Compromise
Okay now look. I don’t like raising taxes. I don’t even like taxes in the first place. But I also know when it’s time to compromise. When “not raising taxes” also means “wrecking the entire global economy,” then guess what? It’s time to compromise. Compromise is what you do when you don’t have the political power to get everything you want.
Democrats want a tax increase along with spending cuts. And guess what? They control the Senate and the White House. Not inconsiderable resources, those. They’re going to get a tax increase. They’re allowed to get some of what they want, because that’s just how a compromise works.
So hey, Republicans — I know I’ve been harsh on you in the past. Still, I have a very difficult time believing that you’ll actually destroy everything. So, um, just don’t destroy everything, okay? I’d rather have some of my money go to the government than have all of my money be worthless. There’s still some time left to stop it, even.
For a long time I didn’t sweat this issue, because I figured it was all just theatrics. And it could very well still be. But what I saw last night didn’t inspire much confidence. (Of course, if it were just theatrics, that’s precisely what they’d do, and it’s not like I have any inside information.)
The thing is, just yesterday for the first time it seems that there’s a no-taxes cuts-only deal on the table for the GOP to take. Harry Reid wrote it, and apparently the White House has signed off on it.
A fair number of the conservative punditocracy supports it: James Pethokoukis, Larry Kudlow, Rich Lowry, Keith Hennessey and some others that I’m forgetting. I do too.
The problem I fear is that the rancor level got so high, it’s difficult to dial it back to any deal on any terms.Report
I’d thought it was understood that that plan wasn’t getting through because of opposition from the left.Report
No, from my understanding it’s actually worse than you thought. On Sunday, Reid and Boehner had a tentative two-step agreement that President Obama quashed, because it had two steps and the debt limit increase only goes through the end of winter next year. The Monday Reid plan finesses this by counting Afghan/Iraq war savings cuts and adds them to the discretionary cuts and gets to $2.7 T in cuts, which is enough to extend the debt limit through Election Day.
To the extent that there are substantive issues preventing a deal now, it has to do with time frame more than anything (check out Ezra Klein on this).
I think the President’s motives are transparently bogus, but if it were up to me I’d let him win that one.Report
What do you suppose his actual motives are?Report
That he doesn’t want to deal with the issue again till his second term (or ever if he’s not reelected). There’s no substantive reason why that has to be the case and a smaller deal would be easier to do than bigger one. Given that his own Secretary of the Treasury has been banging the drum about how Aug 2 is the end of the world you’d think he wouldn’t be throwing in extraneous dealbreaking crap.Report
This isn’t actually coherent as I read it. He wants a smaller deal and wants to throw in extraneous dealbreakers?
I’m thinking you’ll have to pick one before I understand what you’re getting at.Report
Sorry if I wasn’t clear before. He doesn’t want the smaller deal. He wants a deal that will last at least through Election Day. His insistence on the big deal is proving to be a dealbreaker because a smaller deal is easier to do.
It’s also extraneous because the immediate time frame that has to be resolved is Monday. After Monday, whether the new debt limit expires March or December of next year, it’s more or less the same.Report
The two-step should be DOA for any thinking Democrat. If it goes, the Republicans will cut money from everyone who isn’t one of their fat cat friends (even the ones who WANT to pay taxes) now; then they’ll cut even more on the next go-round.
Why on earth would Obama or Reid agree to that?Report
I’d say it’s not getting through because of opposition on both sides:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/173365-demint-blasts-both-dem-and-gop-debt-plans
The Tea Party contingent is uninterested in any compromise whatsoever, even if the compromise is 100% spending cuts, just spending cuts that aren’t exactly the cuts they want. Boehner seems interested in compromise, but is unwilling to compromise in a way that will ever be acceptable to enough Democrats to overcome the loss of votes from his own party who are opposed to anything that deviates even a little from their absolutist position. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid appear interested in compromise even if it is a compromise that will be opposed by most of the Dem caucus, but they’re not willing to go the full monty and just adopt the Tea Party plan in toto. And nor should they.
It’s exceedingly difficult to negotiate a compromise capable of passage when a significant chunk of the House GOP majority will vote no on any bill associated with the word “deal.”Report
“I’d say it’s not getting through because of opposition on both sides:”
Right. ‘Cuz a significant number of Congress are motivated by rancor as much as substance and this is true of both sides. The one unknown is whether Boehner can say, 180 Reps to vote for a deal he signs off on. I think he will.
In any case there should be a majority in both chambers for the Reid deal. The issue is dealing with the embarrassment of defectors and getting the leadership to sign off and getting a vote.Report
Mark, You say at the beginning
I’d say it’s not getting through because of opposition on both sides:
Fair enough: Pelosi and a significant number of House Dems have opposed the deal. But they’re almost irrelevant to determining its actual passage. Reid has signaled support for the deal, as has the White House. That leaves a handful of Dem senators as the only ‘real’ opposition.
Later, you say It’s exceedingly difficult to negotiate a compromise capable of passage when a significant chunk of the House GOP majority will vote no on any bill associated with the word “deal.”
That, I think, is the problem. The Teapartiers in the House (not the GOP old-guard!) want it all or nothing at all. The opposition is only on one side, and from one faction on one side, and has been all along.Report
To be fair, I was responding to Jason’s suggestion that the Reid plan was hopeless because of opposition from the Dems. My point was just that opposition from the Tea Partiers is at least an equal factor in the Reid plan’s hopelessness, if not more so. Since the Reid plan amounts to more or less a 99% capitulation to the GOP, the fact that the Tea Partiers won’t sign on to it is ridiculous in a way that the Dem opposition is not.
So basically I fully agree with you here.Report
So is today a good day to invest my money in one of those suspicious-looking Cash-for-Gold places, or just in a few crates of bourbon? (For the record, I’m leaning toward the bourbon.)Report
Gold’s trading near an all-time high, but I wouldn’t touch the stuff myself, for exactly that reason.
So bourbon’s looking pretty good, I have to say. And it’s not even eleven o’clock.Report
I have never heard of a situation in which caseloads of bourbon was anything other than a brilliant investment.Report
My only thought as to when it would have been a poor investment would be early December 1933. I don’t think you have anything to worry about. Go for it! I DO think it’d be an incredible investmentReport
Bourbon and shotgun shells, just in case.Report
That does add a coolness factor, but paper cups work just as well.Report
As shotgun shells? Spoken like a true liberal.Report
For the purpose of drinking bourbon out of, they work even better.Report
They’ll get my shotgun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers…Report
Or your limp, sleeping off a three-day drink fingers.Report
As for liberalism, a close and careful reading of the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and Balloon Juice has convinced me that, if I’m a liberal, I’m a really terrible one.Report
Why on earth must Liberalism be described as an amalgam of Huffpuff, Kos and Balloon Juice???Report
Can I admit something pretty horrible here? Okay! In my limited experience (not so limited given my workplace) I’ve found conversations with real life liberals to be fairly tedious and more than a bit irritating. I’d hoped I’d find some online liberals whose writings wouldn’t have the same effect, but gave up after wishing that “Salon” was a place and I could firebomb it. If you know an online liberal site where the writing isn’t smug, snarky, condescending, shallow, peurile, simplistic, and meanspirited, by all means, give me the URL.Report
I second this ^
I’m sorry to say I think its generally trueReport
It’s a bit like feminism really. My best friend is an editor at BUST and I call her a professional feminist, and we’ve had roughly this argument:
Me: I really don’t think I’m a feminist.
Her: Yes you are! Look at your marriage! Look at your work relationship! (My boss is a woman, a genius, and a good friend.)
Me: Okay, but I still don’t think I’m a feminist.
Her: Most of your beliefs are, in fact, feminist.
Me: Okay, but look, I read Feministing, Feministe, Jezebel and Shakespeare’s Sister pretty regularly and… I’m pretty sure that I’m not a feminist.Report
Ever read Coates at the Atlantic site?Report
No and you’re the second or third person to suggest him! I’ll give him a shot.Report
Rufus, this article is one of his best: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/05/-8216-this-is-how-we-lost-to-the-white-man-8217/6774/Report
Coates is an awesome one. Both Yglesia and Ezra are good and now that Uncle Marty and his crazy hour have been shoved back into the basement TNR is wonkish but good.Report
Oh and the atlantic in general is awesome and somewhat center left.Report
I read Lawyers, Guns, and Money pretty regularly. It might be smug at times, but not shallow, peurile, simplistic, or meanspirited.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com
They’re by and large center left, but the recent addition of Loomis does add a more genuine American left (which is European center left) element.Report
I haven’t read them in any depth for a long time, but they always struck me as puerile simplistic Kaus-haters.Report
Well, they are Kaus haters, but Kaus is pretty easy to hate (and easy to mock, too). I wouldn’t say it’s childish in the least, though it is harsh at times.
Then again, it is not a blog for… how’s Jaybird put it? oh yeah… ghosts.Report
Who are the ghosts again? I must have missed it.Report
It’s funny that you’re firebombing Salon. Whatever it’s faults Salon is way better than Daily Kos and BJ.Report
I’d definitely agree that Salon is better than DK or BJ, but it used to be much better than it is now, years and years ago. Also, if you take away Greenwald, it’s pretty close to Huffington Post.Report
I’d suggest Talking Points Memo. Everyone snarks a little, but they keep it to a minimum. They’re a bit more of a news-and-analysis site as a straight-out opinion blog, but they definitely don’t hide their center-leftism, and Josh Marshall’s PhD in history comes out in interesting ways at times to give historical perspective to the news.
Also: you really find Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias smug, snarky, condescending, shallow, peurile, simplistic, and meanspirited?Report
No, I didn’t say that about Klein or Yglesias, although I haven’t read much by them. Someone just suggested them that’s all.Report
Try Slacktivist. He approaches liberal causes from an evangelical point-of-view (and is rightly admired by a large number of Christians, Jews, Pagans and atheists). He may be snarky (usually for those who deserve it), but he’s rarely shallow.
And you are a feminist. Just as there are many types of liberals (and libertarians), so, too, one can be a feminist without whole-hearted acceptance of Feministing, Feministe, Jezebel and Shakespeare’s Sister.Report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCPqvW8ycEQ
Don’t underestimate cups.
And that’s all I have to say about THAT 😛Report
I share your fears Jason.
In fact, being young and naive as I am, it only just dawned on me this morning how the possible “calamity” pundits on the left are screaming about might affect me.
Yes, it would hurt the economy overall, but then I remembered I have a number of variable interest rate college loans. They’re all quite low right now, startingly so actually.
My assumption is that those would spike over the next couple months after a credit rating downgrade occurs.Report
You beg the question of whether the Democrat plan is the right one. Which is, in fact, what the whole argument is about.
“Compromise is what you do when you don’t have the political power to get everything you want…Democrats want a tax increase along with spending cuts. And guess what? They control the Senate and the White House. Not inconsiderable resources, those. They’re going to get a tax increase.”
So are the Republicans a marginalized minority wandering in the wilderness, or do they have the power to burn the whole house down if they want? Do they have power or don’t they?
If they’re as much of a threat to the Entire Global Economy then I’d suggest that maybe they have power after all, and that “go along to get along” doesn’t really apply anymore.Report
It is a starkly absurd reading of my post to suggest that I think “Republicans a marginalized minority wandering in the wilderness.”
That’s all I have to say, really.Report
It’s in the second paragraph I quoted, where you say that Democrats control the Senate and the White House and “they’re going to get a tax increase”. Like it’s a done deal, inevitable, like nothing the Republicans think or say or do matters.Report
As a matter of legal fact Density the Dems can get a tax increase no matter what the GOP thinks or says. The Bush taxes are legislated to sunset automatically and unless the Dem Senate and President allow movement on them then taxes go up no matter what the GOP does (assuming that 2012 doesn’t produce a 60 GOP majority in the Senate, a GOP president and GOP house which I dare say is a safe bet).
One thing I hope comes out of this debt deal clusterfish is that Obama is finally well and truly over his post partisanship kick and is actually ready to play some politics at last.Report
That’s a very good point, and for me at least a good position for the Republicans (and America) to be in. I suspect that when time comes the re-expiration of the Bush tax cuts are at least as likely to be a Demo problem as a GOP problem (like it was last time for that matter).
I for one am tired of the idea that the Republicans are the valiant defenders of low tax rates while the rest of America rests safely in their homes. If the American people want low taxes, they should pick up the habit of bringing the hammer down on the Demo’s when they try to raise taxes otherwise they can all go up.
Btw, I think it’s fair to say at this point you’ve exaggerated the ability of the Demo’s to preserve the fiscal integrity of American governance, right? Or are you still holding on to that one.Report
As I stated before, Kz ol buddy, I’ll concede that the Dem’s will allow a default or credit downgrade only once it occurs. I’ll also note that you continue to fail to define what point you will concede to being wrong.
But then, watching the teaparty’s more excitable congresscritters gibber about how a default would be no big deal, maybe you’re not quite as dead certain that the GOP is the one great hope for prosperity and the survival of America today?Report
Well, I’ve already written my reservations with the Tea Party’s role in these negotiations in the other post.
About the business of waiting for default to happen, that’s part of the contention. The point being, the Demo’s are only group, contributing to an omelette created by many chefs. We shouldn’t presume that they can guarantee something that requires more than they can deliver.
As far as what I’m supposed to be wrong about, I’m forgetting the context.Report
The discussion was whether the Democrats would ever permit the nation to have its credit downgraded. I stated they were too centrist and too politically inclined to allow it as long as they have the power to prevent it. I’d note that the Dems’ with their rapid shift to the right and Obama’s endless compromises culminating in Reids latest offering strongly supports my position.
You asserted the opposite, that the Dems would let the country’s credit rating be downgraded rather than allow cuts in spending or other actions unpalatable to their base or ideology.Report
No no no. Part of this is a substantive disagreement between us, but there’s also a semantic misunderstanding on your part which needs to be cleared up, because it’s an important constituent of the frame of mind leading to the substantive mistake imo.
You wrote, the institutional Democratic party and its inherent bankerness, is a guarantee against the possibility of a credit agency downgrade of US Treasuries (or default on them for that matter).
My problem with this is that it overstates the commitment of the Demo’s wrt financial responsibility, but more importantly is an attempt to assign agency in places where it doesn’t exist. If it happened that the United States wins the Women’s World Cup, it did not happen because of the commitment of Democrats to fiscal responsibility. In the event, of course, this did not happen so the Demo’s are absolved of blame.
Similarly, the idea that in our current fiscal environment, the essential banker nature of the Democratic party is a guarantee against credit agency downgrade is almost certainly a bridge too far, no matter who “they” are. Events happen in the economic world, and policymakers only have partial control over them. The more uncertain the environment, the more reliable policy must be to guarantee anything. Demo economic policy has to be substantially different from what it is to guarantee that rating agencies won’t downgrade US Treasury debt.Report
Well there’s definitely a fundamental difference there and also a misunderstanding, I agree. I would never assert that just because the Democrats have a lot of bankers that inherent quality would make a downgrade impossible. Anything I’ve written that suggests that is either a miswrite on my part or a misread on yours. The credit ratings aren’t some secret club where as long as you have the right people in the party it becomes impossible. My point is very simply that the Democratic Party has a lot of bankers and neoliberals in it and many of them in very influential positions of power or policy recommendation. My point is also that the Democratic Party has a lot of pragmatic politically minded people in it again in very influential positions of power or policy recommendation. Both of those groups of people know that credit downgrades or other fiscal mismanagement would be a disaster for the country and a disaster for their party. Because of their understanding of these realities I do not believe that they would allow their party to drive the country into a default or rating decrease if they had the power to prevent it. You can read any number of further lefty sites and hear the left wing of the party bemoaning just that pragmatism. In your past (though pleasingly not your most recent) writing you’ve seemed convinced that the Democratic party is some sort of 50’s era collection of collectivist madmen(and women) who would very happily disregard the finances and crash the country into a ditch rather than cut anything from the budget which is where my assertion to the contrary has come from.
I submit that the current shape of how things have gone on this debt ceiling matter is a powerful data point in favor of my view. Obama didn’t want to get into contractionary fiscal policy because he wants to give the economy as much gas as possible to give himself a better shot at reelection (and fulfill his duty to the country). That is why he pretty much gave the store away to the GOP on the sun setting Bush tax cuts a few months back in return for some additional tax credits and unemployment extensions and it explains all of his behavior since. The GOP forced him and his party to the wall on this debt ceiling issue. A dogmatic leftist party like the one you accuse the Dems of being would, in control of the Senate and Presidency, tell the GOP to go fish themselves when presented with this kind of ultimatum. Now, despite all the weeks of GOP spin we see that Reid, with Obama’s endorsement, has capitulated and offered a deal chock-a-block with spending cuts with not even the modest revenue increases they previously (very reasonably) asked for. This is not the behavior of an ideological liberal party; it’s the behavior of an adult center left party doing what it needs to to prevent a default and it pretty much completely falsifies your assertions about them.
Meanwhile the party that is the only hope for America’s fiscal fortune appears to be convulsing and tearing itself up inside because one faction actually wants a default if they can’t get a constitutional amendment in 8 days and because another related faction won’t take the deal because it’s a deal with Obama and they don’t want to accept their victory if it’ll in any way make him look good. I mean holy heaving hell on hockey puck what the heck do the Dems have to do?Report
Oh and on tax rates the public has already expressed their opinion that they want the federal budget balanced with a combination of cuts, reforms AND tax increases (from their historically low levels). So I doubt that the GOP’d be happy with there tax levels went were it left to the public.Report
I don’t know, I hope they run the same play as last time. We’re not decoupling anything, either they go up for everybody or go up for nobody. Either one is ok by me.Report
We’ll see what happens.Report
Which public is that? The voting public, which includes the 50% of the US population who NEVER pay taxes or the taxpaying public who are supporting them and everyone else?
Fundamentally, I think taxpayers are the ones who should have the strongest say in all this. Our founding fathers made it so only landowners could vote originally mainly to discourage the panem et circenses crowd. Unfortunately that tipping point has already been breached and we will continue to have knife edge elections until the getting handout crowd wins, which inevitably they will. This took down Rome and it will take the US down too, and we won’t last even the 1000 years Rome did.
Much of the rest of this economic exercise is merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.Report
That’s an adorable little trope but utterly false. I mean come on old bean, the poor pay no taxes, really?
I mean sure there is a bracket in which they don’t pay income taxes but they still pay property taxes, sales taxes, social security taxes, many state taxes and on and on. Also those taxes they do pay take an enormously bigger proportional bite from their income than any of the taxes paid by the wealthy or even middle class.
I mean even the transients under the overpass shell out taxes when they’re buying their Listerine with panhandling money.Report
I have to agree with Jason…I’m really not sure what you’re getting at DensityDuck. I think the point of his article is that it’s NOT as simple as does or does not have power. His point is that Republicans DO have the power to hold the world hostage, but Democrats have enough power that they could too. He’s saying they have the power to run the economy into the ground but not enough to get what they want without the Senate or the White House.
I’m also not sure where Jason begs the question? Could you be a little more clear about that?Report
“I’m also not sure where Jason begs the question?”
How about the part where he says ““not raising taxes” also means “wrecking the entire global economy””?Report
I think that he meant that not compromising with the democrats by refusing to raise taxes (and thereby defaulting) would ruin the economy. He would only be begging the question if he were saying that the act of raising taxes in and of itself would save the economy (which…if I know Jason, he won’t be taking that mindset any time soon)! Jason’s point has nothing to do with taxes, it has to do with compromise. There’s no doubt that not reaching a compromise would be catastrophic. It is debatable whether the Dems will come to the table if tax increases are out of the question, but using that as a premise is NOT begging the question. It is starting with a premise that is not necessarily true, although very likely! (I suppose it’s possible that the Dems will accept a proposal with no tax increases)
1) if there is no gop concession on taxes, the dems will not come to the table
2) if both parties do not come to the table, things will be awful
Therefore
If there is no gop concession on taxes, then things will be awful.
No begging the question there!Report
Just what I meant, and thank you.Report
“I think that he meant that not compromising with the democrats by refusing to raise taxes (and thereby defaulting) would ruin the economy.”
…which is begging the question of whether increasing taxes will save the economy.
Do you understand what “begging the question” actually means?Report
I am not asserting that there is a causal relation between increasing taxes and saving the economy.
I am asserting that there is a causal relation between not defaulting and saving the economy.
I’m also not explaining myself again.Report
Everything in your post talks about “tax increase”. I guess I’m responding to what you actually wrote and not what you thought you were writing.Report
Well…it’s not about a tax increase, so much as republicans saying OK to a tax increase 😛Report
My meaning was plain enough to the others, who re-explained it to you before I even had the chance.
Your interpretation requires willful amnesia about current events. It seems uncharitable to say the least.Report
If you’re trying to say “Republican opposition is based solely in intransigence and will lead to a breakdown of the government process”, then it must also be true that “raising taxes will fix all the problems”. Because if it isn’t true that raising taxes will fix all the problems, then it’s no longer inherently true that there’s no principled reason to disagree with the proposed tax increases.
So. You are indeed begging the question of whether raising taxes will solve the problems, because if you want to claim that Republicans are just being assholes then you can’t allow them to have a valid argument.Report
Or, one might just think that cutting spending is not important ENOUGH to warrent not raising the debt ceiling at this time.
So I could not think raising taxes are the solution, but still think that whatever spending cuts Republicans want are not at this point worth the damage a non-deal would yield.Report
In this political context, yes. But it is a gross misrepresentation to say that I favor a tax increase as an ideal solution or as effective in itself.Report
Perhaps the added tags will help show that there is no begging the question. It’s not assuming that there is no reason not to raise taxes. It’s assuming that IF conscessions on taxes are not made, THEN democrats will not come to the table. Which will lead to bad things. the fact that it’s taxes is irrelevant logically. if the Dems wouldnt come to the table unless the republicans served them tea, then the case would be the same. IF the republicans did not serve tea, THEN the democrats would not come to the table. IF both parties dont come to the table, THEN things will be bad. THEREFORE IF the republicans don’t serve tea, THEN things will be bad.
Logically speaking it has nothing to do with taxes, it has to do with compromise. Serving tea in and of itself won’t save the economy, but if it’s what needs to happen to save the economy, then it’s what needs to happen, and it should be done! there is no assumption that gop being ok with raising taxes will save the economy EXCEPT that it will bring both parties to the table.
PS:
I’ve laid out the premises and conclusion as clearly and plainly as humanly possible. There is no fallacious overlap between the premises and the conclusions.Report
“But it is a gross misrepresentation to say that I favor a tax increase as an ideal solution or as effective in itself.”
Well then I guess you’re right, and I didn’t understand what you were writing. I thought that you were trying to discuss whether the Republican resistance to raised taxes was rooted in valid concerns. But what you were actually writing was “boy, those Republicans, what a bunch of assholes, eh?”Report
Sigh.Report
Yes, thank you, I do. Do you? I’ve laid out his argument in such a way that it’s clear that he’s NOT begging the question…Report
Oh, i think I see what you mean. The confusion is (as far as I can tell) that you think he’s making the case that raising taxes will save the economy, which he’s not.
He’s making the case that IF raising taxes will save the economy (indirectly, through allowing for a compromise), THEN the gop should make that happen.
I hope this is where the confusion lay?Report
My plan…
Everyone gets their taxes raised by X% and every single thing gets funding cut by Y%. Raise the dept ceiling, but make it contingent on those two conditions. We all had a role in making this situation so we all have to pay the piper.Report
You’re obviously not a politician, because that makes way too much sense.Report
You’re right, Mike. What was I thinking. I need several more pitch forks and torches if I want to make change.Report
Or someone windmills to tilt at.Report
I’m impressed the GOP under a suddenly stiff-backed Speaker is holding the line on meaningful, real, spending cuts…first time in my life! If they don’t get around $5 trillion in real cuts the US gummint’s credit rating goes in the shitter. The commie-Dems don’t appear either interested or willing to participate in these necessary reductions in spending. Barry seems confused.Report
Wouldn’t it be easier and narrow the risks to just take Nancy Pelosi hostange and threaten to shoot her in the head if they don’t get what they want? I mean, since what they’re doing now is so noble, but could put the economy in the shitter.Report
“Wouldn’t it be easier and narrow the risks to just take Nancy Pelosi hostange and threaten to shoot her in the head if they don’t get what they want? ”
Would you call that the Loughner Method?Report
I think it’s most accurately called the Loughner Method if you threaten to kill her if she doesn’t explain why grammar is a lie.Report
Actually Bob so long as the debt limit is increased the credit rating will be fine. Though goodness knows some cuts and tax increases would help seal that deal.Report
Rufus, and DD, all this violence talk, this gun and shootin’ talk, is going to get you a verbal reprimand from the powers that be.
Northie, I heard the bond rating people wanted a direction change, in spending that is, and weren’t so concerned about debt ceiling, but you’re my econ go-to guy. Also, Rushbo is bringing it to our attention that the baseline is messed up because of Barry’s ‘stimulus’ plan and his exploding gummint spending..again, what-a-I-know.Report
The bond peeps care about only two things; the debt limit and the trajectory of federal solvency. The former can be assured simply by raising the debt ceiling. The latter can be assured through spending cuts, tax increases or (the publically preferred) a combination of both.
So long as the traders see the country paying its bills the credit rating won’t change.Report
No snark intended but how does one support the idea of giving this administration more tax dollars, given their proclivities to spend recklessly? Barry’s shown no interest in reducing the debt, in fact he seems determined to financially break the nation.
The commie-dems are like fiscal alcoholics..give ’em money and they’ll make/find a ‘program’ to spend it on.
BTW, I may be asking you to put together a committee for Canadian’s to hep feed America!Report
Ask the Republicans. They were quite content to let GWB borrow money by the forkful. I’m sure they can figure out how it’s done.Report
Bob, no snark intended back but considering how much of Obama’s spending consisted of A) putting onto the books the various expenses that Bush the immensely lesser had kept off of them (little thinks like all the costs of both wars for instance!) and B) things that were fallouts from Bush policies I don’t think that the arrows dig quite as deeply as GOP spinmeisters would prefer. Recall if you will that more than half the public still hold Bush more accountable than Obama for many of the problems he is wrestling with which suggests the public does have at least some political memory.
Now Obama has been no great spending cutter and believe me I’m none to fond of his political choices on that matter but the bank busting that this country has endured, such as it is, is a bipartisan albatross.Report
If only Obama would stop appropriating money to spend on his reckless Kenyan socialism…oh wait, that’s Congress!Report
Which public is that? The voting public, which includes the 50% of the US population who NEVER pay taxes or the taxpaying public who are supporting them and everyone else?
Sadly, No!
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/07/51-zombie-lie
Bottom line: Poor people pay less in taxes than rich people, as they should, but it’s very far from zero. The midpoint of that first quintile [i.e. the lowest 20% of income earners] is about $11,000, and even a household earning that little pays about $1,400 in taxes. The household in the second quintile, earning a munificent $30,000 per year, pays $7,000 in taxes.Report