• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Who is being an "honest Broker" in the debt ceiling negotiations?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
TerryMathews said:
You know what Moe? I'm feeling generous tonight. Let me Google that for you.

This is Bush's worst budget: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget. $407b est deficit, $1.4t actual.

Here are Obama's:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget $1.17t/$1.27t
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget $1.56t
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget $1.10t/$1.33t
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget $901b
Click to expand...


This has got to be one of the most dishonest posts I've ever seen here. Like I keep telling you. You display a stunning superficiality on all things you discuss.
 
woolfe9999 said:
Maybe it will sink in if someone else says it? Holding a catastrophe over everyone's head as a negotiating tactic is a non-starter. If you give in to the blackmailer, you are only postponing catastrophe. It isn't really all that different from negotiating with terrorists. The demands will increase as they realize that they can get what they want by holding a gun to your head. (Before anyone goes batshit over this analogy, I'm speaking figuratively in the case of the GOP.)

The GOP has plenty of leverage here on the fiscal cliff without dangling the debt ceiling. They control the House of Representatives. Obama can't get his tax incriteeases on the wealthy unless they agree. That's how they negotiate - they compromise between tax increases and spending cuts because each can essentially veto the other.

No one should be threatening a "fuck them all" nuclear option as part of that process. They're saying, we're all going down if you don't give us what you want, and you think it's Obama's problem for not giving in to that. That's essentially what you're saying here.

And we all know you're saying it because you are constitutionally unable to accept unequal amounts of blame between the two parties ever, in any situation. Your particular form of bias is probably more intense than most of the partisans around here.
Click to expand...

Then stay the course and accept no compromise. Congress was making some with 800 billion in tax increases and some spending cuts, but go ahead and don't give in to terrorists. Yes you said they weren't but suggested we should react to things as if they were. Now if you are unhappy with equivalencies between parties, fine. Reps are two thirds of the shit pie and Dems only the remaining third. Thats makes them twice as appetizing. Damn it, both parties should be torn out by the roots and the duopoly smashed.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Then stay the course and accept no compromise. Congress was making some with 800 billion in tax increases and some spending cuts, but go ahead and don't give in to terrorists. Yes you said they weren't but suggested we should react to things as if they were. Now if you are unhappy with equivalencies between parties, fine. Reps are two thirds of the shit pie and Dems only the remaining third. Thats makes them twice as appetizing. Damn it, both parties should be torn out by the roots and the duopoly smashed.
Click to expand...

If they compromise on the tax increases and spending cuts, I don't really care if the debt ceiling gets raised as "part of the deal" or if it's seen as a separate thing. In the long run, it needs to go away entirely. Using legislation to artificially create a very real crisis every year is sheer idiocy. The D's and R's can horse trade over taxes and spending without this nuclear issue being involved every time. We have enough economic turmoil already without that kind of nonsense.

- wolf
 
emperus said:
This has got to be one of the most dishonest posts I've ever seen here. Like I keep telling you. You display a stunning superficiality on all things you discuss.
Click to expand...

How do you figure? Every number had a source with it.

As usual, you failed to highlight what you thought was factually deficient.
 
TerryMathews said:
So your proposal is to spend more? Funny, no one not even El Presedente is with you on that one.
Click to expand...

1.) Yes, it's called Keynesian Econimcs.
Keynesian Effect
Following John Maynard Keynes, many economists recommend deficit spending to moderate or end a recession, especially a severe one. When the economy has high unemployment, an increase in government purchases creates a market for business output, creating income and encouraging increases in consumer spending, which creates further increases in the demand for business output. (This is the multiplier effect). This raises the real gross domestic product (GDP) and the employment of labour, and if all else is constant, lowers the unemployment rate. (The connection between demand for GDP and unemployment is called Okun's Law.) Cutting personal taxes and/or raising transfer payments can have similar expansionary effects, though which method has a better stimulative economic effect is a matter of debate.[citation needed]
The increased size of the market, due to government deficits, can further stimulate the economy by raising business profitability and spurring optimism, which encourages private fixed investment in factories, machines, and the like to rise. This accelerator effect stimulates demand further and encourages rising employment. Increase in government payroll has been shown to depress the economy in the long run.[citation needed]

2.) Look at the countries who tried austerity to see the effects of cutting spending during a recession.

3.) Wrong, Obama is trying to get another round of stimulus.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/11/obama-administration-stimulus_n_2279182.html
 
woolfe9999 said:
If they compromise on the tax increases and spending cuts, I don't really care if the debt ceiling gets raised as "part of the deal" or if it's seen as a separate thing. In the long run, it needs to go away entirely. Using legislation to artificially create a very real crisis every year is sheer idiocy. The D's and R's can horse trade over taxes and spending without this nuclear issue being involved every time. We have enough economic turmoil already without that kind of nonsense.

- wolf
Click to expand...

They won't horse trade unless there is a Sword of Damocles hanging above their heads. That's what I've failed to communicate effectively to you. Bipartisanship is now defined as "I'm perfectly willing to have you accept our ideas". The Reps have dug their heels in, but they are the minority party. The Dems won't reform, that's simply off the table. I've gone on about how partisanship is a great evil and hear how the system is how that's fine and it's not really all that bad. You may not like to hear it, but this is your "it's works just fine". This is your "normal", this is what people have asked for, although they might not have wanted it. The hens have come home to roost, and instead of considering how the system needs change we hear how evil the reps are and how they are terrorist equivalents and blackmailers. Guess what? There wasn't a whole lot of choice in Dem mandates either, and there's precious little consideration given to legislation and regs to make things work in the real world, but the parties can sure polish a turd.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
They won't horse trade unless there is a Sword of Damocles hanging above their heads. That's what I've failed to communicate effectively to you. Bipartisanship is now defined as "I'm perfectly willing to have you accept our ideas". The Reps have dug their heels in, but they are the minority party. The Dems won't reform, that's simply off the table. I've gone on about how partisanship is a great evil and hear how the system is how that's fine and it's not really all that bad. You may not like to hear it, but this is your "it's works just fine". This is your "normal", this is what people have asked for, although they might not have wanted it. The hens have come home to roost, and instead of considering how the system needs change we hear how evil the reps are and how they are terrorist equivalents and blackmailers. Guess what? There wasn't a whole lot of choice in Dem mandates either, and there's precious little consideration given to legislation and regs to make things work in the real world, but the parties can sure polish a turd.
Click to expand...

Why always with the false equivalence? Only one party is attempting to destroy the world financial system in this equation. They are even on record talking about how last year they found out this was a hostage worth taking.

I get that you don't like partisanship. Until you tear up the constitution and alter his we elect people though, you're stuck with it. It is the natural consequence of the founding fathers screwing up the electoral system.
 
TerryMathews said:
Your source is a liberal blog. In the NY Times. Citing "a source close to."

Excuse me if I'm not convinced.

How's that shit smell now?
Click to expand...

List Repubs specific proposals wrt taxes & spending- go ahead. Yeh, they say cut deductions- which ones? loopholes- which ones?

Show me the Repub plan- good luck with that, because there isn't one.

Boehner can't compromise, because Cantor & the astroturfed Teapublicans will have his job if he even tries. He'll hold out as long as possible, hoping Obama fades, propose extending the status quo at the last minute, stall & duhvert in an attempt to remain Speaker.

I don't think Obama will buy it. We're not looking into the financial abyss any more, not like we were 2 years ago, so Repubs don't have that kind of hostage. Obama & Dems win either way, twice if there's no deal, but Boehner holds the speaker's gavel only by not making a deal.

It's over- it was really over 2 years ago when the sequester was agreed upon, when Repubs stymied the Supercommittee & refused to raise taxes at the top.
 
eskimospy said:
I'm not sure you are in a good place to evaluate evidence in this thread, Mr. ' Greece can print money because it owns a physical printing press.'
Click to expand...

Yep. They own a printing press and everyone with 2 brain cells knows they are strongly considering going back to their native currency.

Forgot that part didn't you?
 
Jhhnn said:
List Repubs specific proposals wrt taxes & spending- go ahead. Yeh, they say cut deductions- which ones? loopholes- which ones?

Show me the Repub plan- good luck with that, because there isn't one.

Boehner can't compromise, because Cantor & the astroturfed Teapublicans will have his job if he even tries. He'll hold out as long as possible, hoping Obama fades, propose extending the status quo at the last minute, stall & duhvert in an attempt to remain Speaker.

I don't think Obama will buy it. We're not looking into the financial abyss any more, not like we were 2 years ago, so Repubs don't have that kind of hostage. Obama & Dems win either way, twice if there's no deal, but Boehner holds the speaker's gavel only by not making a deal.

It's over- it was really over 2 years ago when the sequester was agreed upon, when Repubs stymied the Supercommittee & refused to raise taxes at the top.
Click to expand...

I can't. Neither side has discussed what Boehner or Obama proposed in their secret meetings. Maybe you're right, I don't know.

You would think though if Obama tried to negotiate and Boehner was having nothing of it that Obama would be on national television talking about it.

I want to know what deal Boehner and Reid hammered out that Obama shit on.
 
eskimospy said:
Why always with the false equivalence? Only one party is attempting to destroy the world financial system in this equation. They are even on record talking about how last year they found out this was a hostage worth taking.

I get that you don't like partisanship. Until you tear up the constitution and alter his we elect people though, you're stuck with it. It is the natural consequence of the founding fathers screwing up the electoral system.
Click to expand...

If you hate everything about our government, why stay?
 
TerryMathews said:
Yep. They own a printing press and everyone with 2 brain cells knows they are strongly considering going back to their native currency.

Forgot that part didn't you?
Click to expand...

No, but I'm really excited to hear your thoughts about how printing Drachma would pay off a debt owed in Euros.
 
TerryMathews said:
If you hate everything about our government, why stay?
Click to expand...

I was unaware that recognizing the fact that the founding fathers made mistakes in drafting the Constitution meant that such a person 'hated everything about our government'. Can you explain how you came to this conclusion?

Also, I'm pretty sure I've done more for our country in my life than you have so feel free to quit it with the 'THEN JUST LEAVE' bullshit.
 
eskimospy said:
I was unaware that recognizing the fact that the founding fathers made mistakes in drafting the Constitution meant that such a person 'hated everything about our government'. Can you explain how you came to this conclusion?

Also, I'm pretty sure I've done more for our country in my life than you have so feel free to quit it with the 'THEN JUST LEAVE' bullshit.
Click to expand...

You're the one who suggested tearing the Constitution up.

Oh really, so now we're down to the "my penis is bigger than yours" argument.
 
TerryMathews said:
You're the one who suggested tearing the Constitution up.

Oh really, so now we're down to the "my penis is bigger than yours" argument.
Click to expand...

Nowhere did I suggest tearing the Constitution up, I told him that's what he would have to do in order to accomplish his objective. Telling someone the necessary preconditions for something is not the same thing as endorsing that action.

I find it really awesome that you are taking someone's response to your IF YOU HATE IT SO MUCH THEN JUST LEAVE argument and then complaining about its lack of intellectual rigor.
 
TerryMathews said:
Let me Google that for you.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_market
Click to expand...

Right, so explain how they are going to pay off their debt in Euros using Drachma in the foreign exchange market. Are you somehow claiming that they can just print off a zillion Drachma, turn them into Euros and then pay off their debt? Do you realize how ludicrous that is?

You might think I'm talking shit to you right now, but I'm being serious. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so you should probably stop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top