voters will blame GOP if default

[Daredevel7]

I dunno. I have the feeling the Republicans will do anything to spite their noses rather than negotiate with an "evil socialist" like Obama.

But that's my point! Obama should pretend to hate it, so that Republicans feel like they aren't negotiating, but rather forcing him to sign a deal that he "doesn't like".

 

[jillio]

This whole politics crap is annoying me. At this point, they aren't even arguing what they think is right. Both Democrats and Republicans actually AGREE on what to do, but trying to "sweeten the deal" on their respective ends, i.e. adding stuff to the deal that will help them. This is what I think Obama should do. If there is a reasonable deal that Obama likes (like that 3-1 ratio of revenue/spending deal), Obama should pretend to hate it so that the Republicans can back it up, instead of automatically hating it just because Obama likes it.

That would solve our politics problems.

But Daredevel, that would be logical!

 

[jillio]

But that's my point! Obama should pretend to hate it, so that Republicans feel like they aren't negotiating, but rather forcing him to sign a deal that he "doesn't like".

You know, it sounds like instructing kids on how to handle a bully at school.

 

[deafskeptic]

But Daredevel, that would be logical!

Logic has never been the Far Right's forte.

 

[netrox]

It makes me smile when CBO told Boehner that his math was way off on his debt bill.

And even John McCain said this: ""What is really amazing about this is that some members are believing that we can pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in this body with its present representation -- and that is foolish,” said McCain on the Senate floor, according to The Hill. "That is worse than foolish. That is deceiving many of our constituents.”"

Seriously, GOP does NOT know about economics.

 

[saywhatkid]

How can Obama be a socialist if he's spending a LOT LESS?

This is because of tax cuts:

If not for tax cuts, we wouldn't be having this problem.

So where's Obama's plan? What exactly is he proposing?

Just curious, any input on these graphs? Not trying to single you out, just like your perspective. I did not see a reply on that part of the thread. These graphs paint an ugly picture of Bush. Dunno how accurate they are. We all know that Obama has no plan that will work for everyone.

I yield the floor to you...

 

[darkdog]

Raise taxes, cut spending. In a nutshell.

Sounds rather vague. That's my point. He can sit there and claim he plans to cut spending by x trillions of dollars, but he has shown no specifics. There's nothing for the CBO to score. We don't know when and where those cuts are coming from. The Republicans already passed the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill and they have another plan out there. Harry Reid has a plan out there too, but Obama has produced nothing. He's only given talks where he makes himself look like the only reasonable party in a sea of crazies. The net result is he's made himself irrelevant in this discussion.

 

[jillio]

Just curious, any input on these graphs? Not trying to single you out, just like your perspective. I did not see a reply on that part of the thread. These graphs paint an ugly picture of Bush. Dunno how accurate they are. We all know that Obama has no plan that will work for everyone.

I yield the floor to you...

I'd assess the graphs as being valid. They feed the raw data into a computer program, and the graphs are generated by the program based on that data.

 

[darkdog]

Just curious, any input on these graphs? Not trying to single you out, just like your perspective. I did not see a reply on that part of the thread. These graphs paint an ugly picture of Bush. Dunno how accurate they are. We all know that Obama has no plan that will work for everyone.

I yield the floor to you...

Good questions. The graphs are suspect because they don't contain a source. Starting with taxes, even CBO scores are suspect because they have to do static analysis. Don't get me wrong- I like the CBO, I think they do honest work, and I believe they're professional and nonpartisan. However, they have to operate under certain constraints and they're like a computer- garbage in, garbage out. When they analyze the revenue effects of tax cuts, they're not allowed to consider the growth the private sector will experience as a result of the tax cuts. Such growth leads to more taxable dollars, albeit at a lower rate, and offsets some of the cost of the tax cuts. The problem is it's impossible to know how much is actually offset.

Also, there's probably about $400 billion credited to Bush that shouldn't be. The fiscal 2009 budget would belong to Bush, but Obama signed a $400 billion omnibus budget afterward he got elected. Because it was added to the 2009 budget, Bush probably got credited with it, but it should really be Obama.

As for the rest of the numbers on Obama's side, it's really hard to tell what's right and what's wrong because there really isn't a budget in the traditional sense. The Democrats in the Senate haven't even proposed a budget in over two years. Obama proposed a budget and it was so ridiculous that not one member of the Senate voted to approve it. I'm especially suspicious of the low cost of the health care entitlement. It's impossible to know how much it will cost because it's so huge, complex, and far-reaching that nobody knows how it's going to affect the economy. It seems to credit Obama the Iraq war draw down that Bush negotiated before leaving office. It also doesn't consider the increasing costs of our already existing entitlements as baby-boomers start retiring. Right now, spending is up to nearly 25% GDP when it's normally around 20%. As for entitlements, here's an oldy from 2009:

The situation has only gotten worse. According to the graphic, our deficit this year should be $900. Instead, it's $1.5 trillion.

But there are a few points to make here. For one, it's Congress who has the power of the purse. Yes, the President proposes a budget and traditionally, Congress uses that as a framework, but ultimately, it's Congress who has to deliver a budget for the President to sign. Too often, these Obama vs. Bush vs. Clinton vs. Bush I vs. Reagan spending arguments overlook that crucial fact- who was in charge of Congress. Second, the $trillion+ deficits would be forgivable if they were temporary. After all, TARP wasn't cheap (even though most of it got paid back) and the revenues lost are significant. It wouldn't bother me much if we could just get back to the days where a $500 billion deficit was considered huge, but that's not the case. It's huge deficits as far as the eye can see as we head into an entitlement crisis. Whatever damage Bush and the Republicans did during their reign, it makes no sense to hammer them for it and then step on the accelerator to make $1.5 trillion the new norm.

There are so many more points I can make, but I'll leave you with one last point- during the Bush years, the debt went from $5.9 trillion to $10.7 trillion, or an average increase of just over $600 billion a year. Now, it stands at $14.3 trillion, or an average increase of just over $1.4 trillion a year since January 2009. He, or someone else, needs to turn this around.

 

[jillio]

Sounds rather vague. That's my point. He can sit there and claim he plans to cut spending by x trillions of dollars, but he has shown no specifics. There's nothing for the CBO to score. We don't know when and where those cuts are coming from. The Republicans already passed the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill and they have another plan out there. Harry Reid has a plan out there too, but Obama has produced nothing. He's only given talks where he makes himself look like the only reasonable party in a sea of crazies. The net result is he's made himself irrelevant in this discussion.

Actually, he doesn't have to do anything to make himself look like the only reasonable party in a sea of crazies. The opposition does that for him.

 

[deafskeptic]

Actually, he doesn't have to do anything to make himself look like the only reasonable party in a sea of crazies. The opposition does that for him.

Yep. I believe it's called giving them the rope to hang themselves.

I have no doubt that a great many Americans are furious right now with Congress. Why would Obama try to make them look bad when they can do a better job themselves?

 

[darkdog]

It makes me smile when CBO told Boehner that his math was way off on his debt bill.

And even John McCain said this: ""What is really amazing about this is that some members are believing that we can pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in this body with its present representation -- and that is foolish,” said McCain on the Senate floor, according to The Hill. "That is worse than foolish. That is deceiving many of our constituents.”"

Seriously, GOP does NOT know about economics.

He did mess up, but at least he put something out there. That's a lot more than the President can say.

 

[Foxrac]

My favorite word is... FUCK GOP!

 

[Reba]

Very insightful, well-thought out, and deep.

Not. :roll:

 

[saywhatkid]

Good questions. The graphs are suspect because they don't contain a source. Starting with taxes, even CBO scores are suspect because they have to do static analysis. Don't get me wrong- I like the CBO, I think they do honest work, and I believe they're professional and nonpartisan. However, they have to operate under certain constraints and they're like a computer- garbage in, garbage out. When they analyze the revenue effects of tax cuts, they're not allowed to consider the growth the private sector will experience as a result of the tax cuts. Such growth leads to more taxable dollars, albeit at a lower rate, and offsets some of the cost of the tax cuts. The problem is it's impossible to know how much is actually offset.

Also, there's probably about $400 billion credited to Bush that shouldn't be. The fiscal 2009 budget would belong to Bush, but Obama signed a $400 billion omnibus budget afterward he got elected. Because it was added to the 2009 budget, Bush probably got credited with it, but it should really be Obama.

As for the rest of the numbers on Obama's side, it's really hard to tell what's right and what's wrong because there really isn't a budget in the traditional sense. The Democrats in the Senate haven't even proposed a budget in over two years. Obama proposed a budget and it was so ridiculous that not one member of the Senate voted to approve it. I'm especially suspicious of the low cost of the health care entitlement. It's impossible to know how much it will cost because it's so huge, complex, and far-reaching that nobody knows how it's going to affect the economy. It seems to credit Obama the Iraq war draw down that Bush negotiated before leaving office. It also doesn't consider the increasing costs of our already existing entitlements as baby-boomers start retiring. Right now, spending is up to nearly 25% GDP when it's normally around 20%. As for entitlements, here's an oldy from 2009:

The situation has only gotten worse. According to the graphic, our deficit this year should be $900. Instead, it's $1.5 trillion.

But there are a few points to make here. For one, it's Congress who has the power of the purse. Yes, the President proposes a budget and traditionally, Congress uses that as a framework, but ultimately, it's Congress who has to deliver a budget for the President to sign. Too often, these Obama vs. Bush vs. Clinton vs. Bush I vs. Reagan spending arguments overlook that crucial fact- who was in charge of Congress. Second, the $trillion+ deficits would be forgivable if they were temporary. After all, TARP wasn't cheap (even though most of it got paid back) and the revenues lost are significant. It wouldn't bother me much if we could just get back to the days where a $500 billion deficit was considered huge, but that's not the case. It's huge deficits as far as the eye can see as we head into an entitlement crisis. Whatever damage Bush and the Republicans did during their reign, it makes no sense to hammer them for it and then step on the accelerator to make $1.5 trillion the new norm.

There are so many more points I can make, but I'll leave you with one last point- during the Bush years, the debt went from $5.9 trillion to $10.7 trillion, or an average increase of just over $600 billion a year. Now, it stands at $14.3 trillion, or an average increase of just over $1.4 trillion a year since January 2009. He, or someone else, needs to turn this around.

By right clicking the top graph, it shows NY Times in the properties area. I am not saying these are 100% accurate. Just wanted your views written here. I try to listen to both sides.

Thanks for a well-thought reply.

 

[saywhatkid]

My favorite word is... FUCK GOP!

That will not convince me to vote Democrat.

Offer something a little more concrete, a little less angry. Thanks.

 

[Banjo]

Don't worry, they'll raise the debt ceiling again next year. They can just keep doing that and suffer no consequences for it.

Oh wait...

 

[TWA]

This whole COMPLETELY MANUFACTURED debt ceiling crisis is nothing more than brazen, unabashed extortion.

Threatening to destroy our economy is high treason. These teatards should be thrown in jail.

 

[Banjo]

This whole COMPLETELY MANUFACTURED debt ceiling crisis is nothing more than brazen, unabashed extortion.

Threatening to destroy our economy is high treason. These teatards should be thrown in jail.

It's astonishing how little accountability there is in the congress these days. At the moment, they are way beyond the point of no return. There is no way to undo the damages they have done upon the country by merely suggesting that the government raise the taxes, cut the spending.

It's not that simple. They have to make much, much more difficult decisions that will negatively affect the country in a lot of ways. However, in the end, it's for the greater good. People need to stop thinking about now and start thinking about the future. They need to be more considerate of the future generations because they are going to be paying off the debt.

 

[netrox]

Of course it's "manufactured" in a sense that it's an imaginary limit. Other countries (except Denmark but it has very high limit so it doesn't have to worry and don't involve policymaking) don't impose debt ceiling limit.

The debt is 95% of our GDP but again, that doesn't mean much. Norway and Switzerland are considered richest countries in Europe. They have stable economies. They use a mixture of socialism and free markets. Guess what their debt of GDP is? 400% and 229%, respectively. Netherlands? 471%.

List of countries by external debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia