The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Well, the big concern I have on the debt ceiling is they are like a caged animal now. They know they didn't get the senate or white house, and they also know its at least 2 years before they have a prayer of controlling the senate, so they don't have much incentive to be cooperative. I worry that they will (correctly) identify that this is Thr most leverage they will probably have for the next 4 years, and will use it to exact tax concessions. At the least, I expect them to demand kicking the bush tax cuts further down the road. I wouldn't be surprised if they also demand that the increase in Medicare taxes next year also be delayed, and that corporate tax rates be dropped by at least 10 percent.
Come on, buddy, you're a lawyer. This is certainly THE most leverage that someone has ever had over the other party, but you ought to know that it's not the one you're thinking.
So here's a thought I had while listening to the news last night. It seems that EVERYONE hates the 'fiscal cliff', and nobody thinks that any aspect of it is good. Democrats would like to cut say, the military, but not in just one massive random untargeted swoop. They would like to bring in more revenue, but not just by taxing everyone more if they can't even spend it. Republicans would like to cut benefits, but again not just at random and they certainly don't want any tax increases.
Everyone seems to agree that it is bad policy for everyone. That it won't even help the deficit because of how much it will hurt growth. So how about our 'starting compromise' position is just DOING NOTHING. Just pass a law saying 'we won't do all that'. Yes, debt would increase and noone would get anything they wanted. But the fiscal cliff is a threat to turn the car around and go home 16 hours in to a 17 hour road trip to disney you've already paid for. Yes, you'd like the metaphorical kids to shut up (loud children are playing the role of debt) but you certainly don't want to have to turn around and drive home! The threat is worse than the problem.
The concern is that we risk looking fiscally irresponsible to our debt holders by just saying "fuck it, let's incur unlimited debt to run the government." Both parties have stated many times that the deficit is a problem, and (regardless of the truth if that statement) no one is prepared to reverse course now.
And our response to those people is 'We agree we need to control the debt, this plan is stupid, also international lenders are willing to give us free cash to run the country." It seems that nothing we do upsets our debt holders in the least, unless we threaten to destroy the economy out of an irrational fear of debt. I bet if Obama declared that the US would only be paying back its debt at 90 cents on the dollar the yield on a 5 year treasury bill would FALL because people would be more worried about the effect of that on OVERSEAS economies.
It seems that the existence of the fiscal cliff is just silly, there's no need for an insane doomsday plan when doing nothing is a possible choice. Heck, even if we began the negotiations with 'Even if we do nothing, we'll only implement 25% of all the scheduled changes' (ie, taxes only rise by 25% of what they would have done, spending is only cut to each program by 25% etc) we change it from a fiscal cliff to a fiscal slap in the face. What we should do is have meetings where both parties find SMALL cuts and tax changes they can agree on, and then promptly pass a bill to do it. Is the army spending 2 million dollars a year digging a hole to nowhere? Then no more of that. Can millionaires get a tax break of $50 each because they file on an odd numbered day? Cut that loophole. Rather than trying to do everything at once and pissing off both sides till we can do nothing, lets focus on what we can do.
We tried that and the negotiations fell through. In fact, that is why the fiscal cliff exists in the first place. It is the result of kicking the can down the road when the two parties could not resolve the issue before.
Yeah, that.
Dems and Pubs wrote a law that does terrible things to everyone in the event that nobody acts, so they could force each other to act. Sothis is basically now the law. Congress can't just ignore the law, because that's not how laws work. If they want to change it, they have to pass a new law that supercedes it. If they want the official policy to be "Nevermind, that was stupid," they need to pass a law that says, "Nevermind, that was stupid."
But even a policy of "Nevermind, that was stupid" has implicit winners and losers. The losers do not want to lose, so they will fight it. Hence the problem.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
So here's a thought I had while listening to the news last night. It seems that EVERYONE hates the 'fiscal cliff', and nobody thinks that any aspect of it is good. Democrats would like to cut say, the military, but not in just one massive random untargeted swoop. They would like to bring in more revenue, but not just by taxing everyone more if they can't even spend it. Republicans would like to cut benefits, but again not just at random and they certainly don't want any tax increases.
Everyone seems to agree that it is bad policy for everyone. That it won't even help the deficit because of how much it will hurt growth. So how about our 'starting compromise' position is just DOING NOTHING. Just pass a law saying 'we won't do all that'. Yes, debt would increase and noone would get anything they wanted. But the fiscal cliff is a threat to turn the car around and go home 16 hours in to a 17 hour road trip to disney you've already paid for. Yes, you'd like the metaphorical kids to shut up (loud children are playing the role of debt) but you certainly don't want to have to turn around and drive home! The threat is worse than the problem.
The concern is that we risk looking fiscally irresponsible to our debt holders by just saying "fuck it, let's incur unlimited debt to run the government." Both parties have stated many times that the deficit is a problem, and (regardless of the truth if that statement) no one is prepared to reverse course now.
And our response to those people is 'We agree we need to control the debt, this plan is stupid, also international lenders are willing to give us free cash to run the country." It seems that nothing we do upsets our debt holders in the least, unless we threaten to destroy the economy out of an irrational fear of debt. I bet if Obama declared that the US would only be paying back its debt at 90 cents on the dollar the yield on a 5 year treasury bill would FALL because people would be more worried about the effect of that on OVERSEAS economies.
It seems that the existence of the fiscal cliff is just silly, there's no need for an insane doomsday plan when doing nothing is a possible choice. Heck, even if we began the negotiations with 'Even if we do nothing, we'll only implement 25% of all the scheduled changes' (ie, taxes only rise by 25% of what they would have done, spending is only cut to each program by 25% etc) we change it from a fiscal cliff to a fiscal slap in the face. What we should do is have meetings where both parties find SMALL cuts and tax changes they can agree on, and then promptly pass a bill to do it. Is the army spending 2 million dollars a year digging a hole to nowhere? Then no more of that. Can millionaires get a tax break of $50 each because they file on an odd numbered day? Cut that loophole. Rather than trying to do everything at once and pissing off both sides till we can do nothing, lets focus on what we can do.
We tried that and the negotiations fell through. In fact, that is why the fiscal cliff exists in the first place. It is the result of kicking the can down the road when the two parties could not resolve the issue before.
Okay. Quick rundown of the legislative process by which we ended up where we are:
Background information: the Budget Control Act of 2011 mandated that if the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (hereafter: "The Supercommittee") couldn't come up with $1.5 trillion in combined deficit reduction measures for an up-or-down vote in both chambers of congress, $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts would be enacted over ten years instead. Fifty percent of these cuts would come from defense. Fifty percent would come from elsewhere, including some non-exempt entitlement programs. These cuts are collectively known as sequestration. For point of reference, discretionary security spending accounted for $895 billion in that year's enacted budget (technically spending levels set by the most recently enacted budget at that time). The total budget of the United States at that same period of time projected $3,834 billion in outlays; in other words, while defense appropriations account for about 23.3% of the United States Government's budget, it shouldered the burden of 50% of all mandatory cuts, which meant that the rest of the pie (the other 77.7% of non-security discretionary spending and mandatory outlays for entitlement programs -- read "things that Democrats like") shouldered a disproportionately small piece of the pie.
At the point in time this was passed, a lot of people who followed Congress (including me! on this forum! And also Newt Gingrich. I share the dubious distinction with Newt Gingrich about being one of the first people to write about this like it was a victory for Democrats) said that we were absolutely going to end up with sequestration. If you accept the premise that a minimum of $1.2 trillion in spending cuts was absolutely going to have to happen (and there was no way out of that one because we needed the debt ceiling raised), getting 50% of those cuts from the 23.3% of the pie that the GOP was trying desperately to protect was the absolute best deal we were going to get. It'd be like if you and I agreed to order a pizza together, and I agreed to pay half for two out of only eight slices. After we'd already reached that agreement, there is no way you're going to be stupid enough to revise the agreement so that I get more of the pizza for less money, and I have hardly anything left to offer you in exchange because my position is so lousy. The only thing which the GOP members of the supercommittee could possibly have offered the democratic members -- and the one thing they were in no position politically to put on the table -- was a tax increase.
Dirty secret: we don't particularly want to increase taxes for most Americans right now, either. We're perfectly happy to extend them for lower income taxpayers because we don't want to take money away from American consumers during a shaky recovery. Also, we don't particularly want to cut the defense budget quite that much. So we are perfectly happy to give them some of the Bush tax cuts -- for Americans who make less than $250k annually -- and we'll go ahead and take that money and put a lot of it back into defense.
Also, we'll put some of it into our 77.7% of the pie because we have them by the testicles. We're not stupid.
But if the House GOP doesn't play ball? They've already conceded the best possible deal we have an right to expect out of them without a revenue increase. We've affirmatively accepted this deal twice, and while we would much rather have the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthier tax brackets, we are more than willing to let them all expire so we can propose an entirely new package of tax cuts when the next Congress opens for business.
So, yeah. We're the ones in the driver's seat. Not them. That's why they're already trying to stake out where they're willing to compromise, and we're the ones screaming "fucking bring it, you orange-skinned cockwallet."
I may be surprised, but I calculate it's likely we're going over the fiscal cliff. Republicans know that taxes need to be raised, and they also know they'll get lambasted for actually raising them. The cliff gives them an out and also makes them look like heroes when they become advocates for tax reduction later.
I think counting on the House to make a decent deal is a waste of time. They have the deal they want right now. The rest is just posturing.
I may be surprised, but I calculate it's likely we're going over the fiscal cliff. Republicans know that taxes need to be raised, and they also know they'll get lambasted for actually raising them. The cliff gives them an out and also makes them look like heroes when they become advocates for tax reduction later.
I think counting on the House to make a decent deal is a waste of time. They have the deal they want right now. The rest is just posturing.
Yeah I'm worried they want to try and make good on their promise that the worst will happen under Obama.
The President is going to need to be VERY aggressive on this, and make sure the pressure is entirely on them if this doesn't get fixed.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I may be surprised, but I calculate it's likely we're going over the fiscal cliff. Republicans know that taxes need to be raised, and they also know they'll get lambasted for actually raising them. The cliff gives them an out and also makes them look like heroes when they become advocates for tax reduction later.
I think counting on the House to make a decent deal is a waste of time. They have the deal they want right now. The rest is just posturing.
Yeah I'm worried they want to try and make good on their promise that the worst will happen under Obama.
The President is going to need to be VERY aggressive on this, and make sure the pressure is entirely on them if this doesn't get fixed.
Seriously, this freaks me out. They just spent four years foaming at the mouth about how Obama is going to cause the end of America if he gets elected again, and oh look, here's a convenient financial Apocalypse coming up right before his first term ends.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Seriously, this freaks me out. They just spent four years foaming at the mouth about how Obama is going to cause the end of America if he gets elected again, and oh look, here's a convenient financial Apocalypse coming up right before his first term ends.
The point is that the public isn't buying into that narrative, or else they would have elected Romney.
And now the GOP knows that the public isn't buying into it.
So here's a thought I had while listening to the news last night. It seems that EVERYONE hates the 'fiscal cliff', and nobody thinks that any aspect of it is good. Democrats would like to cut say, the military, but not in just one massive random untargeted swoop. They would like to bring in more revenue, but not just by taxing everyone more if they can't even spend it. Republicans would like to cut benefits, but again not just at random and they certainly don't want any tax increases.
Everyone seems to agree that it is bad policy for everyone. That it won't even help the deficit because of how much it will hurt growth. So how about our 'starting compromise' position is just DOING NOTHING. Just pass a law saying 'we won't do all that'. Yes, debt would increase and noone would get anything they wanted. But the fiscal cliff is a threat to turn the car around and go home 16 hours in to a 17 hour road trip to disney you've already paid for. Yes, you'd like the metaphorical kids to shut up (loud children are playing the role of debt) but you certainly don't want to have to turn around and drive home! The threat is worse than the problem.
The concern is that we risk looking fiscally irresponsible to our debt holders by just saying "fuck it, let's incur unlimited debt to run the government." Both parties have stated many times that the deficit is a problem, and (regardless of the truth if that statement) no one is prepared to reverse course now.
And our response to those people is 'We agree we need to control the debt, this plan is stupid, also international lenders are willing to give us free cash to run the country." It seems that nothing we do upsets our debt holders in the least, unless we threaten to destroy the economy out of an irrational fear of debt. I bet if Obama declared that the US would only be paying back its debt at 90 cents on the dollar the yield on a 5 year treasury bill would FALL because people would be more worried about the effect of that on OVERSEAS economies.
It seems that the existence of the fiscal cliff is just silly, there's no need for an insane doomsday plan when doing nothing is a possible choice. Heck, even if we began the negotiations with 'Even if we do nothing, we'll only implement 25% of all the scheduled changes' (ie, taxes only rise by 25% of what they would have done, spending is only cut to each program by 25% etc) we change it from a fiscal cliff to a fiscal slap in the face. What we should do is have meetings where both parties find SMALL cuts and tax changes they can agree on, and then promptly pass a bill to do it. Is the army spending 2 million dollars a year digging a hole to nowhere? Then no more of that. Can millionaires get a tax break of $50 each because they file on an odd numbered day? Cut that loophole. Rather than trying to do everything at once and pissing off both sides till we can do nothing, lets focus on what we can do.
We tried that and the negotiations fell through. In fact, that is why the fiscal cliff exists in the first place. It is the result of kicking the can down the road when the two parties could not resolve the issue before.
Okay. Quick rundown of the legislative process by which we ended up where we are:
Background information: the Budget Control Act of 2011 mandated that if the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (hereafter: "The Supercommittee") couldn't come up with $1.5 trillion in combined deficit reduction measures for an up-or-down vote in both chambers of congress, $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts would be enacted over ten years instead. Fifty percent of these cuts would come from defense. Fifty percent would come from elsewhere, including some non-exempt entitlement programs. These cuts are collectively known as sequestration. For point of reference, discretionary security spending accounted for $895 billion in that year's enacted budget (technically spending levels set by the most recently enacted budget at that time). The total budget of the United States at that same period of time projected $3,834 billion in outlays; in other words, while defense appropriations account for about 23.3% of the United States Government's budget, it shouldered the burden of 50% of all mandatory cuts, which meant that the rest of the pie (the other 77.7% of non-security discretionary spending and mandatory outlays for entitlement programs -- read "things that Democrats like") shouldered a disproportionately small piece of the pie.
At the point in time this was passed, a lot of people who followed Congress (including me! on this forum! And also Newt Gingrich. I share the dubious distinction with Newt Gingrich about being one of the first people to write about this like it was a victory for Democrats) said that we were absolutely going to end up with sequestration. If you accept the premise that a minimum of $1.2 trillion in spending cuts was absolutely going to have to happen (and there was no way out of that one because we needed the debt ceiling raised), getting 50% of those cuts from the 23.3% of the pie that the GOP was trying desperately to protect was the absolute best deal we were going to get. It'd be like if you and I agreed to order a pizza together, and I agreed to pay half for two out of only eight slices. After we'd already reached that agreement, there is no way you're going to be stupid enough to revise the agreement so that I get more of the pizza for less money, and I have hardly anything left to offer you in exchange because my position is so lousy. The only thing which the GOP members of the supercommittee could possibly have offered the democratic members -- and the one thing they were in no position politically to put on the table -- was a tax increase.
Dirty secret: we don't particularly want to increase taxes for most Americans right now, either. We're perfectly happy to extend them for lower income taxpayers because we don't want to take money away from American consumers during a shaky recovery. Also, we don't particularly want to cut the defense budget quite that much. So we are perfectly happy to give them some of the Bush tax cuts -- for Americans who make less than $250k annually -- and we'll go ahead and take that money and put a lot of it back into defense.
Also, we'll put some of it into our 77.7% of the pie because we have them by the testicles. We're not stupid.
But if the House GOP doesn't play ball? They've already conceded the best possible deal we have an right to expect out of them without a revenue increase. We've affirmatively accepted this deal twice, and while we would much rather have the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthier tax brackets, we are more than willing to let them all expire so we can propose an entirely new package of tax cuts when the next Congress opens for business.
So, yeah. We're the ones in the driver's seat. Not them. That's why they're already trying to stake out where they're willing to compromise,king bring it, you orange-skinned
cockwallet."
It's an interesting analysis, but don't that noone wants the military to be cut that deep, while the republicans sincerely do want those entitlement cuts. The military spending is also easier to restore (Dems represent districts and states with bases too) than the entitlements.
The Democrats who would have gotten beat on that were already beaten in 2010. Glenn Nye for instance would have been a great target for a crossover vote for the GOP. Today he is looking for a fourth for a round of golf. Ditto Ike Skelton of Missouri, former House Armed Services Committee chairman and now regular schmoe.
So here's a thought I had while listening to the news last night. It seems that EVERYONE hates the 'fiscal cliff', and nobody thinks that any aspect of it is good. Democrats would like to cut say, the military, but not in just one massive random untargeted swoop. They would like to bring in more revenue, but not just by taxing everyone more if they can't even spend it. Republicans would like to cut benefits, but again not just at random and they certainly don't want any tax increases.
Everyone seems to agree that it is bad policy for everyone. That it won't even help the deficit because of how much it will hurt growth. So how about our 'starting compromise' position is just DOING NOTHING. Just pass a law saying 'we won't do all that'. Yes, debt would increase and noone would get anything they wanted. But the fiscal cliff is a threat to turn the car around and go home 16 hours in to a 17 hour road trip to disney you've already paid for. Yes, you'd like the metaphorical kids to shut up (loud children are playing the role of debt) but you certainly don't want to have to turn around and drive home! The threat is worse than the problem.
The concern is that we risk looking fiscally irresponsible to our debt holders by just saying "fuck it, let's incur unlimited debt to run the government." Both parties have stated many times that the deficit is a problem, and (regardless of the truth if that statement) no one is prepared to reverse course now.
And our response to those people is 'We agree we need to control the debt, this plan is stupid, also international lenders are willing to give us free cash to run the country." It seems that nothing we do upsets our debt holders in the least, unless we threaten to destroy the economy out of an irrational fear of debt. I bet if Obama declared that the US would only be paying back its debt at 90 cents on the dollar the yield on a 5 year treasury bill would FALL because people would be more worried about the effect of that on OVERSEAS economies.
It seems that the existence of the fiscal cliff is just silly, there's no need for an insane doomsday plan when doing nothing is a possible choice. Heck, even if we began the negotiations with 'Even if we do nothing, we'll only implement 25% of all the scheduled changes' (ie, taxes only rise by 25% of what they would have done, spending is only cut to each program by 25% etc) we change it from a fiscal cliff to a fiscal slap in the face. What we should do is have meetings where both parties find SMALL cuts and tax changes they can agree on, and then promptly pass a bill to do it. Is the army spending 2 million dollars a year digging a hole to nowhere? Then no more of that. Can millionaires get a tax break of $50 each because they file on an odd numbered day? Cut that loophole. Rather than trying to do everything at once and pissing off both sides till we can do nothing, lets focus on what we can do.
We tried that and the negotiations fell through. In fact, that is why the fiscal cliff exists in the first place. It is the result of kicking the can down the road when the two parties could not resolve the issue before.
Okay. Quick rundown of the legislative process by which we ended up where we are:
Background information: the Budget Control Act of 2011 mandated that if the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (hereafter: "The Supercommittee") couldn't come up with $1.5 trillion in combined deficit reduction measures for an up-or-down vote in both chambers of congress, $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts would be enacted over ten years instead. Fifty percent of these cuts would come from defense. Fifty percent would come from elsewhere, including some non-exempt entitlement programs. These cuts are collectively known as sequestration. For point of reference, discretionary security spending accounted for $895 billion in that year's enacted budget (technically spending levels set by the most recently enacted budget at that time). The total budget of the United States at that same period of time projected $3,834 billion in outlays; in other words, while defense appropriations account for about 23.3% of the United States Government's budget, it shouldered the burden of 50% of all mandatory cuts, which meant that the rest of the pie (the other 77.7% of non-security discretionary spending and mandatory outlays for entitlement programs -- read "things that Democrats like") shouldered a disproportionately small piece of the pie.
At the point in time this was passed, a lot of people who followed Congress (including me! on this forum! And also Newt Gingrich. I share the dubious distinction with Newt Gingrich about being one of the first people to write about this like it was a victory for Democrats) said that we were absolutely going to end up with sequestration. If you accept the premise that a minimum of $1.2 trillion in spending cuts was absolutely going to have to happen (and there was no way out of that one because we needed the debt ceiling raised), getting 50% of those cuts from the 23.3% of the pie that the GOP was trying desperately to protect was the absolute best deal we were going to get. It'd be like if you and I agreed to order a pizza together, and I agreed to pay half for two out of only eight slices. After we'd already reached that agreement, there is no way you're going to be stupid enough to revise the agreement so that I get more of the pizza for less money, and I have hardly anything left to offer you in exchange because my position is so lousy. The only thing which the GOP members of the supercommittee could possibly have offered the democratic members -- and the one thing they were in no position politically to put on the table -- was a tax increase.
Dirty secret: we don't particularly want to increase taxes for most Americans right now, either. We're perfectly happy to extend them for lower income taxpayers because we don't want to take money away from American consumers during a shaky recovery. Also, we don't particularly want to cut the defense budget quite that much. So we are perfectly happy to give them some of the Bush tax cuts -- for Americans who make less than $250k annually -- and we'll go ahead and take that money and put a lot of it back into defense.
Also, we'll put some of it into our 77.7% of the pie because we have them by the testicles. We're not stupid.
But if the House GOP doesn't play ball? They've already conceded the best possible deal we have an right to expect out of them without a revenue increase. We've affirmatively accepted this deal twice, and while we would much rather have the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthier tax brackets, we are more than willing to let them all expire so we can propose an entirely new package of tax cuts when the next Congress opens for business.
So, yeah. We're the ones in the driver's seat. Not them. That's why they're already trying to stake out where they're willing to compromise,king bring it, you orange-skinned
cockwallet."
It's an interesting analysis, but don't forget that noone wants the military to be cut that deep, while the republicans sincerely do want those entitlement cuts. The military spending is also easier to restore (Dems represent districts and states with bases too) than the entitlements.
The Democrats who would have gotten beat on that were already beaten in 2010. Glenn Nye for instance would have been a great target for a crossover vote for the GOP. Today he is looking for a fourth for a round of golf.
It isn't all about elections though. As a matter of good governance, I think (although I could be wrong) that many democrats think military spending absolutely should not be cut so drastically. I think the harder fight will be over the tax cuts for the top tax brackets, but my guess is that in the end they extend them as part of a deal to avoid sequestration.
Some Democrats might, not all. The party has greater diversity with its opinions then the GOP does on everything.
One aspect that actually kind of irks me about the symbolism of a 'fiscal cliff' is that my understanding is that it isn't actually a cliff but rather a downward sloping trend line over the course of a 10 year budget window. So it isn't the case that January 2nd 2013 the military suddenly doesn't have any more money, they just aren't increasing at the same rate as their past projections expected them to be.
Except for the tax cuts expiring. But that's both 12 years overdue and a much simpler fix.
Historically speaking, doesn't the president usually not get much done in his second term? Are we expecting Obama to buck the trend?
In terms of major legislative achievements, correct. However, I think Obama's major accomplishments are unusually back loaded so that a lot of his second term is essentially just going to be implementing the shit out of his first term victories. Which is somewhat historically atypical. So there is maybe 1 major new thing that gets passed, which would be great, but even without that he's going to be building a strong legacy with rolling out the ACA and various good governance reforms through the Executive branch.
You really think the Dems would allow sequestration to happen as a tactical move? I find that hard to imagine format reasons, not the least of which is the bad optics, since this has been painted as a crisis to be averted.
Sure, if the GOP insists on taking it out along with, say, extending the top-income Bush tax cuts. Ideally if we get to December without it being taken out Obama goes on TV and tells people to bitch at their congresscritters, but I guess it's an alternative.
Tactical? No. The term is strategic. Because "why do you think we should give tax breaks to billionaires like Mitt Romney when we have to take money out of national security to pay for them?" is the negotiating strategy.
Again, this is why Boehner proactively put revenue increases on the table. He is trying to define an appropriate revenue increase before we do. He knows he has to acquiesce and let us in his little orange panties, he just wants to tell people he won't go further than third base before we bend him over the table.
...I think it's probably Rahm Emanuel's fault I talk about Congress like this, but this is my favorite part. This is the part where electoral outcome translates directly into legislative consequence. Because these fuckers were sure they would win the Presidency and get what they wanted and now they don't and we do.
He is trying to define an appropriate revenue increase before we do. He knows he has to acquiesce and let us in his little orange panties, he just wants to tell people he won't go further than third base before we bend him over the table.
I dont understand why they dont just tie the debt ceiling to the budget for the future, where every new budget is required to also raise the debt ceiling to accomodate its full spending plus some wiggle room for any delays in setting the next budget.
I dont understand why they dont just tie the debt ceiling to the budget for the future, where every new budget is required to also raise the debt ceiling to accomodate its full spending plus some wiggle room for any delays in setting the next budget.
Good question! They can't. Raising the debt ceiling requires a bill that is signed into law whereas a budget is a concurrent resolution.
Harry Reid's newfound balls have swung around and said that Social Security will be protected. Which has been a worry with all the Grand Bargain nonsense.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
Obama needs to take reigns of the current momentum and advocate a new deal. It's not just necessary at the Federal level. He needs to start making the case so that it's easier for liberals at the state level to do the same thing.
Remember, changing voter demographic means that newer voters are more intellectually flexible than older voters. If you keep kowtowing to the republicans on taxes, then the newer voters are going to be ingrained with republican assumptions. Obama needs to take advantage of the new blood with some new ideas.
This was a recommended video from the FDR clip. Apparently, 53% of Americans prefer capitalism over socialism, 20% prefer socialism, and 27% aren't sure. When you look at adults under 30, it's nearly a three way tie.
That means that we have a growing demographic of voters who no longer see "socialism" as a dirty word. And this video is from May, 2009. Now people are seeing the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, and the darkside of companies like Bain.
I don't think that the democrats will be able to bait the republicans on rape in the upcoming years, because the republicans will probably have a prepared script for these questions, and they'll probably get their candidates to discuss this early on. But they're going to have to bash the concept of socialism for as long as the republican party continues to exist, because it's not something they can turn away from without completely losing their base. Hence, the GOP video where Obama discussed "redistribution" that was supposed to make huge headlines.
The GOP will continue to portray the democrats as socialists. It's going to be interesting to see if the democrats can spin that to their advantage, especially if they can turn the economy around after winning a major election.
This was a recommended video from the FDR clip. Apparently, 53% of Americans prefer capitalism over socialism, 20% prefer socialism, and 27% aren't sure. When you look at adults under 30, it's nearly a three way tie.
That means that we have a growing demographic of voters who no longer see "socialism" as a dirty word. And this video is from May, 2009. Now people are seeing the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, and the darkside of companies like Bain.
I don't think that the democrats will be able to bait the republicans on rape in the upcoming years, because the republicans will probably have a prepared script for these questions, and they'll probably get their candidates to discuss this early on. But they're going to have to bash the concept of socialism for as long as the republican party continues to exist, because it's not something they can turn away from without completely losing their base. Hence, the GOP video where Obama discussed "redistribution" that was supposed to make huge headlines.
The GOP will continue to portray the democrats as socialists. It's going to be interesting to see if the democrats can spin that to their advantage, especially if they can turn the economy around after winning a major election.
Not if the Tea Partiers keep winning primaries. They can also make bills about rape laws that are logical to the mainstream but the GOP will vote against in large numbers.
Just to add to the sequestration tangent. It isn't talked about much, but there is lots of waste with the defense contracts. It's somewhat common practice for many companies to win a contract that someone else was working on previously and then start from scratch to prolong their chances of making as much money as possible, even if at the end they end up with the exact same things the previous company had implemented.
I doubt the defense sequestration will get much needed reform done to how the government handles defense contracts, but I'm pretty sure the dems know they can cut a fair amount here and with the right tweaking, lose almost nothing because there is that much waste. I'm actually alright with this because I'm pretty sure many of the businesses involved in the practice are the same shitheads that donate to superPACs, hold similar opinions as the Koch brothers. Yeah, ultimately, the big losers in defense sequestration will be jackass business owners that only see the government as a pot their personal piggy bank, so fuck them.
The cherry on top, the GOP has done such a great job about bitching over government waste. So with a little digging, even they won't be able to make much hay out of the sequestration cuts, when it gets pointed out how much money is just be wasting or going to an executive instead of funding things we need.
It's an interesting analysis, but don't forget that noone wants the military to be cut that deep
I do.
Without sensible oversight vested interests will make sure that we keep paying for useless cold war era crap we don't need and soldiers get massive pay and benefit cuts to cover the shortfall.
It's an interesting analysis, but don't forget that noone wants the military to be cut that deep
I do.
Without sensible oversight vested interests will make sure that we keep paying for useless cold war era crap we don't need and soldiers get massive pay and benefit cuts to cover the shortfall.
Pay cuts may result in less persons being soldiers.
That would be a good thing.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It's an interesting analysis, but don't forget that noone wants the military to be cut that deep
I do.
Without sensible oversight vested interests will make sure that we keep paying for useless cold war era crap we don't need and soldiers get massive pay and benefit cuts to cover the shortfall.
Pay cuts may result in less persons being soldiers.
That would be a good thing.
Yes.
Let's get a bunch of underpaid and unemployed soldiers running around.
It's an interesting analysis, but don't forget that noone wants the military to be cut that deep
I do.
Without sensible oversight vested interests will make sure that we keep paying for useless cold war era crap we don't need and soldiers get massive pay and benefit cuts to cover the shortfall.
Pay cuts may result in less persons being soldiers.
That would be a good thing.
Yes.
Let's get a bunch of underpaid and unemployed soldiers running around.
This will go well.
You realize we are not Rome, right?
Rome provided for its soldiers because if the soldiers did not have adequate wealth they would rise up and slay everyone. We don't have to worry about that.
It's an interesting analysis, but don't forget that noone wants the military to be cut that deep
I do.
Without sensible oversight vested interests will make sure that we keep paying for useless cold war era crap we don't need and soldiers get massive pay and benefit cuts to cover the shortfall.
Pay cuts may result in less persons being soldiers.
That would be a good thing.
Yes.
Let's get a bunch of underpaid and unemployed soldiers running around.
This will go well.
You realize we are not Rome, right?
Rome provided for its soldiers because if the soldiers did not have adequate wealth they would rise up and slay everyone. We don't have to worry about that.
Do we need to curb military spending? You betcha. There are plenty of unnecessary tank purchases and redundant engine systems we can't use to go after before we start sticking it to the men and women just trying to do a job.
It's an interesting analysis, but don't forget that noone wants the military to be cut that deep
I do.
Without sensible oversight vested interests will make sure that we keep paying for useless cold war era crap we don't need and soldiers get massive pay and benefit cuts to cover the shortfall.
Pay cuts may result in less persons being soldiers.
That would be a good thing.
Yes.
Let's get a bunch of underpaid and unemployed soldiers running around.
This will go well.
You realize we are not Rome, right?
Rome provided for its soldiers because if the soldiers did not have adequate wealth they would rise up and slay everyone. We don't have to worry about that.
We do have to worry about them being homeless or worse, become criminals since society isn't there for them to prepare them for civilian life. Also the services for helping wounded veterans, mentally and physically, needs serious funding and organization on a large scale.
It's an interesting analysis, but don't forget that noone wants the military to be cut that deep
I do.
Without sensible oversight vested interests will make sure that we keep paying for useless cold war era crap we don't need and soldiers get massive pay and benefit cuts to cover the shortfall.
Pay cuts may result in less persons being soldiers.
That would be a good thing.
Yes.
Let's get a bunch of underpaid and unemployed soldiers running around.
This will go well.
You realize we are not Rome, right?
Rome provided for its soldiers because if the soldiers did not have adequate wealth they would rise up and slay everyone. We don't have to worry about that.
Do we need to curb military spending? You betcha. There are plenty of unnecessary tank purchases and redundant engine systems we can't use to go after before we start sticking it to the men and women just trying to do a job.
and that's probably just one example of many that could be eradicated freeing up money that could be better spent on those that actually serve. chances are it would be possible to both cut overall military spending whilst still paying troops a higher wage. add in pensions, healthcare(both physical and mental), and programs to help to adjust to civilian life should they leave the military and while you certainly have a lofty goal, making those a priority while be driving force to minimize(within reason) all other military spending.
there's no fear that the military will rise up and over throw the government, but that isn't a reason to pay them less. if anything, that loyalty is a reason to pay them more.
Posts
Come on, buddy, you're a lawyer. This is certainly THE most leverage that someone has ever had over the other party, but you ought to know that it's not the one you're thinking.
Yeah, that.
Dems and Pubs wrote a law that does terrible things to everyone in the event that nobody acts, so they could force each other to act. Sothis is basically now the law. Congress can't just ignore the law, because that's not how laws work. If they want to change it, they have to pass a new law that supercedes it. If they want the official policy to be "Nevermind, that was stupid," they need to pass a law that says, "Nevermind, that was stupid."
But even a policy of "Nevermind, that was stupid" has implicit winners and losers. The losers do not want to lose, so they will fight it. Hence the problem.
Okay. Quick rundown of the legislative process by which we ended up where we are:
Background information: the Budget Control Act of 2011 mandated that if the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (hereafter: "The Supercommittee") couldn't come up with $1.5 trillion in combined deficit reduction measures for an up-or-down vote in both chambers of congress, $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts would be enacted over ten years instead. Fifty percent of these cuts would come from defense. Fifty percent would come from elsewhere, including some non-exempt entitlement programs. These cuts are collectively known as sequestration. For point of reference, discretionary security spending accounted for $895 billion in that year's enacted budget (technically spending levels set by the most recently enacted budget at that time). The total budget of the United States at that same period of time projected $3,834 billion in outlays; in other words, while defense appropriations account for about 23.3% of the United States Government's budget, it shouldered the burden of 50% of all mandatory cuts, which meant that the rest of the pie (the other 77.7% of non-security discretionary spending and mandatory outlays for entitlement programs -- read "things that Democrats like") shouldered a disproportionately small piece of the pie.
At the point in time this was passed, a lot of people who followed Congress (including me! on this forum! And also Newt Gingrich. I share the dubious distinction with Newt Gingrich about being one of the first people to write about this like it was a victory for Democrats) said that we were absolutely going to end up with sequestration. If you accept the premise that a minimum of $1.2 trillion in spending cuts was absolutely going to have to happen (and there was no way out of that one because we needed the debt ceiling raised), getting 50% of those cuts from the 23.3% of the pie that the GOP was trying desperately to protect was the absolute best deal we were going to get. It'd be like if you and I agreed to order a pizza together, and I agreed to pay half for two out of only eight slices. After we'd already reached that agreement, there is no way you're going to be stupid enough to revise the agreement so that I get more of the pizza for less money, and I have hardly anything left to offer you in exchange because my position is so lousy. The only thing which the GOP members of the supercommittee could possibly have offered the democratic members -- and the one thing they were in no position politically to put on the table -- was a tax increase.
Dirty secret: we don't particularly want to increase taxes for most Americans right now, either. We're perfectly happy to extend them for lower income taxpayers because we don't want to take money away from American consumers during a shaky recovery. Also, we don't particularly want to cut the defense budget quite that much. So we are perfectly happy to give them some of the Bush tax cuts -- for Americans who make less than $250k annually -- and we'll go ahead and take that money and put a lot of it back into defense.
Also, we'll put some of it into our 77.7% of the pie because we have them by the testicles. We're not stupid.
But if the House GOP doesn't play ball? They've already conceded the best possible deal we have an right to expect out of them without a revenue increase. We've affirmatively accepted this deal twice, and while we would much rather have the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthier tax brackets, we are more than willing to let them all expire so we can propose an entirely new package of tax cuts when the next Congress opens for business.
So, yeah. We're the ones in the driver's seat. Not them. That's why they're already trying to stake out where they're willing to compromise, and we're the ones screaming "fucking bring it, you orange-skinned cockwallet."
I think counting on the House to make a decent deal is a waste of time. They have the deal they want right now. The rest is just posturing.
Yeah I'm worried they want to try and make good on their promise that the worst will happen under Obama.
The President is going to need to be VERY aggressive on this, and make sure the pressure is entirely on them if this doesn't get fixed.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Seriously, this freaks me out. They just spent four years foaming at the mouth about how Obama is going to cause the end of America if he gets elected again, and oh look, here's a convenient financial Apocalypse coming up right before his first term ends.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
The point is that the public isn't buying into that narrative, or else they would have elected Romney.
And now the GOP knows that the public isn't buying into it.
The Democrats who would have gotten beat on that were already beaten in 2010. Glenn Nye for instance would have been a great target for a crossover vote for the GOP. Today he is looking for a fourth for a round of golf. Ditto Ike Skelton of Missouri, former House Armed Services Committee chairman and now regular schmoe.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Tear.
Some Democrats might, not all. The party has greater diversity with its opinions then the GOP does on everything.
Except for the tax cuts expiring. But that's both 12 years overdue and a much simpler fix.
In terms of major legislative achievements, correct. However, I think Obama's major accomplishments are unusually back loaded so that a lot of his second term is essentially just going to be implementing the shit out of his first term victories. Which is somewhat historically atypical. So there is maybe 1 major new thing that gets passed, which would be great, but even without that he's going to be building a strong legacy with rolling out the ACA and various good governance reforms through the Executive branch.
Sure, if the GOP insists on taking it out along with, say, extending the top-income Bush tax cuts. Ideally if we get to December without it being taken out Obama goes on TV and tells people to bitch at their congresscritters, but I guess it's an alternative.
Again, this is why Boehner proactively put revenue increases on the table. He is trying to define an appropriate revenue increase before we do. He knows he has to acquiesce and let us in his little orange panties, he just wants to tell people he won't go further than third base before we bend him over the table.
...I think it's probably Rahm Emanuel's fault I talk about Congress like this, but this is my favorite part. This is the part where electoral outcome translates directly into legislative consequence. Because these fuckers were sure they would win the Presidency and get what they wanted and now they don't and we do.
Man, Washington erotic fiction is gross.
MWO: Adamski
Good question! They can't. Raising the debt ceiling requires a bill that is signed into law whereas a budget is a concurrent resolution.
I hate Congress but man I love talking about it.
Dude once choked a man for attempting to bribe him.
If only Reid had used that attitude more often in politics.
Obama needs to take reigns of the current momentum and advocate a new deal. It's not just necessary at the Federal level. He needs to start making the case so that it's easier for liberals at the state level to do the same thing.
Remember, changing voter demographic means that newer voters are more intellectually flexible than older voters. If you keep kowtowing to the republicans on taxes, then the newer voters are going to be ingrained with republican assumptions. Obama needs to take advantage of the new blood with some new ideas.
Also, where the hell is Keith Olbermann?
This was a recommended video from the FDR clip. Apparently, 53% of Americans prefer capitalism over socialism, 20% prefer socialism, and 27% aren't sure. When you look at adults under 30, it's nearly a three way tie.
That means that we have a growing demographic of voters who no longer see "socialism" as a dirty word. And this video is from May, 2009. Now people are seeing the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, and the darkside of companies like Bain.
I don't think that the democrats will be able to bait the republicans on rape in the upcoming years, because the republicans will probably have a prepared script for these questions, and they'll probably get their candidates to discuss this early on. But they're going to have to bash the concept of socialism for as long as the republican party continues to exist, because it's not something they can turn away from without completely losing their base. Hence, the GOP video where Obama discussed "redistribution" that was supposed to make huge headlines.
The GOP will continue to portray the democrats as socialists. It's going to be interesting to see if the democrats can spin that to their advantage, especially if they can turn the economy around after winning a major election.
Not if the Tea Partiers keep winning primaries. They can also make bills about rape laws that are logical to the mainstream but the GOP will vote against in large numbers.
I doubt the defense sequestration will get much needed reform done to how the government handles defense contracts, but I'm pretty sure the dems know they can cut a fair amount here and with the right tweaking, lose almost nothing because there is that much waste. I'm actually alright with this because I'm pretty sure many of the businesses involved in the practice are the same shitheads that donate to superPACs, hold similar opinions as the Koch brothers. Yeah, ultimately, the big losers in defense sequestration will be jackass business owners that only see the government as a pot their personal piggy bank, so fuck them.
The cherry on top, the GOP has done such a great job about bitching over government waste. So with a little digging, even they won't be able to make much hay out of the sequestration cuts, when it gets pointed out how much money is just be wasting or going to an executive instead of funding things we need.
I do.
Without sensible oversight vested interests will make sure that we keep paying for useless cold war era crap we don't need and soldiers get massive pay and benefit cuts to cover the shortfall.
Pay cuts may result in less persons being soldiers.
That would be a good thing.
Yes.
Let's get a bunch of underpaid and unemployed soldiers running around.
This will go well.
J, are you playing some sort of character here? Because Preacher is way better at that sort of thing.
You realize we are not Rome, right?
Rome provided for its soldiers because if the soldiers did not have adequate wealth they would rise up and slay everyone. We don't have to worry about that.
I think you and I disagree about the merits of killing brown people.
Some people have short memories.
Do we need to curb military spending? You betcha. There are plenty of unnecessary tank purchases and redundant engine systems we can't use to go after before we start sticking it to the men and women just trying to do a job.
Well I'm a pacifist, actually, but even I realize that if we're going to hand somebody a gun and say, "Go get shot at!"
...then maybe we should pay that person pretty well?
We do have to worry about them being homeless or worse, become criminals since society isn't there for them to prepare them for civilian life. Also the services for helping wounded veterans, mentally and physically, needs serious funding and organization on a large scale.
and that's probably just one example of many that could be eradicated freeing up money that could be better spent on those that actually serve. chances are it would be possible to both cut overall military spending whilst still paying troops a higher wage. add in pensions, healthcare(both physical and mental), and programs to help to adjust to civilian life should they leave the military and while you certainly have a lofty goal, making those a priority while be driving force to minimize(within reason) all other military spending.
there's no fear that the military will rise up and over throw the government, but that isn't a reason to pay them less. if anything, that loyalty is a reason to pay them more.