Why Republicans claim they can't make a deal with Obama

[GarfieldtheCat]

clipped yet another nPJ post with more lies and usual partisan drivel that is cut and pasted from whatever website he happens upon

Oh look, yet another npj thread with made up information claiming to be facts, with npj once again mindlessly reposting someone elses' article. Shocking, I must say, since this happens like 4-5 times per day.

It's funny that in June, Republicans were talking about a 85-15 cut to tax ratio. Obama COMPROMISED with a 83-17 proposal, only 2% different.

So what did the Republicans do? Change their party line to 100 - 0. What's that line? "Compromise you can believe in".

Not sure that pj even comprehends what compromise means, but staking out a position, and then moving further AWAY from it, is not compromise.

OH, link

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

 

[ProfJohn]

Can anyone provide me with details on what Obama is offering to cut??

Good luck...

 

[zinfamous]

this is only republicans making themselves more and more irrelevant.

on one hand, they bitch and moan in public that they are here for the ave joe, that they will not make a deal with this charlatan president. on the other hand, they promise their wall street lobbyists that they are there for them, that will do nothing to cause the country to default.

and piles of people like the OP remain oblivious to the fact that these two promises remain counter to one another.

whom will they side with? the ones that keep them in power and wealthy?
or the ones that chatter on at home and on the internet about infallible and honorable their chosen leaders are?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Can anyone provide me with details on what Obama is offering to cut??

Good luck...

Oh, and would you like to explain the GOP record on debt ceilings?

During the Bush administration, when a budget surplus tuned to deficit and debt piled up, Republican leaders in Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling 5 times, increasing the limit nearly $4 trillion. We’re talking about Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl. Combined, they voted 19 times for a debt ceiling increase without complaint or conditions.

June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”, Kyl votes “nay.”

May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. All four approve.

November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. All four approve.

March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve.

September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.

oh look, your "no raising the debt ceiling" idols did just that when Bush was in office. What hardcore beliefs they must hold to flip-flop that fast.

Explanation from the peanut gallery? Or have you not been told how to explain this from your handlers?

 

[sportage]

As of this morning, Obama doesn’t need a "deal". Obama just won the fight (if no one has yet noticed). Originally, Obama wanted the debt ceiling raised without condition. Period!
It was the republicans that tacked on budget reform in order for this to happen, the ceiling raised. Republicans painted themselves into a corner with the American public. It was Mitch McConnell that realized this and made the offer, as a last resort, to raise the ceiling now and place all budget issues on the back burner.
"EXACTLY" what Obama wanted in the first place.
This was Obama genius at work.
They call Reagan "the great communicator". Obama took that to a new level. Not only has Obama won, and won it his way, Obama has made the wishes of the tea party moot. And I have this feeling, behind closed doors, republicans are very relieved in that. While on the surface it would appear the tea party owns the republican party, the republican old timers like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner can now breathe a sigh of relief (behind closed doors... that is), because the old timers will be owned by no one.
Old timer republicans in congress want to shake those creepy tea baggers. And who would of thought it would be Obama giving them a way out.
Congrads Mr Obama! Reagan would have been made proud.

 

[ProfJohn]

Actually the word out of Washington is that it is the President who is irrelevant.

Congressional leaders are the ones who are going to put a deal together and hand it to Obama and Obama may have very little impact on the deal, unless he wants to veto it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...the-dealmaker/2011/03/29/gIQApC9gEI_blog.html

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

^ actually the word out of Washington is that it is the President who is irrelevant.

Congressional leaders are the ones who are going to put a deal together and hand it to Obama and Obama may have very little impact on the deal, unless he wants to veto it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...the-dealmaker/2011/03/29/gIQApC9gEI_blog.html

Still waiting on an explanation from you on how Obama didn't compromise when he moved to within 2% of the GOP proposal, only for the GOP to NOT compromise, but move further away.

Also waiting for you to explain how your newfound ideological heroes consistently voted for debt increase as long as the President had an "R" after his name.

 

[ProfJohn]

oh look, your "no raising the debt ceiling" idols did just that when Bush was in office. What hardcore beliefs they must hold to flip-flop that fast.

Explanation from the peanut gallery? Or have you not been told how to explain this from your handlers?

And Obama opposed raising the ceiling and calling doing so a failure of leadership...

Now that we have established that both sides play politics with this issue, back to my question.


Do you have ANY details on what all these cuts actually are? My understanding is that Obama is just throwing out numbers but has yet to offer any concrete cuts.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

And Obama opposed raising the ceiling and calling doing so a failure of leadership...

Now that we have established that both sides play politics with this issue, back to my question.


Do you have ANY details on what all these cuts actually are? My understanding is that Obama is just throwing out numbers but has yet to offer any concrete cuts.

So answer the question...you are claiming Obama didn't compromise, based on your OP article. Explain how compromising to 83-17 (2% difference), only to have the GOP move further away is compromise.

To most rational people, which excludes you, someone that moves that close to the GOP position is called compromise. What the GOP did, was NOT compromise. But go ahead and try and explain it, we'll all wait.

And still no comment on how increasing the debt ceiling is A-OK for a R President, but not a D? True partisanship by you as usual.

 

[dmcowen674]

PJ, you're a liar.

This

 

[Jhhnn]

Repubs will claim anything that might sell to their base. Hell- they're still pushing deregulated banking in a free market trickledown economy... and advocating tax cuts at the tippytop in the form of the Ryan budget- eliminating capital gains taxes altogether...

 

[nobodyknows]

Please stop posting this shit.

PJ is desperate to find a turd that floats.

 

[dali71]

Do you have ANY details on what all these cuts actually are? My understanding is that Obama is just throwing out numbers but has yet to offer any concrete cuts.

He hasn't stated what he will agree to cut, and I doubt if he ever will, as he is thinking about his reelection first and foremost.

 

[shira]

Why do people think that only those receiving money from Uncle Sam will be affected? The deficit represents about 12% of GDP. The people that receive federal dollars use those dollars to buy things. If they can no longer buy things, that represents an actual decrease in demand. Which is going to affect those that receive government money and those who don't alike.

I live in a town pretty much dependent on three employers, the DOT, a university, and the USDA. Do you think if students don't get their loans next semester, the DOT's and USDA's budget is slashed by 50%+, and the federal research dollars stop coming in that only federal employees are going to be affected? It'll pretty much annihilate this town, and probably hundreds of others around the country. And as towns like mine start having massive defaults on their own debt, we're looking at another banking crisis (which will be worsened by the fact that banks will be holding onto billions or trillions of T-bills that aren't worth as much today as they were yesterday).

Yeah, this scenario plays out swimmingly well. So, IMO, to say that you won't be affected because there aren't many federal employees in your county is the height of arrogance.

Hundreds of towns? Try thousands.

Also, has it occurred to anyone what the consequence of hundreds of billions of dollars of cuts each year would be? If the total "value" of a typical job is $50,000 a year, then for every $100 billion cut from government spending 2 million jobs would be lost. So $2.5 trillion in cuts over 10 years is $250 billion in cuts every year = 5 million jobs lost.

This is napkin math, but it doesn't take a genius to see that huge cuts in the federal budget will cause a massive surge in unemployment. And anyone who thinks that the money NOT spent will instead be used to create at least the same number of private-sector jobs as the jobs lost is forgetting that much of the money currently funding the yearly deficit is coming from overseas investors.

 

[dawp]

He hasn't stated what he will agree to cut, and I doubt if he ever will, as he is thinking about his reelection first and foremost.

And the republicans don't? This all about the next election and each side trying to position themselves to what they feel is what their bases wants. Very few are actually thinking about what's best for the country.

 

[Darwin333]

And still no comment on how increasing the debt ceiling is A-OK for a R President, but not a D? True partisanship by you as usual.

Simple. When a "R" president is in office they spend borrowed money on stuff that the "Rs" want. That isn't really the case today.

In all due fairness, the (imho absurd) deficits that Bush ran just a few short years ago are like a 1/3 of what they are today. Hell, call it 1/2 if you want to add in the bullshit games. The biggest long term issue is that a vast majority of both Obamas and Bushs deficits are "structural" and won't really go away, such as the largest increase in entitlement spending in decades, Medicare part D, passed by Republicans and signed by Bush. They seem to forget about that.

 

[Darwin333]

Hundreds of towns? Try thousands.

Also, has it occurred to anyone what the consequence of hundreds of billions of dollars of cuts each year would be? If the total "value" of a typical job is $50,000 a year, then for every $100 billion cut from government spending 2 million jobs would be lost. So $2.5 trillion in cuts over 10 years is $250 billion in cuts every year = 5 million jobs lost.

This is napkin math, but it doesn't take a genius to see that huge cuts in the federal budget will cause a massive surge in unemployment. And anyone who thinks that the money NOT spent will instead be used to create at least the same number of private-sector jobs as the jobs lost is forgetting that much of the money currently funding the yearly deficit is coming from overseas investors.

For 30 years we have grown debt (or Government) faster than GDP, do some back of the napkin calculations on that and tell me how we can beat the law of exponents.

Even better, throw it in excel. Since 2000 we have had an avg GDP increase of 4.1% a year, government has roughly doubled (7% a year), use the current ubber low interest rates (lets say a blended 3% and pretend that the impossible will happen and it remains the same). Currently we spend about 11% of our budget (G) on interest, using the above spreadsheet what does that number look like in 10 years? How about 20?

And I am using very conservative numbers, government grew 11% or so a year for the last few years, GDP grew at only 2ish% and we are making the assumption that our interest rates will remain at historic lows throughout the entire chart.

Ain't very pretty is it?

Want to really get into then run the numbers starting 30 years ago (using actual yearly numbers) and graph it. Then reread the theory of exponents and tell me where you think we are on that chart (hint: exponential growth starts off relatively small and flat and then eventually goes pretty much vertical very quickly)

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

*cough*

Still waiting on nPJ to explain how Obama moving to within 2% of the GOP proposal isn't compromise, while the GOP then backtracked away from their proposal of 85/15 to move further away to 100/0.

 

[Sonikku]

What I am saying is that Obama's deal is not a deal. It is only giving Obama what he already wants.

I'm pretty sure what Obama "wants" would be to raise the debt ceiling as easily as his predecessor did on numerous occasions.

That boat has sailed.

 

[senseamp]

Let Republicans have their kicks, vote for their hopeless plan. Then it's going to be back to reality and passing an actual debt ceiling increase, not some pipe dream bill.

 

[shira]

For 30 years we have grown debt (or Government) faster than GDP, do some back of the napkin calculations on that and tell me how we can beat the law of exponents.

Even better, throw it in excel. Since 2000 we have had an avg GDP increase of 4.1% a year, government has roughly doubled (7% a year), use the current ubber low interest rates (lets say a blended 3% and pretend that the impossible will happen and it remains the same). Currently we spend about 11% of our budget (G) on interest, using the above spreadsheet what does that number look like in 10 years? How about 20?

And I am using very conservative numbers, government grew 11% or so a year for the last few years, GDP grew at only 2ish% and we are making the assumption that our interest rates will remain at historic lows throughout the entire chart.

Ain't very pretty is it?

Want to really get into then run the numbers starting 30 years ago (using actual yearly numbers) and graph it. Then reread the theory of exponents and tell me where you think we are on that chart (hint: exponential growth starts off relatively small and flat and then eventually goes pretty much vertical very quickly)

Take a look at this chart:

https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/2004-age-tables.pdf

I know it's several years old, and there is undoubtedly more recent data, but it's the best I can do based on two minutes of web surfing.

The point I want to make is that rising health care costs represent most of the "growth of government."

People think that "growth in government" means government taking over everything, expanding into areas not previously the province of government. But the reality is that almost all of the "growth" is due to health care costs (and to a lesser extent, the growth in Social Security expenses in the face of a shrinking ratio of workers to retirees).

The United States pays 50% more per capita than any other nation on earth for health care, yet Americans' life expectancy is (iirc) about 60th in the world. Clearly, our health care system is majorly messed up.

So, the secret to controlling the "growth of government" without instead bankrupting individuals (who will be forced to assume the costs shifted from government onto them if all that happens is that government expenditures are reduced) is to seriously control the growth of health care costs.

 

[trenchfoot]

Take a look at this chart:

https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/2004-age-tables.pdf

I know it's several years old, and there is undoubtedly more recent data, but it's the best I can do based on two minutes of web surfing.

The point I want to make is that rising health care costs represent most of the "growth of government."

People think that "growth in government" means government taking over everything, expanding into areas not previously the province of government. But the reality is that almost all of the "growth" is due to health care costs (and to a lesser extent, the growth in Social Security expenses in the face of a shrinking ratio of workers to retirees).

The United States pays 50% more per capita than any other nation on earth for health care, yet Americans' life expectancy is (iirc) about 60th in the world. Clearly, our health care system is majorly messed up.

So, the secret to controlling the "growth of government" without instead bankrupting individuals (who will be forced to assume the costs shifted from government onto them if all that happens is that government expenditures are reduced) is to seriously control the growth of health care costs.

IMO, controlling the cost of health care is directly tied into controlling how much profit the folks who are mining this industry gets. Ultimately, having the government regulate the profit making schemes the industry now employ is about the only way to do it at this time. Which of course, is the industry's nightmare come true which in turn motivates them to either kill the beast (gov't intervention) or own it outright.

That's what the politicians that the industry bought and own are doing at this very moment.

 

[hal2kilo]

Why do people think that only those receiving money from Uncle Sam will be affected? The deficit represents about 12% of GDP. The people that receive federal dollars use those dollars to buy things. If they can no longer buy things, that represents an actual decrease in demand. Which is going to affect those that receive government money and those who don't alike.

I live in a town pretty much dependent on three employers, the DOT, a university, and the USDA. Do you think if students don't get their loans next semester, the DOT's and USDA's budget is slashed by 50%+, and the federal research dollars stop coming in that only federal employees are going to be affected? It'll pretty much annihilate this town, and probably hundreds of others around the country. And as towns like mine start having massive defaults on their own debt, we're looking at another banking crisis (which will be worsened by the fact that banks will be holding onto billions or trillions of T-bills that aren't worth as much today as they were yesterday).

Yeah, this scenario plays out swimmingly well. So, IMO, to say that you won't be affected because there aren't many federal employees in your county is the height of arrogance.

I see someone gets it.

 

[Fern]

Why do people think that only those receiving money from Uncle Sam will be affected? -snip-

Because I'm in a small town. We don't have any university students here. We don't have any US gov offices except a few people in a small office in a bank building that handle some SS stuff.

We don't have any suppliers to Uncle Sam, nor any contractors. We don't have any military bases.

The closest park is a state park, not a national park.

We have a lot of retirees (most are rich), but they might miss SS retirement checks. However, for reasons that have already been well discussed I don't think that will happen.

I see no effect for my town or county.

Fern

 

[senseamp]

Republicans already cost this economy thousands of jobs by even threatening a shutdown/default/immediate spending cuts. Businesses are not going to hire into an expected forced austerity and government layoffs.