Will Republicans vote to increase the debt ceiling?

[PokerGuy]

So are you discrediting her for being wrong on the facts or in spite of the facts? What part of what was presented wasn't accurate?

She's a complete idiot and anything she presents should be viewed from that perspective. As usual she spins her lies with things taken out of context, leaving out pertinent facts, leftist stupidity and such.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

She's a complete idiot and anything she presents should be viewed from that perspective. As usual she spins her lies with things taken out of context, leaving out pertinent facts, leftist stupidity and such.

What part of what was presented were lies? It's all a matter of public record. Other than it's contradictory to your view what was incorrectly presented in the piece minus the editorial commentary?

 

[rudder]

They will vote to increase it. But hey... this is good political ammunition in the meantime. I do not believe they are not going to try to completely gut medicare and SS. The voters would riot.... everyone in congress knows this.

 

[senseamp]

Sounds like Coburn wants to add amendment to raise Medicare age from 65 to 67 to the debt limit bill. Yep, screw the 65 year olds, but let hedge fund managers keep not paying income taxes on their income.

 

[brencat]

if history is any indication, Obama will give them everything they're asking for.

This Craig ^

I believe the Repubs pulled out of the talks because they have calculated (based on Obama giving in on the tax cut extensions) that he is WEAK, and will ultimately cave and give in to MOST of their demands.

Obama may surprise us but I don't think so. In addition to cutting spending I personally believe we also need to raise taxes, particularly targeting the top 0.1%, and those on this forum know I prefer the capital gains tax route (raising to 25-28%) and eliminating carried interest as 2 good first steps.

But I don't think Obama has it in him to fight for what he believes, because I'm not sure he really believes in anything. He is also not really the confrontational type either which makes him a weak president and ill suited for this job.

 

[ProfJohn]

The basic benefits to them of doing so are that a destroyed economy helps them in 2012,

So what you are saying is that the Democrats destroyed the economy so that Obama could win election?

Makes sense. When Democrats took over congress in 2006 we had a nice strong economy.

 

[cubby1223]

Here's a clip from Rachel Maddow with information that they may want that harm.

*sigh*

The basic benefits to them of doing so are that a destroyed economy helps them in 2012

This is why I call Maddow the left's version of Glenn Beck. Her conclusions are purely partisan & ideologically based. Do you *really* believe Republicans want to see this country destroyed? Actually, I know you do sincerely believe that.

Glenn Beck is able to generate the beliefs in his followers that progressives want America destroyed for the benefit of their ideological beliefs. And he's good at convincing people of it.

These two are one in the same. Each relies on a specific view of the world. If you share that view, then everything will appear perfectly fact based and sound reasoning. If you do not share the view of either, then they appear as nutjobs.

It goes on to point out that under Bush Republicans voted to increase the debt ceiling several times (9 IIRC); under Obama, all three votes have had 2 or fewer Republicans.

As long as we're playing the partisan hypocrisy game, isn't the whole main point of Obama been that we cannot repeat the mistakes of the past? We cannot continue with the failed policies of the past? We cannot do the same actions and expect different results? Therefore, we should support not raising the debt ceiling.



My personal opinion is I have not seen a plan from either party that I think is an actual viable solution to the debt problem.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

obvious counter argument: in a terrible recession, drastic spending cuts exacerbate the economic issues.

This correlation is not obvious to me and many other people.

 

[ProfJohn]

Both sides are acting like retards. A simple look at spending & revenue figures shows that gov't spending is historically high as a percentage of GDP, and tax revenues are at a historical low. Anyone who pretends that we can restore fiscal sanity without some tax increases AND cuts to spending (including Medicare and Social Security) is an idiot.

Tax rates haven't been changed in 8+ years and yet revenue is dropping.

The rise and decline of revenue is related far more to the economy than too tax rates.

 

[Anarchist420]

It's the Republicans who will cave in on this, not Obama.

There are also two types of defaults, which are repudiation and monetization. The former pays the creditors nothing, revalues the dollar, and lets the people off the hook, while the latter destroys the dollar and barely gives anything to the creditors.

If I were in Congress, I'd be telling everyone that we need to repudiate it, that by doing so they'd be let off the hook, and that unemployment would be at historic lows 6 months from now. Also, no one would loan anyone another dime.

However, that's just a fucking pipe dream, because in the case of default they wouldn't repudiate it, they'd monetize it because Congress just fucking loves inflation and they want to destroy society.

 

[Tom]

Again, this has to be pointed out, going back to clinton era tax rates for the rich will get us another 100 billion at the most?

Thats 1/16th of the problem. What do democrats propose for the other 15/16ths of the problem?

Is there anything besides revenue increases?

Government is spending at almost 25% of GDP, we've only had tax receipts that get to 20% of GDP. You're never going to get there with revenue increases, its just not gonna happen. So what do you propose?

It's ridiculous to look at the deficit the way you are. We arent going to reduce the deficit to zero in one step.

$100 billion in revenue increases is 1/4 of a reasonable goal of $4 trillion over 10 years.
Get out of Iraq would probably be another $100 billion per year.

The remaining $200 billion is more difficult.
1. Afghanistan- I would get out.
2. I wouldn't buy the F22 or as many ships.
3. cut healthcare to 15% gdp, somehow. that would reduce Medicare spending.
4. Painful cuts

I think all of that could get us $400 billion per year, or more.

 

[ProfJohn]

Here is reality...

Republicans win NOT agree to tax increases. Just as Democrat would not agree to cutting pay or benefits for public unions. It would be suicide for the parties to do either.

However, the ethanol debate has opened to possibility that Republicans may be willing to end tax subsidies since it is not actually a tax increase. (that topic is still debated and the anti-tax forces are against their elimination)

So a possible compromise is to end subsidies for ethanol, oil and perhaps some other areas and match it with spending freezes and the elimination of some spending. (if we are lucky)

And the end result is one step closer to solving our problem. Might not be a big step, but might be all we can get in this political and economic climate.

 

[ProfJohn]

If I were in Congress...

that's just a fucking pipe dream,

FTFY

 

[umbrella39]

obvious counter argument: can't raise taxes in a terrible recession. Cut spending to align with income instead.

obvious counter argument v2.0: don't start two wars and then fund them with sweeping tax cuts for all.

 

[ProfJohn]

It's ridiculous to look at the deficit the way you are. We arent going to reduce the deficit to zero in one step.

$100 billion in revenue increases is 1/4 of a reasonable goal of $4 trillion over 10 years.
Get out of Iraq would probably be another $100 billion per year.

The remaining $200 billion is more difficult.
1. Afghanistan- I would get out.
2. I wouldn't buy the F22 or as many ships.
3. cut healthcare to 15% gdp, somehow. that would reduce Medicare spending.
4. Painful cuts

I think all of that could get us $400 billion per year, or more.

1. Iraq spending should be less than $20 billion next year.
Afghanistan is close to $80-100 billion
2. F-22 we need, the ships we could do without.
3. Cutting healthcare is nearly impossible, especially for Democrats. When you run commercials showing Republicans pushing old people off cliffs it becomes hard to turn around can call for cuts yourself.
4. Cutting spending is nearly impossible, best we can hope for is reducing spending growth. Perhaps locking spending increases to 2% for the next decade.

 

[ProfJohn]

obvious counter argument v2.0: don't start two wars and then fund them with sweeping tax cuts for all.

obvious counter argument v3.0: don't increase spending from 20% of GDP to 24% of GDP and then proclaim that we have a revenue problem.

 

[ProfJohn]

Here's a clip from Rachel Maddow with information that they may want that harm.

I'll just counter that with Craig's response for another thread.

This sounds like typical {Craig-parroted MSNBC} propaganda.

What does it actually contribute to any solution? Nothing.

The normal pattern is to cherry pick (at best, invent at worst) points to create a false attack story. They get debunked over and over, is it worth the bother. Hard to see why.

 

[Tom]

1. Iraq spending should be less than $20 billion next year.
Afghanistan is close to $80-100 billion
2. F-22 we need, the ships we could do without.
3. Cutting healthcare is nearly impossible, especially for Democrats. When you run commercials showing Republicans pushing old people off cliffs it becomes hard to turn around can call for cuts yourself.
4. Cutting spending is nearly impossible, best we can hope for is reducing spending growth. Perhaps locking spending increases to 2% for the next decade.

That commercial isn't helpful. Neither was Republicans not participating in real healthcare reform but instead using it for political purposes.

I agree with your basic sentiment which is that strident politics on both sides is the real probelm, the deficit numbers are solvable pretty easily and not all that painful, with some reasonableness on both sides.

 

[woolfe9999]

Here is reality...

Republicans win NOT agree to tax increases. Just as Democrat would not agree to cutting pay or benefits for public unions. It would be suicide for the parties to do either.

However, the ethanol debate has opened to possibility that Republicans may be willing to end tax subsidies since it is not actually a tax increase. (that topic is still debated and the anti-tax forces are against their elimination)

So a possible compromise is to end subsidies for ethanol, oil and perhaps some other areas and match it with spending freezes and the elimination of some spending. (if we are lucky)

And the end result is one step closer to solving our problem. Might not be a big step, but might be all we can get in this political and economic climate.

Interesting. Is ending these tax breaks and subsidies actually on the table for discussion right now? How much does it amount to in total $$$?

BTW your reasoning as to what each party will not do is probably accurate. This is why we need a centrist third party who will tackle problems pragmatically and not market itself to ideologues.

- wolf

 

[ProfJohn]

Obama wants to end the oil subsidies.

But that only amounts to $20 billion a year. So it is a small start at best.

What we really need is to tackle entitlements, but that won't happen pre-2013. Too close to an election.

 

[manimal]

Tax rates haven't been changed in 8+ years and yet revenue is dropping.

The rise and decline of revenue is related far more to the economy than too tax rates.

The crux of our economic problems directly relate to aggregate demand. The people who are out of work or underemployed are not spending. Corporations are not spending either. Austerity will only exacerbate this issue in the short term.

 

[senseamp]

Obama wants to end the oil subsidies.

But that only amounts to $20 billion a year. So it is a small start at best.

What we really need is to tackle entitlements, but that won't happen pre-2013. Too close to an election.

That's $200Billion over 10 years, 10% of what GOP is asking him to cut. Cut ethanol subsidies, require hedge fund managers to pay income taxes, let Bush tax cuts expire, and before you know you are talking about real money.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

She's a complete idiot and anything she presents should be viewed from that perspective. As usual she spins her lies with things taken out of context, leaving out pertinent facts, leftist stupidity and such.

Kind of like a liberal version of you? totally consumed by partisanship, blind to comprimise and convinced that your idiotic beliefs are correct and all that rightwing stupidy and such. Got it

 

[GuitarDaddy]

So what you are saying is that the Democrats destroyed the economy so that Obama could win election?

Makes sense. When Democrats took over congress in 2006 we had a nice strong economy.

Bwahhaaahaa! You've got to be kidding I guess thats why we tripled the national debt under GWB's last term. Just because the stock market and housing were booming doesn't mean we had a strong or sustainable economy.


Calling for drastic cuts at this time by republicans is hillarious, for eight years they cheered as GWB slashed taxes and spent like a drunken sailor on shore leave driving the debt from 1trillon to 3trillion tanking the economy and single handedly causing the great depression part duex and raising the debt ceiling 9 times and never once made the slightest attempt to cut spending.

And if the dumbass GOP wants to play chicken with our economy bring it the fuck on. Default on all our obligations see if we give a damn, the 1%er's who have your nuts in their pockets have much more to lose. Let see how they like it when their stock portfolio's sink like a rock and the cost of financing triples. And we still won't vote for your shit in 2012

 

[a777pilot]

The status is that Republicans are placing big demands as 'conditions' for voting to increase it - 'holding the global economy hostage' as leverage to make demands for their agenda.

I hope they hold out for real spending cuts but I have little faith in the Republicans to do what is right for the country. They, the Republicans, are just a different wing of the same "Big Government Party" as the Democrats.