• 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 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jhhnn said:
The debt ceiling as currently structured isn't a Constitutional issue at all, so you shouldn't pretend that it is. Nobody has offered that the executive should spend money that Congress hasn't authorized to be spent, at all.

Repubs used it as a way to stage a hissy fit over spending they authorized, then refused to pay for, then insisted on the sequesters as a way to save face rather than backing down completely. They further refused & still refuse to engage in meaningful discussion about appropriations that would deny them their fave pandering, posturing & preening hissy fit extortion opportunity.

Anybody with half a brain has already figured that out, and have also figured out that their efforts are aimed exclusively at maintaining the tax advantages of the Ultra Wealthy few entirely.

I figure they'd agree to any amount of spending if they could keep taxes on investment income at 15%, tops, and estate taxes at their current very low levels. Other than beating down the poors & the olds, it's the only thing they're serious about.
Click to expand...

This is something that you are correct about until you get to the outcome. Both parties do this depending on who is in charge. The simple fact is that congress is in charge of spending. What needs to happen is to define income better and tax that the same. The reason that Buffet pays less than his secretary is the definition of income, and NO ONE IS TRYING TO CHANGE THIS(both parties)! He gets paid in shares and dividends! Then rigid partisans like you fight over BS and they still get by with less taxes. Obama and Bush before him played this same game. If you get rid of corporate tax and tax all income, money, value of stocks, and dividends the same, it becomes much more fair.
 
TerryMathews said:
Damn it Jhhnn, who gave you our newsletter?
Click to expand...

Clearly, deficits didn't matter when Repubs cut taxes, particularly at the tippy-top, & engaged in two very expensive & elective wars of occupation at the same time. All the right people got paid.

Obviously, deficits that plump up the Rich are a good thing, and those that keep the rest of America from getting really skinny are teh ebil european soshulism of the worst sort. I mean, if we can't have soshulism that benefits the Rich along with everybody else, like the bailout, what sort of compassionate Conservative could possibly support it?

After all, Job Creator! tax cuts create jobs, somewhere, anyway, and it'll all trickle down the the rest of you RSN, honest. And, uhh, don't laugh at the Laffer curve either, cuz it hurts our tender feelings- we might just leave the country because of all the class warfare. Well, if it looks like we might be losing for a change. The prospect of paying almost the same tax rates as successful people who actually work for a living is just horrifying. It's just... degrading, that's what it is. It'd be like the Invasion of Poland, or worse!
 
soundforbjt said:
Did Bush ever submit a balanced budget? Again what is the "big" deal since Obama took office?
Click to expand...

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
 
Jhhnn said:
Clearly, deficits didn't matter when Repubs cut taxes, particularly at the tippy-top, & engaged in two very expensive & elective wars of occupation at the same time. All the right people got paid.

Obviously, deficits that plump up the Rich are a good thing, and those that keep the rest of America from getting really skinny are teh ebil european soshulism of the worst sort. I mean, if we can't have soshulism that benefits the Rich along with everybody else, like the bailout, what sort of compassionate Conservative could possibly support it?

After all, Job Creator! tax cuts create jobs, somewhere, anyway, and it'll all trickle down the the rest of you RSN, honest. And, uhh, don't laugh at the Laffer curve either, cuz it hurts our tender feelings- we might just leave the country because of all the class warfare. Well, if it looks like we might be losing for a change. The prospect of paying almost the same tax rates as successful people who actually work for a living is just horrifying. It's just... degrading, that's what it is. It'd be like the Invasion of Poland, or worse!
Click to expand...







Jhhnn said:
More people get laid off, lose their jobs. Demand goes back down.

Kinda hard to get laid off from being Ultra Rich, so they seem to think it's a great idea, other than the tax part.
Click to expand...

Why don't you, I don't know, contribute something?
 
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...

Of course you realize the difference in the economies there, right Beaver?

And remember Saint Ronnie nearly tripled the debt during his terms.
 
soundforbjt said:
Of course you realize the difference in the economies there, right Beaver?

And remember Saint Ronnie nearly tripled the debt during his terms.
Click to expand...

No shit. Really? I'm the one who pointed out to you that revenue was down and spending was up. Get a fucking clue.

So then you tell me why he can't get his budgets passed? Since you must know the answer.

I showed you facts and numbers. I can't wait to see what you've got.

And you're right there is a difference in economies. Which is why Congress is forcing Obama to reign in spending. To adapt to the realities of that different economy.
 
TerryMathews said:
No shit. Really? I'm the one who pointed out to you that revenue was down and spending was up. Get a fucking clue.

So then you tell me why he can't get his budgets passed? Since you must know the answer.

I showed you facts and numbers. I can't wait to see what you've got.

And you're right there is a difference in economies. Which is why Congress is forcing Obama to reign in spending. To adapt to the realities of that different economy.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what you never do when getting out of a recession, look no further than how much percentage-wise was spent to get out of this recession compared to the past, much smaller recessions.

Take the money from those who have butt-loads more than anytime in history. Make biggest spending cuts for now (while recovering from a recession) in defense.
 
Last edited:
soundforbjt said:
Which is exactly what you never do when getting out of a recession, look no further than how much percentage-wise was spent to get out of this recession compared to the past, much smaller recessions.
Click to expand...

So your proposal is to spend more? Funny, no one not even El Presedente is with you on that one.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
We get it. You'd rather see a "global financial catastrophe" than have Obama compromise, even if Congress manages to do it. Stay the course and all that.
Click to expand...

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 increases 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.
 
Last edited:
TerryMathews said:
Why don't you, I don't know, contribute something?
Click to expand...

I did- you're just too obtuse to recognize it. Even puppies exhibit better cognitive skills when their noses get rubbed in their own shit.

Here's how the fiscal cliff negotiations are going, btw-

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/party-of-no-ideas/

If Repubs were selling software, it'd rightfully be called vaporware.

The fiscal cliff, the austerity bomb? Let it happen, make Repubs wear it. It's their own creation. Let 'em fight middle class tax cuts afterward, too. Make 'em fight for more bloated spending on the military, listen to their piteous whining about losing jobs after they've claimed for years that govt can't create jobs. Find out if they have the unmitigated gall to attempt more extortion wrt the debt ceiling, too. Fuck 'em, let 'em explain it all to their broke ass red state constituencies who depend on federal subsidies a lot more than their blue state brethren.

Double dip recession? Their policy & governance brought on the first part, so nobody will be surprised when it brings on the encore, either.
 
soundforbjt said:
I proposed raising taxes and the largest spending cuts in the military for now, how's that burying my head exactly?
Click to expand...

Oh sorry, I didn't see your retcon edit: your proposed cuts weren't in that post originally.

That's not a bad proposal, however military spending benefits the economy more than most other stimulus spending as A) must be manufactured in - country per ITAR and B) military research becomes private sector development. See the Internet, cell phones, satellites, microwaves, GPS, and collision avoidance systems.
 
woolfe9999 said:
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 increases on the wealthy unless they agree.
Click to expand...

Not true. All the Bush tax cuts will expire w/o Congressional action. Repubs have no leverage in that regard, and they know it.
 
Jhhnn said:
I did- you're just too obtuse to recognize it. Even puppies exhibit better cognitive skills when their noses get rubbed in their own shit.

Here's how the fiscal cliff negotiations are going, btw-

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/party-of-no-ideas/

If Repubs were selling software, it'd rightfully be called vaporware.

The fiscal cliff, the austerity bomb? Let it happen, make Repubs wear it. It's their own creation. Let 'em fight middle class tax cuts afterward, too. Make 'em fight for more bloated spending on the military, listen to their piteous whining about losing jobs after they've claimed for years that govt can't create jobs. Find out if they have the unmitigated gall to attempt more extortion wrt the debt ceiling, too. Fuck 'em, let 'em explain it all to their broke ass red state constituencies who depend on federal subsidies a lot more than their blue state brethren.

Double dip recession? Their policy & governance brought on the first part, so nobody will be surprised when it brings on the encore, either.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Imagine if voters had the balls to boot old Boehner and his pack of rats out of office.
None of us would even know what the term fiscal cliff meant.
 
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...

Lol. A liberal blog written by Nobel Peace Prize Economist Paul Krugman. Google him and maybe you'll understand who he is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top