http://swampland.time.com/2011/07/23/th ... d-bargain/

Sigh ... not there yet, and now the US government needs to start work (probably on Monday) on actual stops as the default looms large.

Z

http://swampland.time.com/2011/07/23/we ... -deal-yet/

The impasse continues ... today's 11am meeting was another failed attempt at finding a working solution.

Z

Republican politicians are complete financial retards, yep, retards. They've created a huge mess and now are crying and stamping their feet when the grownups have to step in and clean up after them.

Start a war, but have a fit if anyone asks that they come up with the revenue to pay for it. Start a second war, then cut taxes for the rich less they have to pay for it.

Identify an impending shortfall in Social Security, but refuse to either cut benefits or raise revenue to pay for it: instead, propose huge revenue cuts in the form of privatization and then drop the whole issue when people notice the difference between positive and negative numbers.

Keep interest rates at record lows even after an unbelievably obvious housing bubble is well underway, push for more and more financial sector deregulation, then once everything starts collapsing, blame the guy who ends up averting the second Great Depression for spending money.

The eight years from 2000 to 2008 did more to push this economy into the large white porcelain fixture than any other time in history. We were led by a buffoon who was totally clueless when it came to the mess he was allowing.

Did I say Republican politicians are complete financial retards?

I too blame the republicans on this one. They've (Dems) already offered about 4 trillion in cuts and the sticking point to the Repubs is taxes and the Repubs refuse to move.

I'll always make this disclaimer to back up my tax stance. The Bush era tax cuts still exist but where are the jobs that these tax cuts create?!!?

Of course ... the Republicans are always the devils ... and Democrats are always the angels.

Right on.

Z

szh wrote:Of course ... the Republicans are always the devils ... and Democrats are always the angels.

Right on.

Z

Sarcasm noted and ignored because it fails to address any points.

bigbadberry3 wrote:

szh wrote:Of course ... the Republicans are always the devils ... and Democrats are always the angels.

Right on.

Z

Sarcasm noted and ignored because it fails to address any points.

No point in talking to closed minds.

Z

bigbadberry3 wrote:. . .

I'll always make this disclaimer to back up my tax stance. The Bush era tax cuts still exist but where are the jobs that these tax cuts create?!!?

Anyone care to field this one? Anyone DARE to field this one? SZH? I'll keep an open mind.

szh wrote:No point in talking to closed minds.

Z

My mind is always open to good ideas.

I will ask both of you this simple question then (please answer honestly): did you read both those links through to the end before you posted the usual anti-Republican stances?

Z

R/T Hemi wrote:

bigbadberry3 wrote:. . .I'll always make this disclaimer to back up my tax stance. The Bush era tax cuts still exist but where are the jobs that these tax cuts create?!!?

Anyone care to field this one? Anyone DARE to field this one? SZH? I'll keep an open mind.

The causality link between tax cuts and job creation is not a one-to-one obvious correlation - I wish it were that simple. It is not even clear that they do or don't help ... it probably also depends on how the tax cuts are linked to specific incentives to make them work for that purpose: http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wabe/ ... ess.School. Another interesting site: http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/20 ... eally.html that shows that it is not a simple answer like you might want.

And, an article in The Economist that is also a good read: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... jobs_bills

And the Congressional Budget Office (a non-partisan entity) estimates that the ARRA (not a tax cut per se) added jobs: http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=474 ... i.e., putting money into the economy can help. So, in theory, if the tax cuts are linked to specific incentives to hire, then they could make a difference.

Summary: it is not simple.

BTW, as I have mentioned in other posts, I (a registered Republican no less) am NOT opposed to letting these cuts expire - I don't consider them "tax increases" per se, although I know others do.

However, there MUST be a corresponding plan for reducing Federal spending ... to balance the budget (over some reasonable amount of time) - it is this lack of thinking to reduce the debt (again, over many years) that bothers me about "tax-and-spend" (including "spend-what-we-don't-have") stances. Our government politicians assume that all funds must always be spent - even if we have unexpected windfall tax revenue years.

Z

szh wrote:I will ask both of you this simple question then (please answer honestly): did you read both those links through to the end before you posted the usual anti-Republican stances?

Z

IMO that article was useless, it did nearly nothing to reiterate any Republican plan, and only reinforce what little information there is on a Democratic plan. In fact the best line from that article was "Democrats were concerned Obama was conceding too much to Republicans."

Let me ask you a simple question. How do The Republicans in question intend to make cuts, or raise revenues? Perhaps its my poor websearch skills, or the lack of knowledge from staunch Republicans in my circle of friends and colleages.

I am frustrated by the lack of information from both sides on any kind of plan other than useless talking points. At least there is small bit of information about the democratic plan in the form of talking points. Also what happened to the scalpel Obama talked about along with the Transparency, these talking points are fulla s***

You posted up some links while I was on reply:

The link on the economist and ARRA you posted. The take away I got from that article is that the Tax cuts had a chance to help big business pay less in taxes. And the picture in that link is sign of some possibly public road construction or repair. Is that what these Tax cuts are referring to? Tax cuts, to create jobs in construction

szh wrote:I will ask both of you this simple question then (please answer honestly): did you read both those links through to the end before you posted the usual anti-Republican stances?

Z

I honestly did read them.

But Boehner argued that he didn’t see a way to raise 50% more revenue ($400 billion on top of $800 billion) without being forced to break their pledge and raise tax rates – something Boehner said would never pass the House. “I can tell you it’s not in the best interest of our country to raise taxes during this difficult economy, and it’s not in the best interests of the country to ignore the serious spending challenges we face,” Boehner told reporters in his own post-collapse press conference on Friday. “Listen, it’s time to get serious, and I’m confident that the bipartisan leaders here in the Congress can act. If the White House won’t get serious, we will."

All cut, no tax. They took a pledge to it.

n00b240 wrote:

szh wrote:I will ask both of you this simple question then (please answer honestly): did you read both those links through to the end before you posted the usual anti-Republican stances?

Z

In fact the best line from that article was "Democrats were concerned Obama was conceding too much to Republicans."

And the very next line shows what happened then: "So, in a 4 p.m. call on Thursday, the President went back to Boehner and upped his request for revenue increases — $400 billion more."

In other words, from $800 billion to $1.2trillion. Just how were Pelosi and Obama expecting Boehner to sell that stance to any recalcitrants in his party? Particular at this late a stage?

So, my question: instead of looking for a compromise, if either side "ups" their demands, what do you think happens?

I think the result is an accusation from the other side of "well, they are not willing to compromise".

My point being: it is not always as one sided as is made out to be.

Z

bigbadberry3 wrote:

szh wrote:I will ask both of you this simple question then (please answer honestly): did you read both those links through to the end before you posted the usual anti-Republican stances?

Z

I honestly did read them.

Good, thanks!

Z

Again, what is the solution from the republican leaders? I think the request for more is a good move. I dont know why there is even talk of a compromise. Oh thats right, Obama still wants to be "bipartisan"

n00b240 wrote:I dont know why there is even talk of a compromise.

Does a "I am right and you are wrong" approach/philosophy always work out well for you?

Z

szh wrote:Does a "I am right and you are wrong" approach/philosophy always work out well for you?

Z

It does, in my profession, it does extremely well. However, I am always open to new ideas, suggestions and criticisms. If I am wrong, colleagues need to let me know right away, and must show me why I am wrong. Just like Obama, he is also open to ideas, suggestions and criticisms. I dont see any ideas or suggestions other than talking points and criticisms, or even teachable moments. We arent talking about me. We are talking about the current state of affairs on the hill

I was not trying to make it personal. However, you did say "I don't know why there is even talk of a compromise" - with a very specific "I". Hence my question to that specific comment, addressed to "you".

The answer to why there is talk of a compromise is generally simple: without some compromise in any negotiation, there can be no successful outcome if parties in negotiations refuse to budge - this is human nature and bad omen for future negotiations.

Having attended training sessions on negotiations - specifically those by Karrass - I can assure you that taking a "no compromise" position usually leads to a predictable "no deal" result.

Which may well be fine in some situations, but, in this particular case, a "no deal" is bad for everybody - both sides will regret it (although there are idiots who still think that a US defaulting is not going to be bad for the economy).

n00b240 wrote:It does, in my profession, it does extremely well.

Really? Curiosity: which profession is that?

Z

There has been talk of coming to a compromise for months now. Yet there is nothing but talking points on the airwaves, Im a bit frustrated with that. So one side needs to pick something and just get it passed. Again, what is the Republican Plan for the current situation, besides the talking points?

I am a physician. Id like to think that no matter what one does for a living, being confident in your asnwers 100% even when your wrong is much better than being only somewhat confident. That way when you are wrong, you can learn from your mistake and because you were wrong, it will be much easier to remember what is correct.

However, you cant make a mistake and keep insisting that you were right all along. Politicians need to be able to do the same, sure you can think you are right, while many think you are wrong, but once you find out you were wrong, steps need to be taken to right that wrong

n00b240 wrote:There has been talk of coming to a compromise for months now. Yet there is nothing but talking points on the airwaves, Im a bit frustrated with that.

So is everybody else, I suspect.

n00b240 wrote:So one side needs to pick something and just get it passed.

Government, without a clear majority (or more - depending on the specific change) for a position, does not work like that fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view).

n00b240 wrote:Again, what is the Republican Plan for the current situation, besides the talking points?

One could just as easily ask: "What is the Democrat Plan for the current situation, besides the talking points?"

These are out there ... no need to rehash them all again here. The problem is the lack of wanting to agree to a compromise which all can live with, even if no one side/person is happy with the result.

n00b240 wrote:I am a physician. Id like to think that no matter what one does for a living, being confident in your asnwers 100% even when your wrong is much better than being only somewhat confident. That way when you are wrong, you can learn from your mistake and because you were wrong, it will be much easier to remember what is correct.

Being confident in an answer - and saying so - is not the same as saying "I am right, you are wrong" when there is a disagreement or negotiation going on.

You are describing an entirely different situation where a specific expert (the Doctor) are talking to a non-expert (the patient). But, even in that situation, an "I am right, you are wrong" statement to a patient who disagrees with you (as opposed to them asking questions) is not likely to work.

n00b240 wrote:However, you cant make a mistake and keep insisting that you were right all along. Politicians need to be able to do the same, sure you can think you are right, while many think you are wrong, but once you find out you were wrong, steps need to be taken to right that wrong

Of course! This is true for everybody and every situation. The difficulty lies is the recognition of "once you find out you were wrong" ... in subjective matters, this is not always going to occur - more often than not, it will become a personal opinion about being right or wrong.

Z

The one talking point I do see being thrown around is raising taxes in order to help raise revenues. Do the Republicans have a way to raise revenues as well. All I hear and read, is that they dont want to raise taxes. What plan do they have to raise revenues? Sure we can make cuts to what we already spend. But clearly another source of revenue is needed

Sadly all I hear is numbers and taxes, I mean wtf, on both sides. The Pres is clearly a bit more opaque than the transparency he promised

In regards to R/T's rant, when it comes to low interest rates. Implying that the 'Fed' is Republican as if it were a lackey of the Republican party is a bit much. Most of the Chairmans have been holdovers from prior Presidential administrations. It is their economic policy and not their politics that is distasteful and lead to low interest rates. This is why we have talk of QE3! Remember the Federal Reserve acts semi independently of the Government, which is why Ron Paul wants to audit the system.
No doubt that Republicans for the past how many years (9?) have acted like ‘drunken sailors’ in Congress. But I should point out that I haven’t seen the Democrat party crying about the national debt, either. They were lock step with the Republicans on TARP and even pushed through a few measures on their own which has/will further contribute(d) to the National Debt. I dont buy that we can point the finger at any one person or political party as the debt didnt solely accrue to 14 Trillion dollars because of the Republicans. One interesting slide that shows just a sliver of the complexity of the issue is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Fe ... ighted.png

I don’t throw this slide out to damn anyone party or President or Congress, but it does show that we got here through a conglomeration of forces.

What concerns me is that the US National debt is at a level some 97% of GDP and seems to show no signs of stopping. This level directly speaks to OUR country’s ability to pay back’s its obligations and if we get downgraded on our credit rating, kiss the spending on domestic or international programs goodbye. The Congress will be forced to reduce spending, because we can’t float more debt/monetize our spending. And please don’t think that we can just cut a bunch of spending, after being downgraded and go back to an ‘AAA’ rating. It doesn’t work like that.

Can we just pay for this year's budget please?

I'm convinced that even without a debt ceiling increase, President Obama will be required to borrow anyways. There's still a standing order to execute the budget (and to spend/tax accordingly). There's language in Perry v. U.S. that suggests Congress might have made a promise of payment in vain, which it's not allowed to do. Even if the debt limit is Constitutional, I can see the President violating it anyways - he's required to spend, and he's required not to borrow. He can't do both, and he'll have to choose which portion of the Constitution he wants to violate.

Think he should think out of the box in that regard and just raise taxes unilaterally, political suicide though it may be. If he's trapped into a Constitutional violation by Congress either way, why not go all out and be fiscally responsible, too?

So I'm doing sort of an informal poll and I wanted to get your takes on this as well (since most all of my IRL friends are liberal and I want some conservative views too):

Is the current morass really ideological or merely political? Please justify your answer.

Both. Some Republicans are taking an ideological stand. Some are playing politics. I think I respect the politics more, because at the end of the day, I can still believe that they won't drive the nation to ruin.

I can't say the same for ideologues.

I'd also say both.

And it depends on the particular issue - whether a Democrat or a Republican is taking a stance on that topic (be it ideological or political).

There are Democrats who insist that certain entitlements must never be subject to cuts regardless of how impossible it is to pay for everything, and this is more an ideological stance than politics as usual.

There are Republicans who insist that tax increases must never occur regardless of whether this is practical or not, again likely to be ideological in some cases and politics in others.

Z

The best approach we are almost left with now:

http://www.theonion.com/video/social-se ... s-t,21006/



Z

and this:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/china- ... ric,20913/