PDA

View Full Version : Debt ceiling increase spun for Obama...



Soflasnapper
08-01-2011, 01:09 PM
This is an interesting take, which I'm still thinking over. It might help explain why the right is still opposing this deal.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> From TPM Reader RW ...

Let me get this straight. The President kept revenues on the table, did not touch the sunset provisions in the Bush tax cuts, ensured that military cuts keep the GOP honest, protected Medicare by adding in only provider cuts in the trigger, made the reduction apparently enough to stave off a debt downgrade, got the debt ceiling raised, wounded Boehner by demonstrating to the world that he is controlled by the Tea Party caucus, took out the requirement that a BBA be passed and sent to the states and got the extension through 2012? What exactly is wrong with this deal?

The fact that there are cuts? If people don't like that, why in God's name didn't they turn out to vote and bring back our Congressional majority? Once these nut jobs were in there, it was inevitable that this crap was going to happen. Whether or not it is advisable to cut spending, what exactly was going to stop this from happening? My experience is that the primary factor in all negotiations are the facts on the ground. The complaints center on a ridiculous notion that if the President had only said "no" harder, that these guys would have caved in. This isn't negotiating over who gets the side of the bed near the A/C. This is a complex matter involving 3,000 members and staffers. Negotiations in these situations don't work like this. That's why I'm irked by the constant parade of people comparing the negotiations to movies and card games. These comparisons obscure more than they reveal.

The GOP came out of this looking unreasonable--I've been getting E-mail messages from friends saying they are back with the Democrats because the Tea Party is "destroying this country." Nate Silver tweeted last week that local conservative talk radio in Kansas was filled with callers attacking the Tea Party! The Wall Street Journal ran two editorials which called the GOP delusional and "childish." The vaunted GOP message discipline broke down--I read stories all over the "inside baseball" papers here in DC where GOP House members went on the record after the Friday vote wondering out loud if the party had been damaged! I don't know if you noticed, but John Boehner spent last week negotiating with himself. No new proposals came out from the Dem side, but he produced two proposals, one of which he had to pull after he didn't have votes. A congressional Dem staffer told me his dad, an urban Catholic who voted for Nixon over Kennedy and has always voted Republican suddenly thinks the GOP is out to lunch and supports the President.

Hey, we all hate the pain, but this is an ongoing process. They are going to try this again with a government shutdown. When that happens, I'm pretty sure that the country will be resoundingly against a repeat of these types of hijinks.

On a better note, we know that Boehner has the votes if Mitt Romney "sticks his neck out" opposing the deal. </div></div>

LWW
08-01-2011, 02:08 PM
No matter what is in it ... the moonbat crazy left will spin it for Obama.

Gayle in MD
08-01-2011, 02:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is an interesting take, which I'm still thinking over. It might help explain why the right is still opposing this deal.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> From TPM Reader RW ...

Let me get this straight. The President kept revenues on the table, did not touch the sunset provisions in the Bush tax cuts, ensured that military cuts keep the GOP honest, protected Medicare by adding in only provider cuts in the trigger, made the reduction apparently enough to stave off a debt downgrade, got the debt ceiling raised, wounded Boehner by demonstrating to the world that he is controlled by the Tea Party caucus, took out the requirement that a BBA be passed and sent to the states and got the extension through 2012? What exactly is wrong with this deal?

The fact that there are cuts? If people don't like that, why in God's name didn't they turn out to vote and bring back our Congressional majority? Once these nut jobs were in there, it was inevitable that this crap was going to happen. Whether or not it is advisable to cut spending, what exactly was going to stop this from happening? My experience is that the primary factor in all negotiations are the facts on the ground. The complaints center on a ridiculous notion that if the President had only said "no" harder, that these guys would have caved in. This isn't negotiating over who gets the side of the bed near the A/C. This is a complex matter involving 3,000 members and staffers. Negotiations in these situations don't work like this. That's why I'm irked by the constant parade of people comparing the negotiations to movies and card games. These comparisons obscure more than they reveal.

The GOP came out of this looking unreasonable--I've been getting E-mail messages from friends saying they are back with the Democrats because the Tea Party is "destroying this country." Nate Silver tweeted last week that local conservative talk radio in Kansas was filled with callers attacking the Tea Party! The Wall Street Journal ran two editorials which called the GOP delusional and "childish." The vaunted GOP message discipline broke down--I read stories all over the "inside baseball" papers here in DC where GOP House members went on the record after the Friday vote wondering out loud if the party had been damaged! I don't know if you noticed, but John Boehner spent last week negotiating with himself. No new proposals came out from the Dem side, but he produced two proposals, one of which he had to pull after he didn't have votes. A congressional Dem staffer told me his dad, an urban Catholic who voted for Nixon over Kennedy and has always voted Republican suddenly thinks the GOP is out to lunch and supports the President.

Hey, we all hate the pain, but this is an ongoing process. They are going to try this again with a government shutdown. When that happens, I'm pretty sure that the country will be resoundingly against a repeat of these types of hijinks.

On a better note, we know that Boehner has the votes if Mitt Romney "sticks his neck out" opposing the deal. </div></div> </div></div>

I don't think there is any question that Boehner has made a total fool of himself.

No question that the radical Tea Party extremists are now controlling the Grand Oil Party, which is just another way of saying that the six corporations who finaned, bribed and bought the Tea Party, own the House Of Representatives, and Grover Norquist will continue with his fascist program, quite easily.

Polls I've seen show the vast majority are against the Tea Paty, annd their numbers have been dropping, along with Repiglicans numbers, continuously, throughout this ridiculous Debt Ceiling crisis, a crisis completely created by Repiglicans.

Cutting spending, will not create jobs, just the opposite.

G.


G.

Soflasnapper
08-01-2011, 04:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No matter what is in it ... the moonbat crazy left will spin it for Obama. </div></div>

SOME may indeed do that, but not the real left, which is in open revolt, buyers' remorse, shoulda put Hillary there instead, etc.

Obama isn't a leftist president, and he has scant leftist support, if you mean people really on the left, who have complained bitterly at every turn at which Obama failed to even try to propose what the left preferred. Ditching Elizabeth Warren was one of the last straws, after health care reform, after the last tax deal late last year, and now after this.

Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader are hardly singing his praises, and in fact, Nader has announced a high profile effort to primary Obama with a credible leftist just a day or so ago.

As previously noted many times, you have no regard for any accepted definitions, and put mushy liberals into the crazy left, for I guess political rhetoric purposes.

But it's very very wrong as to the real meanings of these terms.

Enjoy your solipsistic universe, but none can really join you there, and in fact, we cannot even quite see it from here, where the rest of us live.

Stretch
08-01-2011, 11:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No matter what is in it ... the moonbat crazy left will spin it for Obama. </div></div>

SOME may indeed do that, but not the real left, which is in open revolt, buyers' remorse, shoulda put Hillary there instead, etc.

Obama isn't a leftist president, and he has scant leftist support, if you mean people really on the left, who have complained bitterly at every turn at which Obama failed to even try to propose what the left preferred. Ditching Elizabeth Warren was one of the last straws, after health care reform, after the last tax deal late last year, and now after this.

Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader are hardly singing his praises, and in fact, Nader has announced a high profile effort to primary Obama with a credible leftist just a day or so ago.

As previously noted many times, you have no regard for any accepted definitions, and put mushy liberals into the crazy left, for I guess political rhetoric purposes.

But it's very very wrong as to the real meanings of these terms.

Enjoy your solipsistic universe, but none can really join you there, and in fact, we cannot even quite see it from here, where the rest of us live. </div></div>

Eloquently said. St.

eg8r
08-02-2011, 06:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cutting spending, will not create jobs, just the opposite.
</div></div>You are mixing two separate issues. Cutting spending helps bring our debt under control and limits the need to borrow more to make existing payments. I am sure it has happened somewhere but could you point out where anyone has ever made the argument that cutting spending would create jobs?

eg8r

LWW
08-02-2011, 07:02 AM
NEARLY ... (http://www.businessinsider.com/want-to-create-jobs-cut-government-spending-2011-3)

EVERY ... (http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/23/cutting-spending-will-create-jobs/)

ECONOMIC ... (http://mondaymorningeconomist.com/wordpress/?p=18)

ANALYSIS ... (http://augustafreepress.com/2011/01/28/robert-hurt-cutting-government-spending-to-create-jobs-and-grow-the-economy/)

not associated with the democrook party suggests exactly that.

Sev
08-02-2011, 07:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cutting spending, will not create jobs, just the opposite.
</div></div>You are mixing two separate issues. Cutting spending helps bring our debt under control and limits the need to borrow more to make existing payments. I am sure it has happened somewhere but could you point out where anyone has ever made the argument that cutting spending would create jobs?

eg8r </div></div>

Your wasting good oxygen on a brain dead victim.

LWW
08-02-2011, 08:50 AM
If George Bush invented a single dose pill that cured AIDS, all forms of cancer, mumps, measles, and PMS with no adverse side effects and sold for one US dollar ... charlotte would start a thread titled:

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>BUSH AND REPIGLICANS PLOT TO TAKE LAST DOLLAR FROM THE POOR!</span>

Qtec
08-02-2011, 09:51 AM
OMG! the first 2 links are to the daily caller! and the 3rd one REFUTES your argument.

I quote the first line. [ bet you never even read it.]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>The largest government spending full employment project in the nations history not only pulled us out of a depression, it doubled the pay of wage earners and so doubled the size of the economy in 5 years. It was WWII.</span>

It seems we are about to test the theory <span style='font-size: 14pt'>that doing the diametric opposite of what worked so spectacularly in WWII will have the same effect.</span>
According to the GOP, this unlikely formula for creating jobs is supposed to work like this:

Reducing the deficit/debt will create jobs by lowering the likelihood that taxes will have to go up to balance the budget.

<u>That’s it. Trickle Down, again. It’s been “cleverly” re-branded as deficit reduction.</u> </div></div>

LOL

The already made cuts in govt spending has put another 500,000 out of work.


Q

the 4th link, impressive. HQ.

http://augustafreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/campaignheadquarters1.gif

Qtec
08-02-2011, 10:03 AM
Nobel prize winning Economist.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The President Surrenders
By PAUL KRUGMAN

A deal to raise the federal debt ceiling is in the works. If it goes through, many commentators will declare that disaster was avoided. But they will be wrong.

For the deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and not just for President Obama and his party. <u>It will damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America’s long-run deficit problem worse, not better;</u> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status.</span>

Start with the economics. We currently have a deeply depressed economy. We will almost certainly continue to have a depressed economy all through next year. And we will probably have a depressed economy through 2013 as well, if not beyond.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'><u>The worst thing you can do in these circumstances is slash government spending,</u> since that will depress the economy even further. Pay no attention to those who invoke the confidence fairy, claiming that tough action on the budget will reassure businesses and consumers, leading them to spend more. <u>It doesn’t work that way, a fact confirmed by many studies of the historical record.</u>
</span>

Indeed, slashing spending while the economy is depressed won’t even help the budget situation much, <u>and might well make it worse.</u> On one side, interest rates on federal borrowing are currently very low, so spending cuts now will do little to reduce future interest costs. On the other side, making the economy weaker now will also hurt its long-run prospects, which will in turn reduce future revenue. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>So those demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker. </span> </div></div>


Q... link (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general)

LWW
08-02-2011, 10:22 AM
Sarcasm is lost on leftists.

I posted in as a counter argument from moonbhattistan ... that big gubmint spending ended the depression.

What ended the depression was the end of big gubmint spending and paying down the debt at the end of WWII.

Only a statist moron would consider a world war as a boon to the economy ... blowing up national treasure may achieve other goals, but prosperity ain't one of them.

Soflasnapper
08-02-2011, 01:08 PM
People were put back to work, and excess capacity was trimmed through utilization.

The debt was never paid down to any significant degree, as we barely balanced budgets occasionally but never ran big surpluses.

You know, when all agree on something and you alone think differently, maybe you are the one who is wrong. Possibly anyway?

LWW
08-02-2011, 04:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People were put back to work, and excess capacity was trimmed through utilization.

The debt was never paid down to any significant degree, as we barely balanced budgets occasionally but never ran big surpluses.

You know, when all agree on something and you alone think differently, maybe you are the one who is wrong. Possibly anyway?

</div></div>

Everyone doesn't agree with you ... only the spoon fed do.

Now, for the thousandth time, if we paid the debt down ... even a dollar ... why did the debt continue to go up.

And, FWIW, I would rather stand alone in the harsh light of truth than stand in the shade of the regime's lies.

cushioncrawler
08-02-2011, 05:34 PM
There woz no iz no and never will be no Nobel Prize for economics.
mac.

However, Krugmann iz wrong. Keynes didnt say that spending woz needed to heal a sick economy. Keynes sayd that nonfunded spending woz needed.
Az i sayd, the usofa iz going down. Been nice knowing u.
mac.

Gayle in MD
09-14-2011, 11:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No matter what is in it ... the moonbat crazy left will spin it for Obama. </div></div>

SOME may indeed do that, but not the real left, which is in open revolt, buyers' remorse, shoulda put Hillary there instead, etc.

Obama isn't a leftist president, and he has scant leftist support, if you mean people really on the left, who have complained bitterly at every turn at which Obama failed to even try to propose what the left preferred. Ditching Elizabeth Warren was one of the last straws, after health care reform, after the last tax deal late last year, and now after this.

Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader are hardly singing his praises, and in fact, Nader has announced a high profile effort to primary Obama with a credible leftist just a day or so ago.

As previously noted many times, you have no regard for any accepted definitions, and put mushy liberals into the crazy left, for I guess political rhetoric purposes.

But it's very very wrong as to the real meanings of these terms.

Enjoy your solipsistic universe, but none can really join you there, and in fact, we cannot even quite see it from here, where the rest of us live. </div></div>


<span style='font-size: 20pt'>We Must Destroy Repiglican Fascism Before It's Too Late! </span>

Soflasnapper
09-14-2011, 11:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People were put back to work, and excess capacity was trimmed through utilization.

The debt was never paid down to any significant degree, as we barely balanced budgets occasionally but never ran big surpluses.

You know, when all agree on something and you alone think differently, maybe you are the one who is wrong. Possibly anyway?

</div></div>

Everyone doesn't agree with you ... only the spoon fed do.

Now, for the thousandth time, if we paid the debt down ... even a dollar ... why did the debt continue to go up.

And, FWIW, I would rather stand alone in the harsh light of truth than stand in the shade of the regime's lies. </div></div>

This can help you understand. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png)

Hell, what am I saying? Of course it won't help you understand!

But in any case, look at these two graphs, each showing the 'gross debt' and a split-off 'public debt,' one in adjusted dollars, one as percentages of gdp.

You will note the large dip (decrease) in the 'public debt,' perhaps only coincidentally (I'd guess you must be claiming) in the later Clinton years.

Actually, on both measures, the TOTAL (gross) debt also shows (smaller) declines in those same years, despite the fact that the SS surplus of those years, 12-figure sums above $100 billion dollars, immediately BECAME NEW DEBT (just not on the public debt side).