Obama proposes 'grand bargain' for jobs. Wut?

[berzerker60]

Wow you sure are turning into the little insult machine. By the way, before you call someone a dumbass maybe you would like to go back and look and see that berzerker60 brought up Bush first in at post 64.

True, though not comparing Bush to Obama or complaining about Bush. I was just sick of every thread the constant sarcastic "DEAR LEADER" references as if there's some cult of Obama that doesn't exist except in conservatives' heads. Then, comparing that to how people actually DID complain about any criticisms of Bush in terms of "respect the office even if not the man!!!" where as I don't see any of that kind of white knighting for Obama or anything remotely like what the 'Dear Leader' references seem to be mocking

 

[boomerang]

Wow you sure are turning into the little insult machine. By the way, before you call someone a dumbass maybe you would like to go back and look and see that berzerker60 brought up Bush first in at post 64.

We always seem to have at least one "angry leftist" here that throws tantrums with rants, raves, pouts and name calling. It's got to be confusing to them when they don't get a trophy with every post.

 

[ivwshane]

Wow you sure are turning into the little insult machine. By the way, before you call someone a dumbass maybe you would like to go back and look and see that berzerker60 brought up Bush first in at post 64.

What does that have to do with me. I replied to his comment about bush he then said I brought up bush, I did not.

I know this whole forum thing is hard to follow sometimes with the quoting and such/s

 

[dank69]

The article doesn't refute what the poster said.

The article merely points out that many small businesses aren't making enough profit to be taxed at their top rate. Given the state of our economy I would have thought this fairly obvious.

Similarly, there are regular (C) corporations who aren't making enough profits to pay the top rate of 35%. Some are still absorbing loss carryovers from 2007 etc.

So, while the article throws around some factoids it doesn't actually make a valid point.

I was a tax professional back when corporate and individual rates were different. As one should expect, this leads to tax shenanigans, legal ones.

Finally, I will mention that article glosses over what is a very important fact in some cases: LLC's typically filing as S-corps or partnerships cannot "easily" change to a regular (C) corporation. In all cases I have seen state law for LLC's and corporations is substantially different. This makes it virtually impossible for some businesses to convert to the corporate entity.

Fern

He presented it as if all small businesses pay 39%. The article I linked refutes that misrepresentation of reality. In reality, a small business has to be doing very, very well in order to fall into the top bracket, and even then, only the profits above that threshold would be taxed at 39.6%. Of course, you know all this.

 

[gloom111]

The Federal Governments intended role was to provide protection from external threats and protect the rights of the American people. It wasn't to build roads or redistribute wealth, or create social programs. Traditionally, the only thing the Federal Government does well, is spend money. I agree that the nations infrastructure needs improvement, but the Federal Government has had at least two stimulus packages already which they claimed would be earmarked for those improvements, and each time, the majority of money was spent elsewhere. What makes you think it will be different this time?

The tax code is a disaster, there is no question of that. It needs to be completely restructured, not patched with additional legislation which will add more loop holes and make things even more confusing for existing and future business owners.

The proposal as I understand it, will reduce the corporate tax while closing some loop holes and generating new fees for existing companies and future start-ups. Please look into the cost of starting a business before you champion the cause of adding additional overhead for them. We need new businesses in order to maintain our nations prosperity, and we have over the last 8 years lost a far larger number of businesses than we have gained. The more overhead you place on a start-up, the less likely that your average Joe will become successful. The less chance the average Joe has of becoming successful, the more class structured out nation will become.

Only one percent has anything to benefit from keeping all the money in the hands of the one percent, which is what occurs if we remove the opportunity for the average Joe to successfully open and run business, so why are so many people in favor of ruining him before he gets the chance to even try?

 

[ivwshane]

The Federal Governments intended role was to provide protection from external threats and protect the rights of the American people. It wasn't to build roads or redistribute wealth, or create social programs. Traditionally, the only thing the Federal Government does well, is spend money. I agree that the nations infrastructure needs improvement, but the Federal Government has had at least two stimulus packages already which they claimed would be earmarked for those improvements, and each time, the majority of money was spent elsewhere. What makes you think it will be different this time?

The tax code is a disaster, there is no question of that. It needs to be completely restructured, not patched with additional legislation which will add more loop holes and make things even more confusing for existing and future business owners.

The proposal as I understand it, will reduce the corporate tax while closing some loop holes and generating new fees for existing companies and future start-ups. Please look into the cost of starting a business before you champion the cause of adding additional overhead for them. We need new businesses in order to maintain our nations prosperity, and we have over the last 8 years lost a far larger number of businesses than we have gained. The more overhead you place on a start-up, the less likely that your average Joe will become successful. The less chance the average Joe has of becoming successful, the more class structured out nation will become.

Only one percent has anything to benefit from keeping all the money in the hands of the one percent, which is what occurs if we remove the opportunity for the average Joe to successfully open and run business, so why are so many people in favor of ruining him before he gets the chance to even try?

I'll just leave you this little paragraph and bold the parts that support my statements:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You will note that the bold is in addition to providing defense so there is no mistaking one for the other.

The rest of the document goes on to describe how the above will be achieved.


Some complete fucking morons who claim to support the constitution miss that little part. It's hard for them to remember it though because it's the first paragraph in the constitution and their memories aren't good enough to remember more than one paragraph at a time.

 

[Matt1970]

What does that have to do with me. I replied to his comment about bush he then said I brought up bush, I did not.

I know this whole forum thing is hard to follow sometimes with the quoting and such/s

Nothing, the truth has absolutely nothing to do with you.

 

[ivwshane]

Nothing, the truth has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Another random post by you. Good job!

 

[gloom111]

I'm aware of the first paragraph of the constitution, I don't believe the founding fathers meant Welfare when they were talking about welfare. I don't see a lot of domestic tranquility, especially under the current regime. The Obama administration is the most divisive administration I have ever witnessed. He has polarized the parties into dead lock, he has increased racial tensions, demonized the wealthy, and refused to cooperate with congress on multiple occasions while dismissing their concerns as fake.

The Democrats in the Senate have tabled everything that the Republicans present, so it isn't fair to say the Republicans haven't proposed legislation. The definition of insanity to to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result. The fact that the Republicans have drastically slowed putting forth legislation is simply a sign that they are sane. On the same note, the Obama administration has repeatedly made noises about working with the Republicans and stabbed them in the back every time they took the bait. It is always someone elses fault. Obama has not taken responsibility for anything negative that has occurred in his administration.

For years I have seen a rabid refusal by Democrats to look at the other side of the picture, and now when the Republicans have decided to become intractable, to stand their ground, the most vocal of the democrats become even more vicious and abusive in their language. They demean and try to intimidate people into being quiet so they can get their way. This is from the same party that championed anti bullying laws if you can believe it.

We are Americans, it isn't our right to speak our piece, to be heard, to ensure our viewpoints are out their. It is our RESPONSIBILITY as Americans to ensure that we speak, that we listen, and that we consider what is being said. If you are afraid to speak, if you let others intimidate you from voicing your thoughts, then you have failed as an American. If you refuse to listen to viewpoints that are not your own, then you have failed as an American. If you refuse to consider every angle of an argument, and spit vitriol and hate back at your fellow Americans because they have a different opinion, then you have failed as an American.

We know who people are by how they speak, by what they say, and if you can't speak with curtsey and respect to your fellow Americans, then you make it difficult for us to give your viewpoint serious consideration. You make it difficult for us to fulfill our responsibility as Americans. Inflammatory remarks are a defense mechanism. They are a way to incite emotion and engender an emotional response. They are misdirection and subterfuge, a way to redirect a conversation away from its current path. It won't work anymore.

 

[berzerker60]

I'm aware of the first paragraph of the constitution, I don't believe the founding fathers meant Welfare when they were talking about welfare. I don't see a lot of domestic tranquility, especially under the current regime. The Obama administration is the most divisive administration I have ever witnessed. He has polarized the parties into dead lock, he has increased racial tensions, demonized the wealthy, and refused to cooperate with congress on multiple occasions while dismissing their concerns as fake.

That rascal Obama, going back in time to start the decades-long trend of increasing polarization of the nation, and thereby forcing the GOP to go full crazy on zealously opposing anything he says or does, including offering their own ideas! And oh yes, the hilarious notion that it's the poor reasonable House GOP that can't get Obama to negotiate with HIM, when the Majority Leader himself said that Obama gave them 99% of what they wanted in the debt ceiling fiasco and they still rejected the deal. Truly it is him who is the divisive one, and not a bunch of Tea Party zealots driven mad by a black, Democratic president who handily won the popular vote twice.

The Democrats in the Senate have tabled everything that the Republicans present, so it isn't fair to say the Republicans haven't proposed legislation. The definition of insanity to to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result. The fact that the Republicans have drastically slowed putting forth legislation is simply a sign that they are sane. On the same note, the Obama administration has repeatedly made noises about working with the Republicans and stabbed them in the back every time they took the bait. It is always someone elses fault. Obama has not taken responsibility for anything negative that has occurred in his administration.

The Senate GOP is still sane and a largely reasonable body, as evidenced by major pieces of serious bipartisan legislation that have passed there - the farm bill, the immigration reform bill, a budget, etc. Those, by virtue of their serious and bipartisan nature, give lie to the idea that Obama won't compromise with Republicans. But that doesn't do us any good if the House GOP is completely insane.

For years I have seen a rabid refusal by Democrats to look at the other side of the picture, and now when the Republicans have decided to become intractable, to stand their ground, the most vocal of the democrats become even more vicious and abusive in their language. They demean and try to intimidate people into being quiet so they can get their way. This is from the same party that championed anti bullying laws if you can believe it.

How dare those meany Dems point out that the current House is the least productive in modern US history and wastes time passing meaningless dead-on-arrival symbolic legislation instead of working on compromises to fix the country!

If you're talking about this forum, it's the backwater political forum on an internet forum of nerds, of course there's vitriol and harsh words. If you mean nationally, I honestly don't know what you're talking about, unless you consider pointing out hateful, evil legislation like that passed in North Carolina as what it is to be abusive and bullying.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm aware of the first paragraph of the constitution, I don't believe the founding fathers meant Welfare when they were talking about welfare. I don't see a lot of domestic tranquility, especially under the current regime. The Obama administration is the most divisive administration I have ever witnessed. He has polarized the parties into dead lock, he has increased racial tensions, demonized the wealthy, and refused to cooperate with congress on multiple occasions while dismissing their concerns as fake.

The Democrats in the Senate have tabled everything that the Republicans present, so it isn't fair to say the Republicans haven't proposed legislation. The definition of insanity to to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result. The fact that the Republicans have drastically slowed putting forth legislation is simply a sign that they are sane. On the same note, the Obama administration has repeatedly made noises about working with the Republicans and stabbed them in the back every time they took the bait. It is always someone elses fault. Obama has not taken responsibility for anything negative that has occurred in his administration.

For years I have seen a rabid refusal by Democrats to look at the other side of the picture, and now when the Republicans have decided to become intractable, to stand their ground, the most vocal of the democrats become even more vicious and abusive in their language. They demean and try to intimidate people into being quiet so they can get their way. This is from the same party that championed anti bullying laws if you can believe it.

We are Americans, it isn't our right to speak our piece, to be heard, to ensure our viewpoints are out their. It is our RESPONSIBILITY as Americans to ensure that we speak, that we listen, and that we consider what is being said. If you are afraid to speak, if you let others intimidate you from voicing your thoughts, then you have failed as an American. If you refuse to listen to viewpoints that are not your own, then you have failed as an American. If you refuse to consider every angle of an argument, and spit vitriol and hate back at your fellow Americans because they have a different opinion, then you have failed as an American.

We know who people are by how they speak, by what they say, and if you can't speak with curtsey and respect to your fellow Americans, then you make it difficult for us to give your viewpoint serious consideration. You make it difficult for us to fulfill our responsibility as Americans. Inflammatory remarks are a defense mechanism. They are a way to incite emotion and engender an emotional response. They are misdirection and subterfuge, a way to redirect a conversation away from its current path. It won't work anymore.

Lol, did you read your post? I guess you were just being defensive and misdirecting the discussion.


I especially like the part where you said the Obama administration has been the most divisive you have ever seen. I guess you missed the part where the heads of the GOP were discussing on Obamas inauguration day, how to make him a one term president and other publicaly made comments that have been made to the same affect.

But you are right, Obama, who just had McCain(R) and Graham(R) go to Egypt to talk with the military about getting public elections going (both those two have also been Obamas harshest critics of his foreign policy), is the most divisive president ever!


The bubble is strong with this one!

 

[Darwin333]

If we didn't need any government services, maybe or maybe not. But I don't think anyone can look at the data and dispute that there is a LOT of need for infrastructure rebuilding and updating in this country that would save us a LOT more money longterm, the definition of a good investment that creates jobs. We need to rebuild loads and loads of roads and bridges, a smart power grid to be less wasteful, better internet infrastructure to aid business across the country, etc. etc. Those might not be permanent jobs, but they're very important, they'll take years, they'll have to happen sometime, and we need the jobs now. Meanwhile, with interest rates this low, other countries are literally paying us interest to hold on to their money, in real terms. It's absolutely ridiculous not to take advantage of that for a win-win-win situation.

They are paying us to hold their money, in real terms, for very short periods of time. Since we never actually pay down the debt, when (most definitely not if), our future cost to service that debt and most of our existing debt will skyrocket.

Another question, can you really call it an investment if you never ever pay off the debt and instead pay interest on it basically forever?

 

[berzerker60]

They are paying us to hold their money, in real terms, for very short periods of time. Since we never actually pay down the debt, when (most definitely not if), our future cost to service that debt and most of our existing debt will skyrocket.

Another question, can you really call it an investment if you never ever pay off the debt and instead pay interest on it basically forever?

Yes. Debt-to-GDP is the ratio that matters, not absolute value of debt, which is meaningless. If the GDP grows quickly, it doesn't matter if the debt grows by some amount.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
The Democrats in the Senate have tabled everything that the Republicans present, so it isn't fair to say the Republicans haven't proposed legislation.

Yep.

Here's a link with 372 bills passed by the House and sent to the Senate. Reid and the Senate had taken no action on them. I.e., Reid 'filibustered' them. This was as of August 2010. I'm sure someone could find something more current if so interested.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/83057-290-bills

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
How dare those meany Dems point out that the current House is the least productive in modern US history and wastes time passing meaningless dead-on-arrival symbolic legislation instead of working on compromises to fix the country!

So, it's the Repub fault for not passing bills that Dems in the Senate pre-approve of?

(And if Reid won't let the House bills reach the Senate floor for a vote how do we know they wouldn't pass?)

I'm sure you apply your logic consistently and look forward to your post blaming the Dems for not proposing bills in the Senate that repubs like the next time someone complains of filibusters. There wouldn't be any filibusters if the Dems passed bills that repubs like.

In any case, it's fundamentally dishonest to claim the repubs in the House do nothing or don't have their own ideas etc when what is really meant is that they DO have them, it's just that Dems don't like them. It's stupid really. No one expects the Dems/Repubs to like the other's ideas. If that were expected we'd have only one party.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Yes. Debt-to-GDP is the ratio that matters, not absolute value of debt, which is meaningless. If the GDP grows quickly, it doesn't matter if the debt grows by some amount.

The problem with this belief is that GDP is volatile whereas is not nearly so (it just keeps going up). A 'good' ratio one year can easily turn into a horrible one the next year.

Fern

 

[berzerker60]

So, it's the Repub fault for not passing bills that Dems in the Senate pre-approve of?

(And if Reid won't let the House bills reach the Senate floor for a vote how do we know they wouldn't pass?)

I'm sure you apply your logic consistently and look forward to your post blaming the Dems for not proposing bills in the Senate that repubs like the next time someone complains of filibusters. There wouldn't be any filibusters if the Dems passed bills that repubs like.

In any case, it's fundamentally dishonest to claim the repubs in the House do nothing or don't have their own ideas etc when what is really meant is that they DO have them, it's just that Dems don't like them. It's stupid really. No one expects the Dems/Repubs to like the other's ideas. If that were expected we'd have only one party.

Fern

No, it's their fault for not passing any bills at all, which would then be discussed in conference committees between the House and Senate, at which point both houses would vote on the compromise legislation. But because the Tea Party is afraid that such a compromise would end up not getting everything they want, they won't pass any bill at all to compare with the bipartisan legislation coming out of the Senate. I'm not just making up those motivations, that's literally what they said were their reasons for not passing their own version.

If the House GOP doesn't take up party line Dem Senate bills, fine, that makes perfect sense. I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about the immigration bill (passed 68-32 including 14 Republicans and 2 independents) and the farm bill (passed 66-27 with 16 Republicans), both incredibly important bills passed after careful negotiation between Senate Dems and Reps. And I'm not even saying the House needs to pass those exact compromise, bipartisan bills - they could pass their own versions and hash it out in Conference Committee. But that would require actual will to govern the nation rather than bitch and moan and obstruct.

Meanwhile, the House could pass versions of these bills very easily, but it would require actually allowing a vote on them and risking the chance of passing with Democrats' votes as well as Republicans, whereas they won't allow any bill to get to the floor without a majority of Republicans supporting it. So we get nothing.

 

[berzerker60]

The problem with this belief is that GDP is volatile whereas is not nearly so (it just keeps going up). A 'good' ratio one year can easily turn into a horrible one the next year.

Fern

That's stretching it. Yes it fluctuates, but it's not like there's a red line where if we cross 1.54545343/1 everything implodes. There's a wide range of "pretty good," a wide range of "getting concerned but still manageable" (where we are now), a wide range of "this is bad and needs serious changes" (where several European countries were/are), and a wide range of "totally fucked" (some third world countries, arguably Greece). It's also a long-term issue - where we are right now in the US isn't acceptable over a 50 year period, but getting out of the recession is much more important than tackling it in the short term. Once the economy is up and running, I will go back to saying we should pay down the debt, as I did during Clinton's term, as I did during Bush's early term before he instead passed huge tax cuts for the rich.

 

[gloom111]

That's stretching it. Yes it fluctuates, but it's not like there's a red line where if we cross 1.54545343/1 everything implodes. There's a wide range of "pretty good," a wide range of "getting concerned but still manageable" (where we are now), a wide range of "this is bad and needs serious changes" (where several European countries were/are), and a wide range of "totally fucked" (some third world countries, arguably Greece). It's also a long-term issue - where we are right now in the US isn't acceptable over a 50 year period, but getting out of the recession is much more important than tackling it in the short term. Once the economy is up and running, I will go back to saying we should pay down the debt, as I did during Clinton's term, as I did during Bush's early term before he instead passed huge tax cuts for the rich.

So by this definition, it is a responsible action to run up credit card debt until you can barely manage to pay it. Sometimes you have overtime and get a little extra money, sometimes your hours get cut and you have to find a way to get through it, but as long as the debt is paid, all is well.

 

[Fern]

No, it's their fault for not passing any bills at all, ...
-snip-

I just linked 372 bills they passed.

If the House GOP doesn't take up party line Dem Senate bills, fine, that makes perfect sense. I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about the immigration bill (passed 68-32 including 14 Republicans and 2 independents) and the farm bill (passed 66-27 with 16 Republicans), both incredibly important bills passed after careful negotiation between Senate Dems and Reps. And I'm not even saying the House needs to pass those exact compromise, bipartisan bills - they could pass their own versions and hash it out in Conference Committee. But that would require actual will to govern the nation rather than bitch and moan and obstruct.

I can't comment on the Farm Bill, am not familiar with it.

As regards the immigration bill, I oppose it for too many reasons to list here.

I did hear why it was a bad political move to for the House to allow it to go into conference, but cannot remember the details. It was basically more political gamesmenship and rules type stuff. I.e, the House would likely get outplayed.

But yes, the Repubs are definitely split on immigration (among other things). I don't think they can blamed for that, it's a sincere split not some purposeful political BS. It IS an important issue, one needs be damn careful. Heck, even voters are split.

To make matters worse, it is insisted that it be a comprehensive bill. Given all the dissention on the issue demanding a comprehensive bill is too much. Figure out what you can agree on and get that done. Work on it step by step etc.

Fern

 

[Fern]

That's stretching it. Yes it fluctuates, but it's not like there's a red line where if we cross 1.54545343/1 everything implodes. -snip-

I tend to think there may well be a "red line". We just don't know where it is. The market tends towards a herd mentality. We'll know we've crossed that line only after the herd is spooked and takes off. it'll be too late then.

But I wasn't referring to a red line.

My point is that debt is not volatile, you build it up and it's there. OTOH, GDP is volatile and subject to outside and thus largely uncontrollable risks. The higher the debt climbs the worse the risk. The worse the consequences. Hugely impactful and (mostly) unforeseen events occur every generation or so. Depressions, wars, pandemics and such. Debt is like a sword hanging over our head and one of these events can trigger its fall. Bad idea to keep making the sword bigger IMO.

Fern

 

[berzerker60]

So by this definition, it is a responsible action to run up credit card debt until you can barely manage to pay it. Sometimes you have overtime and get a little extra money, sometimes your hours get cut and you have to find a way to get through it, but as long as the debt is paid, all is well.

House hold finances are nothing like government finances. "Debt" does not mean the same thing in the contexts of consumer debt and government debt. They are different concepts. This analogy doesn't work, ever.

I just linked 372 bills[/b[ they passed.



I can't comment on the Farm Bill, am not familiar with it.

As regards the immigration bill, I oppose it for too many reasons to list here.

I did hear why it was a bad political move to for the House to allow it to go into conference, but cannot remember the details. It was basically more political gamesmenship and rules type stuff. I.e, the House would likely get outplayed.

But yes, the Repubs are definitely split on immigration (among other things). I don't think they can blamed for that, it's a sincere split not some purposeful political BS. It IS an important issue, one needs be damn careful. Heck, even voters are split.

To make matters worse, it is insisted that it be a comprehensive bill. Given all the dissention on the issue demanding a comprehensive bill is too much. Figure out what you can agree on and get that done. Work on it step by step etc.

Fern

Farm bill: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ublicans-drop-food-stamps-from-new-farm-bill/
Basically the Senate GOP and Dems get together and passed a bill that was basically status quo, which I'm not super fond of myself but it's the standard, everyone gets something and no one's absolutely happy. Rural (Republican-leaning) coalition gets farm subsidies in exchange for the urban majority of the country (Dem-leaning) getting food stamp funding. They send it to the House, who decide to pass the Republican-leaning food subsidies while splitting the food stamp legislation "into a separate bill" which in turn never gets scheduled. Naturally this is then dead on arrival, which means no new farm bill, which might really mess with the country's food supply. Note that in addition to not going with the Senate compromise, this split is a big deal that a lot of agriculture lobby is against because without food stamp funding attached, it becomes a much bigger question why the 90+% of the country who live in urban areas should keep spending so very much for the small and shrinking rural population.

Edit: Left out the juiciest part: Boehner actually scheduled a vote on a version of the Senate Farm Bill with food stamp funding slashed, but had to cancel it because (surprise) Dems wouldn't support those additional cuts and (surprise) the Tea Party wouldn't accept so few cuts. So Boehner couldn't even deliver a cut-down, extra GOP-friendly version to conference.

I get not liking the Immigration Reform bill as-is, but really that's not the issue at hand, which is dysfunction.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ties-plan-to-sneak-amnesty-across-finish-line

“We are scared to death of what we figure is already Boehner’s end game,” a senior congressional GOP aide told Breitbart News. “There are so many forces within the GOP establishment pushing for their interests that it’s hard to conceive that Boehner will not cave to them.”

Conservatives do not trust Boehner and his team to stand up to Senate Democrats in conference, so they are advocating the House refuse to pass any legislation for fear it could be molded into a “compromise” that looks just like or is identical language to the Senate bill.

Won't pass any form of the bill because they don't trust their own party. That's about as dysfunctional as it gets.

Yes, they passed some bills, but the least of any Congress in modern times.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/07/17/the-least-productive-congress-ever/

So, how does this House stack up against past years when it comes to productivity? Not so well, according to the new Vital Statistics on Congress, which shows that the 112th Congress passed just 561 bills, the lowest number since they began keeping these stats way back in 1947.
...
The second lowest number of bills passed in a single Congress — 611 — was back in the 104th Congress, the two-year session that followed Republicans re-taking control of the House in 1994 after four decades of Democratic control.

Majority Leader's response: Judge us not on how many we pass, but on how many we repeal.

Which is zero.


And let us not forget the debt ceiling debacle! Hostage taking from the House GOP, Obama caves on what Boehner himself admits is 99% of what they asked for, and still can't get the House GOP to pass this compromise. So the Senate makes a bipartisan compromise that's much worse for Republicans and eventually the House goes along because not passing something is seriously destroying the world economy for no reason whatsoever.

So the question is, who could Obama possible negotiate with? Boehner does not have the ability to deliver the House GOP votes on anything. Period. The Senate can pass highly-bipartisan bills that the house won't even take up, so that avenue is very limited. There's simply no one Obama can compromise with, try as he might.


You're never going to pass anything if you can't compromise, and you can't compromise if you do party-line votes for each half of said compromise. You get the House GOP passing the Republican half of the compromise without problem and then never even trying to pass the Dem-friendly half, which results in exactly nothing.

 

[berzerker60]

I tend to think there may well be a "red line". We just don't know where it is. The market tends towards a herd mentality. We'll know we've crossed that line only after the herd is spooked and takes off. it'll be too late then.

But I wasn't referring to a red line.

My point is that debt is not volatile, you build it up and it's there. OTOH, GDP is volatile and subject to outside and thus largely uncontrollable risks. The higher the debt climbs the worse the risk. The worse the consequences. Hugely impactful and (mostly) unforeseen events occur every generation or so. Depressions, wars, pandemics and such. Debt is like a sword hanging over our head and one of these events can trigger its fall. Bad idea to keep making the sword bigger IMO.

Fern

I get that, it's not a point without merit, but my counter is that it's a long-term issue, not a crisis by any stretch. Government debt never "comes due," so there's no sword over our heads. There are no international bill collectors, at least not for the country with enough military might to fight any other two countries in the world at once without resorting to our massive nuclear stockpiles.

In crisis situations (wars), countries have had WAY higher debt-to-GDP ratios than Greece today without serious problems, because everyone knew it was relatively short-term.

 

[Fern]

The type of war I'm worried is not Iraq/Afghanistan, but rather one that disrupts world economies. I.e., Iran and the Straights. Whether or not a war pushes us past a red line is not paramount, it pushes us closer to it. We haven't shown any ability to move our debt away from such a line. My own calculations indicate it's not possible without great upheaval. I.e., my fear, no belief, is that we're traveling on a one street with no chance to turn around and very little in the way of brakes.

Fern

 

[gloom111]

House hold finances are nothing like government finances. "Debt" does not mean the same thing in the contexts of consumer debt and government debt. They are different concepts. This analogy doesn't work, ever.

Ummm...

Debt is debt. Yes, there is a difference between household debt and government debt, but it's still debt. We still pay interest on that debt. The result of those interest payments are higher taxes, because the interest is an additional burden on the budget. When this happens, our taxes go up. The first people to get hit with those taxes is almost always the business community. When this happens, businesses close, when businesses close people lose jobs. I also understand that our credit rating as a nation has been threatened in the past couple of years.

The primary difference is that if the government needs more money to pay their debt, it theoretically comes out of our pockets. Yes, the government can print more money, or rather it can make a journal entry and create that money digitally, but this has limits, and causes inflation. Inflation lowers the value of the dollar, this makes prices go up, wages don't keep up with inflation in a recession, so life becomes harder on the middle class. Reducing that debt is important, it maintains the value of our currency. So debt remains debt, regardless of who holds it.