How to move forward with compromise

[nonameo]

I won't speak for Jhhnn but the so called "balanced budget amendment" section of the bill is actually a recipe for permanent minority control of the nation's finances, requiring a super majority to implement tax increases. This provision grants anti-tax voters more effective voting clout than allotted to other voters. The bill also creates exceptions for times of war, so that future Presidents could engage in foreign adventures without being held to the balanced budget requirements of the bill.

changes:

1. Congress cannot pass an amendment on its own. It can propose it and the states can vote on it, but ultimately the people decide to amend the constitution.
2. Require a super majority for tax increases AND tax cuts. However, this should be waived if it is necessary to balance the budget(you know, since it will be constitutionally required and all) Honestly, making it harder to increase taxes sounds very anti-balanced budget. At least adding in the tax-cut clause helps it be more pro-balanced budget(which is the point of the amendment, right?)
3. require a real declaration of war and not this war powers act BS.

aaannddddd I'm sure someone will come along and point out how flawed this idea is XD

I need to make a note about the waiver. You'd try to pass a budget, based on estimates, that will meet your current revenue(At this stage, if revenue meets expenditures then no new tax). However, spending is not some sort of a fixed thing. It is possible that spending exceeds projections and a tax change may be needed to make up the difference between reality and estimations. Does this make sense?

 

[Jhhnn]

I won't speak for Jhhnn but the so called "balanced budget amendment" section of the bill is actually a recipe for permanent minority control of the nation's finances, requiring a super majority to implement tax increases. This provision grants anti-tax voters more effective voting clout than allotted to other voters. The bill also creates exceptions for times of war, so that future Presidents could engage in foreign adventures without being held to the balanced budget requirements of the bill.

I'm sure that the bill is shot through with similar trick-bag provisions. I don't have to read it all to understand that. It's like the rest of life- people with with a long list of prior offenses are generally not to be trusted.

 

[Medellon]

Simple. Vote to raise the debt ceiling. Now work on the budget bill as separate legislation like it's supposed to be. Don't hold the debt ceiling bill hostage. It's that simple.

The Senate has not released a budget in over 820 days, what makes you think they will do anything after they have recieved their debt limit increase?

 

[ProfJohn]

A deal is within reach and it looks like it will be close to the Bohner plan.

Small increase now.
A group to work out bigger cuts.
If the group can't work it out then hard cuts.

 

[Engineer]

A deal is within reach and it looks like it will be close to the Bohner plan.

Small increase now.
A group to work out bigger cuts.
If the group can't work it out then hard cuts.

No balanced budget amendment
No revenue increases

Looks like Obama has jumped the shark and converted to a Republican.

 

[theeedude]

No balanced budget amendment
No revenue increases

Looks like Obama has jumped the shark and converted to a Republican.

No revenue increases aside from Bush tax cuts expiring at the end of 2012. If this forces defense and Medicare reimbursement cuts, could be a good deal. Defense and Health care are the most overbloated sectors in the US economy.

 

[Demo24]

No revenue increases aside from Bush tax cuts expiring at the end of 2012. If this forces defense and Medicare reimbursement cuts, could be a good deal. Defense and Health care are the most overbloated sectors in the US economy.

Info on this part:

MORE ELEMENTS OF THE DEAL: Reuters correspondent Andy Sullivan reports this from Republican aide:
- Deal would impose automatic, across the board spending cuts if Congress doesn't agree to further cuts recommended by special committee. This would hurt Republicans as well as Democrats, aide said -- military as well as the EPA.
- debt ceiling hike would be along the lines of McConnell's Plan B
- committee would have to report by Thanksgiving; Congress would have to act by Christmas
- balanced budget amendment would also be in the mix as a trigger for implementing further cuts, but unsure of exact details.



Seems 'ok', although not enough details to really be clear at the moment.

Either way this deal sounds more promising than anything else that has a shot at being passed.

 

[Engineer]

No revenue increases aside from Bush tax cuts expiring at the end of 2012. If this forces defense and Medicare reimbursement cuts, could be a good deal. Defense and Health care are the most overbloated sectors in the US economy.

...and come the end of 2012, there will be a huge uproar and they will be extended or made permanent. You can just about bet on it.

 

[Jhhnn]

No balanced budget amendment
No revenue increases

Looks like Obama has jumped the shark and converted to a Republican.

Don't worry- Righties still hate him anyway. If he joined the Klan, burned himself on a cross, they'd hate him for doing it. No matter how far he moves to the right, they'll stay ahead of him.

 

[Engineer]

Listening to MSNBC right now, the Democrats are already being declared as the complete loser in the so called "negotiations". GOP seem to be getting everything they want except balanced budget amendment and the Dems got nothing.

 

[theeedude]

Listening to MSNBC right now, the Democrats are already being declared as the complete loser in the so called "negotiations". GOP seem to be getting everything they want except balanced budget amendment and the Dems got nothing.

It may look like it now, but if we get real defense cuts in exchange for cuts in government programs like unemployment extensions that are going to wind down anyways as the economy picks up, that would be a good deal in the long term. Plus big pharma is not going to like Medicare reimbursement cuts. So big GOP donors are going to get impacted by this.

 

[Schadenfroh]

if we get real defense cuts in exchange for cuts in government programs like unemployment extensions that are going to wind down anyways as the economy picks up, that would be a good deal in the long term

Good luck with that, Obama is a friend of the arms industry (and by extension American jobs that cannot be outsourced):

Obama to increase defense spending beyond (inflation adjusted) Reagan / Bush levels:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2143525

 

[theeedude]

Good luck with that, Obama is a friend of the arms industry (and by extension American jobs that cannot be outsourced):

Obama to increase defense spending beyond (inflation adjusted) Reagan / Bush levels:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2143525

But it's not going to be Obama, it's going to be the triggers. This stuff goes into effect automatically if nothing else gets passed by the committee.

 

[Carmen813]

I don't understand the obsession about "Obama presnting a bill." First off, Constitutionally, these bills are supposed to come from the Legislative branch. That's their job. Secondly, we all know that these statements are just for political games. Anything Obama does is labeled radical and extreme by the right, that is how they've approached every single issue since he has been elected. It would serve no purpose than to possibly eliminate some good ideas from the equation (because after all, if it comes from President Obama, it must be bad).

 

[Engineer]

I don't understand the obsession about "Obama presnting a bill."

Because it's going to be shitty, especially for those that are on entitlements. Guess who is going to get the blame on this one?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

The obvious way forward is to divide and conquer. The distinctly different problems that all contribute to the national debt must be tackled seperately. Any attempt to provide a one size fits all solution is destined to fail. The contributing factors are

1. Severe economic recession
2. Habitual deficit spending
3. Unsustainability of Medicare/Medicaid
4. Tax reform and enforcement
5. Minor adjustments needed to insure future SS benifits

Each one of these can be further broken down into multiple causes and potential solutions, which further complicates the matter and makes it imperative that each of the problems are tackled seperately.

Just the habitual deficit spending problem alone shows how difficult these issues are. Our history shows that at times deficit spending has been necessary to support war efforts or to stimulate the economy during times of recession. But history also shows our reluctance to pay down the national debt during economic good times and times of peace. So how do you craft "balance budget" legeslation that forces congress to be fiscally prudent while still giving enough latitude to handle times of war or economic recession?

 

[ProfJohn]

Listening to MSNBC right now, the Democrats are already being declared as the complete loser in the so called "negotiations". GOP seem to be getting everything they want except balanced budget amendment and the Dems got nothing.

What should the Democrats get?

1. They have already increased spending by $800 billion over 2008 levels, that is a whole lot of something.

2. We HAVE to cut spending. Hard to give them more spending while we are going broke.

3. The Bush tax cuts expire and when they do that is a $3.5 trillion tax increase. Strangely, the evils of baseline budgeting are hurting the Democrats in this regard. They can't ask for more taxes on top of that figure since it makes it look like they want $4-5 trillion in new taxes and the American people would freak out.

4. Here's the dirtiest secret of all... the Democrats can't get a tax increase because they won't vote for one themselves UNLESS the GOP goes along with them.

 

[sarsipias1234]

Compromise is nothing more than a Lose-Lose scenario.

The worst of all possible scenarios and yet congress is proud of their legacy of compromise!

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Compromise is nothing more than a Lose-Lose scenario.

The worst of all possible scenarios and yet congress is proud of their legacy of compromise!

I guess that makes you a comprimise

 

[sarsipias1234]

I guess that makes you a comprimise

??????????????????????

I am all about win-win in all of my personal endeavors.

At worst, i give only as much as I recieve.

On average, I give more than I recieve.

 

[Engineer]

Well, Reid just signed off on the Deal with the White House and Senate Republican leaders. Boehner is said to be pissed and thinking of blocking the deal because of defense cuts. It's amazing that everyone wants cuts, cuts and more cuts....until it gets to something that they want. :hmm:

Edit: House Democrats under Pelosi might now support it either, lol.

Back to square 1?

 

[Carmen813]

I have an idea for a balanced budget amendment that requires very little to actually implement. I suggest we hold an event every two to six years where citizens gather together to pick someone to represent them. If said people fail to balance the budget, we try again two to six years later and pick someone else. I suggest we call these elections.

 

[Balt]

Obama says all of the Congressional leadership (from both parties) have agreed to the deal.

Now they have to find the votes.

 

[Engineer]

Obama says all of the Congressional leadership (from both parties) have agreed to the deal.

Now they have to find the votes.

Just saw that on "Breaking" Yahoo.com news.

 

[ProfJohn]

Well, Reid just signed off on the Deal with the White House and Senate Republican leaders. Boehner is said to be pissed and thinking of blocking the deal because of defense cuts. It's amazing that everyone wants cuts, cuts and more cuts....until it gets to something that they want. :hmm:

Edit: House Democrats under Pelosi might now support it either, lol.

Back to square 1?

The deal didn't actually include defense cuts.

It included a mechanism that would implement hard cuts if congress couldn't agree on something within 6 months or something.

The problem for the right is that the cuts are too heavy on defense and not heavy enough on Democrat pet projects.

Might create a situation where the Democrats on the commission might not have much incentive to reach a deal since they don't risk any pain. Best plan is an across the board cut. Don't come up with an agreement and 5% budget cut on everything.