the people. I don't know about you, but I don't intend to be killed by a blob of ketchup anytime soon.

You're being obtuse or you're a partisan hack pretending to be a concerned centrist. I see no other options.

I've become more of a liberal independent as time has gone on but really hate the labels.

edit:

Jesus FUCK! Obama and the DEMs gave the GOP everything. Do you even know what the plans were?

You seem like you weren't paying attention to the debate the whole time.

You are still missing the point.... which I find funny. Either the DEMs or the GOP could hand over the keys to either house and any social programs or spending but my POINT is the fact that neither side had the balls to act! What is so GD hard to understand about that?

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

You'll be on the streets broke and alone in 3 months

Fuck. Looks like I have to do some trick'n.

 

[SlipperySlope]

I have an answer for that, but it's not the question at hand.

I'm talking about this bill. What benefits are liberals/Keynesians getting out of this specific bill? Because we're claiming this is a compromise, where both sides get something they want.

Keynesians? Nothing.

Obama however laid out his ideas about the bill a while ago and some of his wants are in this bill.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I'm asking this honestly, again:

What are Liberals/Keynsians getting out of this "compromise?" What spending increases or, at the very least, tax increases are being enacted?

I'd really like that question answered Pctx/SlipperySlope/Baggins. It's not intended to be a hostile question.

Good question.
Liberals? They are getting nothing from this compromise. But the Democrat party is not full of liberals. There are quite a few moderates- and they see/feel the pressure to reduce the debt.

 

[Opiate]

Keynesians? Nothing.

Good question.
Liberals? They are getting nothing from this compromise. But the Democrat party is not full of liberals. There are quite a few moderates- and they see/feel the pressure to reduce the debt.

So it's not a compromise for liberals? It's a compromise between the right and the center-right?

I'm just making sure I understand this correctly.

 

[Zenith]

I've become more of a liberal independent as time has gone on but really hate the labels.

sounds hipsterish. "I don't follow any mainstream labels. I'm different from everbody else!"

 

[SlipperySlope]

So it's not a compromise for liberals? Just centrists like Obama?

Not all liberals are Keynesians.

 

[Pctx]

sounds hipsterish. "I don't follow any mainstream labels. I'm different from everbody else!"

Call it what you may but I used to be more conservative but I think I've moved left of center from where I was a few years ago. Besides, are there only two categories?

 

[BruiserBear]

I'm asking this honestly, again:

What are Liberals/Keynsians getting out of this "compromise?" What spending increases or, at the very least, tax increases are being enacted?

I'd really like that question answered Pctx/SlipperySlope/Baggins. It's not intended to be a hostile question.

Well, I think it could be argued that Obama is sort of up against a wall and the Republicans know it. So they're playing this for all it's worth.

There is a reason Obama has been "Mr Compromise" in this debate, and it's not because he's just that nice. He knows he's got more to lose than anyone here. In the end he'll get the majority of the blame, regardless of how this played out.

Obama also knows he ignored his own debt commission's recommendations, which is going to come back to bite him later.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Back in the day, left terrorists used to hijack planes and take hostages to "enact change." Is that noble now? Because I thought that stuff was looked down upon, especially by your kind.

"My kind" never advocates violence. That's offensive. You made me cry EV.

 

[FLEABttn]

Not all liberals are Keynesians.

What infinitesimal portion of liberals are you speaking of when you make this claim in regards to "hey, liberals are getting something out of this"?

How many center left yes votes did you see tonight?

 

[Opiate]

Not all liberals are Keynesians.

I agree with you in the sense that some "liberals" might be, for example, social liberals but economic conservatives, but this is an economic bill. Keynesianism is essentially the definition of economic liberalism in America -- or we could look more internationally, and define it as socialist. In which case the target pushes even farther left.

So right now we're talking about a debate between fiscal conservatism and fiscal liberalism. Fiscal liberals (again, at least by the American definition) believe in increased government spending when the economy is weak, and significantly decreased spending when it is strong.

Are we agreeing that these people get nothing?

 

[empty vessel]

Why do you think CEO's are coming out against Obama and stating that he is hurting business? Obvious answer is revenue.

You are confusing what CEOs and business tell the public for what they tell each other and for reality. CEO's are coming out against Obama to manipulate you. To manipulate me. And to manipulate everybody else. The question is whether you are going to fall for it or not. Here is what business actually knows to be true:

[P]rofit margins have reached levels not seen in decades. ... US labor compensation is now at a 50-year low relative to both company sales and US GDP.

http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/44821/files/07-11-11_-_EOTM_-_Twilight_of_the_Gods__PWM_.pdf

And here is what Adam Smith thinks about the present day US:

[T]he rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension, of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin.

 

[Averon]

The notion that liberals get anything from this is laughable. Even the blue dogs didn't vote for Boehner's bill.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

If Reid is smart he'll help get the Boehner bill passed, his bill won't get out of the senate, and he'll get the blame, unless he feels the need to protect Obama, although I doubt if the Boehner bill gets through the senate Obama would veto it.

Even if the Boehner bill is signed into law, the US might still lose their AAA credit rating, there's simply too much spending and not enough serious cuts.

The notion that liberals get anything from this is laughable. Even the blue dogs didn't vote for Boehner's bill.

Whatever left of the blue dogs were betting that the Boehner bill won't pass, I doubt they want to feel the ire of their party, it's not like there were a lot of blue dogs left anyway.

 

[Y2Kev]

What infinitesimal portion of liberals are you speaking of when you make this claim in regards to "hey, liberals are getting something out of this"?

How many center left yes votes did you see tonight?

Self loathing.

 

[polyh3dron]

They got what they wanted in the 2008 stimulus bill. What spending cuts were there in that bill?

Most of it was tax cuts, the thing that Republicans say is the best thing the government can do to help job creators create jobs.

 

[Jonm1010]

1) While fiscal conservatives want to reduce the size of the government, the terms and means in which they want to accomplish is not feasible. They want to hack sections of the government in such a way that would cause things to spiral into further chaos. I think the other thing that conservatives don't get (when they look at jobs) is the explosion of public sector jobs. Of course this is/could be a talking point for either side to display a chart to either prove or disprove, but the we have had private sector jobs disappear and that isn't a good thing for the economy.

2) Liberals want a surplus again by taxing the upper middle class, the rich and businesses. The problem (IMO) with this mindset, is no matter the tax code, flat tax or otherwise, getting the rich to pay taxes or businesses to pay real taxes is a pipe dream. Ironically our country works so well because of said loopholes. Why do you think CEO's are coming out against Obama and stating that he is hurting business? Obvious answer is revenue. Again, it comes back to what is fair and taxes = increased government revenue of which most people in this thread have convinced most that in order to maintain levels and plan ahead (a good thing), there needs to be a balance to the revenues and the spending. In terms of spending cuts, I think either Liberal or conservative people are pissed that money is being spent on programs that aren't worth it or of little or no value to the overall good of the public. I remember growing up and hearing about $150 Million dollars being spent on the flow of Ketchup. Money well spent? Wish we could get that money back? That's where I think we can see spending cuts and reduce the waste that isn't focused on the people. I don't know about you, but I don't intend to be killed by a blob of ketchup anytime soon.



I've become more of a liberal independent as time has gone on but really hate the labels.

No. Liberals are arguing that we need to focus on jobs and the economy and THEN worry about the deficit.

They are then saying that if this is going to be an issue that is forced that everyone should share in the burden. Not just those that get S.S., medicare/medicaid or student loans. They want the Defense department to take its share of cuts. Oil and big agriculture and they want the rich to have to pay a share. They are ok having cuts to the former as long as the latter is also addressed.

Nothing, not a single one of those things asked for by moderates and the left is in the House bill. In no way shape or form is there ANY compromises in that bill. It is a bill crafted and aimed at the far right and the right with not a lick of regard for any one to the left of them, center included.

And its completely disingenuous to suggest that republicans are compromising by saying "oh, ok you are willing to have cuts to S.S. and medicare if we include expiring the bush tax cuts on the rich and cuts to oil subsidies............." "Well, we'll compromise on your compromise and give you just the cuts to S.S. and medicare." ".......................Compromise done, your welcome!"

How is it false? Because you know me so well and my opinions on the subject it obviously makes for a great blanket statement right?

See my marble analogy. Silly, but illustrates my point.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Nonsense. Obama could have sat down months ago and proposed something from his side. Nothing would have prevented that.

Obama has proposed an agreement with bigger cuts than the Republican bill. He cannot actually create a bill though. So this is nto nonsense.

Months ago no one thought that the Republicans would do this over the Debt limit because no party has ever done this shit. So no, he could not have done this months ago.

I'm just saying it's not like this debt ceiling snuck up on anyone. Hell, Obama could have raised the debt limit late last year, before his party lost the house, but he chose not to.

Once again, they did not bring it up months ago because the debt ceiling has never ever ever been used in this manner

Also, it's hard to ignore the irony that Obama and Biden voted against raising the debt limit while Bush was in office.

It was a symbolic vote, the same that the current Senate Republicans are talking about doing. They never actually held congress and the country hostage like the House Republicans have been doing.

 

[Pctx]

You are confusing what CEOs and business tell the public for what they tell each other and for reality. CEO's are coming out against Obama to manipulate you. To manipulate me. And to manipulate everybody else. The question is whether you are going to fall for it or not. Here is what business actually knows to be true:

http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/44821/files/07-11-11_-_EOTM_-_Twilight_of_the_Gods__PWM_.pdf

And here is what Adam Smith thinks about the present day US:

I'm not denying what the CEO's are saying is propaganda for us to consume, but everyone has a story to tell and they aren't going to be afraid to voice their opinion. Having done fiances in my business major, companies live and die on the money that they have coming, suppose same could be said about our government as well.

 

[Averon]

If Reid is smart he'll help get the Boehner bill passed, his bill won't get out of the senate, and he'll get the blame, unless he feels the need to protect Obama, although I doubt if the Boehner bill gets through the senate Obama would veto it.

Even if the Boehner bill is signed into law, the US might still lose their AAA credit rating, there's simply too much spending and not enough serious cuts.

If Boehner's bill is signed into law, not only will we have to go over this BS again in a couple months, but we'll also have a constitutional amendment to deal with that will never pass. That's months of additional uncertainty in a very weak global market. Boehner bill, as it is, is a non-starter for good reason.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Most of it was tax cuts, the thing that Republicans say is the best thing the government can do to help job creators create jobs.

Wrong

 

[Pctx]

No. Liberals are arguing that we need to focus on jobs and the economy and THEN worry about the deficit.

They are then saying that if this is going to be an issue that is forced that everyone should share in the burden. Not just those that get S.S., medicare/medicaid or student loans. They want the Defense department to take its share of cuts. Oil and big agriculture and they want the rich to have to pay a share. They are ok having cuts to the former as long as the latter is also addressed.

Nothing, not a single one of those things asked for by moderates and the left is in the House bill. In no way shape or form is there ANY compromises in that bill. It is a bill crafted and aimed at the far right and the right with not a lick of regard for any one to the left of them, center included.

And its completely disingenuous to suggest that republicans are compromising by saying "oh, ok you are willing to have cuts to S.S. and medicare if we include expiring the bush tax cuts on the rich and cuts to oil subsidies............." "Well, we'll compromise on your compromise and give you just the cuts to S.S. and medicare." ".......................Compromise done, your welcome!"




See my marble analogy. Silly, but illustrates my point.

You can't have both/and, never going to happen.

The house bill is aimed at satisfying the Republican party. I'm confused as to why you or others think I'm defending it or saying that it has compromises in it, it clearly does not.

As to your analogy, I'm not a 5th grader.

 

[empty vessel]

A better graph of corporate profits, from the same J.P. Morgan newsletter as above:

 

[SlipperySlope]

I agree with you in the sense that some "liberals" might be, for example, social liberals but economic conservatives, but this is an economic bill. Keynesianism is essentially the definition of economic liberalism in America -- or we could look more internationally, and define it as socialist. In which case the target pushes even farther left.

So right now we're talking about a debate between fiscal conservatism and fiscal liberalism. Fiscal liberals (again, at least by the American definition) believe in increased government spending when the economy is weak, and significantly decreased spending when it is strong.

Are we agreeing that these people get nothing?

Yes, those people get nothing. IMO they should get nothing. We can't afford more spending increases. With the budget the way it is, we simply cannot afford Keynesian economics. It was tried in 2008. It failed. Austerity is the word now, and not just in the US.

 

[Particle Physicist]

They got what they wanted in the 2008 stimulus bill. What spending cuts were there in that bill?

No, actually they did not. hence why many liberals are mad at Obama.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Yes, those people get nothing. IMO they should get nothing. We can't afford more spending increases. With the budget the way it is, we simply cannot afford Keynesian economics. It was tried in 2008. It failed. Austerity is the word now, and not just in the US.

I can understand not increasing anything but austerity would just prolong the problem. Governments are not very good at predicting the effects of their actions so let's say you cut a program that would only have a .2% decrease in GDP but something unforeseen happens and it actually cuts 2%. It's the kind of stuff you do when you are on a stable footing.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

If Boehner's bill is signed into law, not only will we have to go over this BS again in a couple months, but we'll also have a constitutional amendment to deal with that will never pass. That's months of additional uncertainty in a very weak global market. Boehner bill, as it is, is a non-starter for good reason.

Maybe in a couple of months they can get a deal done that takes austerity measures seriously and implements some serious cuts to government programs.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Yes, those people get nothing. IMO they should get nothing. We can't afford more spending increases. With the budget the way it is, we simply cannot afford Keynesian economics. It was tried in 2008. It failed. Austerity is the word now, and not just in the US.

:O No, actually it was not. In 2008 there were many tax cuts, and the spending was not enough in the areas that Keynesian calls for. How many years have the Republicans gotten their way? How has that worked out for us?

 

[TacticalFox88]

Yes, those people get nothing. IMO they should get nothing. We can't afford more spending increases. With the budget the way it is, we simply cannot afford Keynesian economics. It was tried in 2008. It failed. Austerity is the word now, and not just in the US.

It didn't work because Republicans watered that shit down, and he had to deal with the Blue Dogs. The stimulus should've been a trillion dollars at the very least, with most of it going into education and infrastructure.

 

[Jonm1010]

You can't have both/and, never going to happen.

The house bill is aimed at satisfying the Republican party. I'm confused as to why you or others think I'm defending it or saying that it has compromises in it, it clearly does not.

As to your analogy, I'm not a 5th grader.

Your certainly not a 5th grader but you attempt to try and suggest that both republicans and democrats have been equally unwilling to compromise is patently false.

 

[polyh3dron]

I want everything; I'll give you something. I want everything; I'll give you a little more. I want everything and I will burn the economy down if I don't. EACH SIDE WON"T COMPROMISE!

.

 

[gcubed]

Yes, those people get nothing. IMO they should get nothing. We can't afford more spending increases. With the budget the way it is, we simply cannot afford Keynesian economics. It was tried in 2008. It failed. Austerity is the word now, and not just in the US.

Austerity was tried in the 30s, it failed. The conversation should just end right here because you are as obtuse as the tea party.

 

[FLEABttn]

Yes, those people get nothing. IMO they should get nothing. We can't afford more spending increases. With the budget the way it is, we simply cannot afford Keynesian economics. It was tried in 2008. It failed. Austerity is the word now, and not just in the US.

Tell you what, how about you an I make a compromise, for science.

I'll accept some service cuts if you're okay with taxes going up.

 

[Opiate]

Yes, those people get nothing. IMO they should get nothing. We can't afford more spending increases. With the budget the way it is, we simply cannot afford Keynesian economics. It was tried in 2008. It failed. Austerity is the word now, and not just in the US.

Right, I understand that is your opinion. I don't think it's a stupid position to hold, and reasonable people could argue for it. I also hope you realize that others disagree, and reasonable people could argue against your position.

However, the validity of your position is not the current subject of discussion. The current subject is very precise: does this bill represent a compromise? Because several people have implied that both sides need to compromise, and yet they are both being stubborn.

If we agree that, in this case, fiscal liberals get nothing -- as you are explicitly stating -- then this doesn't really represent a compromise, and I don't think it's reasonable to suggest liberals are the ones being stubborn here. In this bill, they're giving fiscal conservatives a good deal of what they want, and getting absolutely nothing in return.