Debt ceiling

Here's a good page graphing the debt climb.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=1aP

And tax rates during the great depression.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/11/tax-rates-during-the-great-depression.html

keethrax wrote: People don't want to pay for decades of mismanagement. So anyone who promises them they won't have to (due to cuts or taxes) gets the idiot vote. The problem with gunning for the idiot vote is that you then have to act like an idiot to keep it. The idiot vote is valuable to both sides, because there are a lot of them. Because of this value, both sides do this (you can't get elected without it), but currently one side is willing to piss off *its* idiots, and one isn't.

Idiot is a relative term.

Those on one side realize that spending and contrived obligations are a root cause of our debt problem. I'll humbly suggest they'd be more amenable to across-the-board policies to address the problem.

The "other" side" (IMHO) is comprised of idiot-constituents who demand they get what they have been receiving for decades.

Whose idiots present a bigger problem for their alleged party affiliaitions?

IDK.............

racerdave600 wrote: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/11/tax-rates-during-the-great-depression.html

My only response is so? Could you have picked a less relevant chart?

1) I don't see anybody suggesting raising taxes is going to end the recession. Rather that they are a necessary part of reducing the deficit. Reducing the deficit is going to hurt., Anyone who claims otherwise is an idiot. Congratulations for pointing out that reducing the deficit via obscenely massive taxation and no spending cuts doesn't fix the recession. Because that is so directly relevant to anyone's plans/suggestions. You've refuted a claim no one has made. But it's a standard "refutation" that gets trotted out all the time nevertheless.

2) I don't see anybody suggesting those kind of tax rates either.

As such it's the typical bait and switch chartage that the left and right like to use that have no relevance but are fun to pretend they mean something they don't.

oldsaw wrote:

keethrax wrote: People don't want to pay for decades of mismanagement. So anyone who promises them they won't have to (due to cuts or taxes) gets the idiot vote. The problem with gunning for the idiot vote is that you then have to act like an idiot to keep it. The idiot vote is valuable to both sides, because there are a lot of them. Because of this value, both sides do this (you can't get elected without it), but currently one side is willing to piss off *its* idiots, and one isn't.

Idiot is a relative term. Those on one side realize that spending and contrived obligations are a root cause of our debt problem. I'll humbly suggest they'd be more amenable to across-the-board policies to address the problem.

Yeah dude. Because the Dems haven't introduced plans with more spending cuts than many proposed by the GOP. Oh wait. They have. They've offered plans with more than the cut amounts that the GOP says would be enough to make a deal happen (up to twice as many depending on how you want to slant the numbers, but 1.25-1.5x is more realistic). And those have come at least partially in part in the form of cuts to social programs, thus being willing to piss off their own idiots.

Those are exactly the kind of across-the-board cuts you're referring to that you fallaciously claim they'd be more amenable to. Still not enough for my tastes (or yours one would assume) mind you, but clearly big enough that the GOP deems them somehow sufficient for now. But as soon as you also include a tax increase to go with more cuts than requested it's suddenly time to take ones ball and go home because the GOP is afraid of pissing off its own idiots.

Since you by your own admission lean one way, you automatically assume the other sides idiots are worse. Natural, but probably false.

EDIT to add: I'm not saying the GOP is even wrong in turning down that particular plan. I'm saying they're wrong for not countering with something like: Fine, we'll give you some tax increases, but not that much, and for that, you need to also make cuts X, Y, and Z. That would be the adult answer. Which the GOP is steadfastly refusing.

keethrax wrote:

racerdave600 wrote: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/11/tax-rates-during-the-great-depression.html

My only response is so? Could you have picked a less relevant chart? 1) I don't see anybody suggesting raising taxes is going to end the recession. Rather that they are a necessary part of reducing the deficit. Reducing the deficit is going to hurt., Anyone who claims otherwise is an idiot. Congratulations for pointing out that reducing the deficit via obscenely massive taxation and no spending cuts doesn't fix the recession. Because that is so directly relevant to anyone's plans/suggestions. You've refuted a claim no one has made. But it's a standard "refutation" that gets trotted out all the time nevertheless. 2) I don't see anybody suggesting those kind of tax rates either. As such it's the typical bait and switch chartage that the left and right like to use that have no relevance but are fun to pretend they mean something they don't.

All right asshat...I put it there because I thought it was interesting. I didn't suggest in any way that it was what others wanted to do, but to show what had been done in the past. Find one comment I made about it. There have been a lot of posts about rasing tax rates, and I thought it relevent to see where they have been in the past. You can make arguments both ways, I made neither. I came across that chart the same time as the other and thought it interesting. If you don't like it or don't want to view it, don't look.

So my comment is, couldn't you pick a more relevent post?

racerdave600 wrote: So my comment is, couldn't you pick a more relevent post?

Touched a nerve for calling it irrelevant. Yet you can't seem to counter the claim and demonstrate why it is relevant, so you revert to name calling. Nice.

Since I don't track who says what for the most part and take each post on it's own merits. [EDIT: tried to be and failed ] pretty careful to indicate that I wasn't certain you weren't necessarily one of the people irrelevantly using it as a refutation of a claim that doesn't exist. I merely pointed out that it gets trotted out a lot as one. Lumping yourself in with the people who do so is on you, not me though it could be argued I helped some. Now you can backtrack and pretend that's not why you posted it, and that's fine. I can't prove otherwise. but since you can't seem to come up with why it's otherwise relevant, allow me to have my doubts.

But if you weren't posting it as relevant or a refutation, why were you posting it? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

We have an asshat! Sweet.

Otto Maddox wrote: We have an asshat! Sweet.

What can I say. Logic's a bitch.

keethrax wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

keethrax wrote: People don't want to pay for decades of mismanagement. So anyone who promises them they won't have to (due to cuts or taxes) gets the idiot vote. The problem with gunning for the idiot vote is that you then have to act like an idiot to keep it. The idiot vote is valuable to both sides, because there are a lot of them. Because of this value, both sides do this (you can't get elected without it), but currently one side is willing to piss off *its* idiots, and one isn't.

Idiot is a relative term. Those on one side realize that spending and contrived obligations are a root cause of our debt problem. I'll humbly suggest they'd be more amenable to across-the-board policies to address the problem.

Yeah dude. Because the Dems haven't introduced plans with *more* spending cuts than many proposed by the GOP. Oh wait. They have. They've offered plans with more than the cut amounts that the GOP says would be enough to make a deal happen (up to twice as many depending on how you want to slant the numbers, but 1.25-1.5x is more realistic). And those have come at least partially in part in the form of cuts to social programs, thus being willing to piss off their own idiots. Those are *exactly* the kind of across-the-board cuts you're referring to that you fallaciously claim they'd be more amenable to. Still not enough for my tastes (or yours one would assume) mind you, but clearly big enough that the GOP deems them somehow sufficient for now. But as soon as you also include a tax increase to go with *more cuts than requested* it's suddenly time to take ones ball and go home because the GOP is afraid of pissing off its own idiots. Since you by your own admission lean one way, you automatically assume the other sides idiots are worse. Natural, but probably false.

Neither side has a member with the nads to go out and honestly define the problem and lay-out the options or consequences.

Natural, probably NOT false.

keethrax wrote: Yeah dude. Because the Dems haven't introduced plans with *more* spending cuts than many proposed by the GOP. Oh wait. They have. They've offered plans with more than the cut amounts that the GOP says would be enough to make a deal happen (up to twice as many depending on how you want to slant the numbers, but 1.25-1.5x is more realistic). And those have come at least partially in part in the form of cuts to social programs, thus being willing to piss off their own idiots.

What are those specific proposals?

Links, please?

oldsaw wrote: What are those specific proposals? Links, please?

Really? Wow. For starters Obama's "big everything plan" cuts more than the GOP has said they'd require to agree to raise the debt ceiling. Further, it cuts the traditional liberal no nos of social programs.

The GOP plans? Refuse to cut any defense spending, and refuse to increases taxes at all. Traditional conservative bastions.

For starters: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/09/john-boehner-debt-ceiling_n_893952.html

"Obama had proposed to Republicans a "grand bargain" that accomplished a host of individual things that are unpopular on their own, but that just might pass as a huge package jammed through Congress with default looming. Obama offered to put Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts on the table in exchange for a tax hike of roughly $100 billion per year over 10 years. Meanwhile, government spending would be cut by roughly three times that amount. It's no small irony that the party's dogmatic opposition to tax increases is costing the GOP its best opportunity to roll back social programs it has long targeted."

The GOP's already said (more than once) that without tax increases, cuts smaller than that would be enough to at least get the debt ceiling raised and end the immediate crisis.

(very) rough Obama plan 3trillion in cuts + tax increase. (very) rough new? (new being as of late last week) GOP plan when even they couldn't agree on bigger cuts amongst themselves 2.something trillion in cuts.

The #s the GOP has been putting forward are a bit fuzzy (thus the 2.something), which I made note of already. This is probably due to more than a bit of infighting. If you squint your eyes through Democratic colored glasses you end up with "those cuts are double the GOPs" but frankly, that's bull, and I said as much.

Further, this deal attacks many "liberal sacred cows." Something the GOP adamantly refuses to even consider when it comes to their own holy bovines.

Again, because it bears repeating: Nowhere am I endorsing Obama's plan. I have extreme issues with it. I am however using it as an example that one side is willing to make concessions to their traditional "do not touch" categories thus pissing of thier wingnuts, and the other side is sticking their fingers in their ears going "lalalala" and is so determined not to even consider things that their wingbuts love that their rejecting a plan with more cuts than their current plan.

oldsaw wrote: Natural, probably NOT false.

See. Anybody not a dead center centrist would say that about their side. The fact that you can't grasp why that's is pretty typical though. Anyone who can't even grasp that the other side has a point as well, isn't really worth discussing things further with.

If I had to guess, the reason the GOP is balking is that they expect the tax hikes would be reality and the cuts would vanish into thin air. I can just see another "pushing grandma off a cliff" commercial when it comes time to actually implement the cuts.

I wish everyone would get over the idea that raising taxes on the top 2% is going to grind the economy to a halt.

I still see none of you ultra conservatives have answered my supply side economics question. Wonder why that is....

DILYSI Dave wrote: If I had to guess, the reason the GOP is balking is that they expect the tax hikes would be reality and the cuts would vanish into thin air. I can just see another "pushing grandma off a cliff" commercial when it comes time to actually implement the cuts.

You could be right. Blame anything for an excuse to ignore all of the available tools in favor protecting your sacred cows.

In reply to keethrax:

Article quoted said:

"When word leaked out this past week that Obama was proposing cuts to entitlements, Democrats in Congress and outside advocates kicked their opposition into high gear, making it clear that no bargain would win their support if it contained any cuts to Social Security or Medicare beneficiaries. That opposition may have broken the back of the bargain."

Sooo-Obama's own party was going to kill the entitlement cut portion which basically meant the Repoblicans were expected to agree to a plan which endorsed cuts that wouldn't pass, had tax increases they didn't want, and a debt ceiling increase they didn't want.

Basically it was a dead deal before it started. Not a brilliant example of Republican stubbornness.

MrJoshua wrote: In reply to keethrax: Article quoted said: "When word leaked out this past week that Obama was proposing cuts to entitlements, Democrats in Congress and outside advocates kicked their opposition into high gear, making it clear that no bargain would win their support if it contained any cuts to Social Security or Medicare beneficiaries. That opposition may have broken the back of the bargain." Sooo-Obama's own party was going to kill the entitlement cut portion which basically meant the Repoblicans were expected to agree to a plan which endorsed cuts that wouldn't pass, had tax increases they didn't want, and a debt ceiling increase

Not quite, but nice try. Enough Dems would vote against it that it can't be passed without some actual GOP support as opposed to a token few sacrificial votes allowing the rest of the GOP to play the face saving game.

This to me is not the negative you make it out to be. One side isn't playing party line politics. Pissing off a bunch of the Dems over entitlement cuts to me is a sign that it's on the right track.

Further, how many times have I knocked the specific plan? Every time I've mentioned it?

The point is, and the one that you (and every other conservative to reply so far) is ignoring is that one side is at least trying to find solutions even if the wing (left or right) in their own party. One is not. One of these two things is a healthy way to solve a problem, one is not. I'm not endorsing a plan. I'm endorsing an approach.

As far as I'm concerned the fact that some Dems would oppose it is good, for two reasons:

1) The plan clearly pisses off the farther of in the wings members of a party. (probably a good thing) 2) The Dem's aren't playing idiotic "toe the party line, no exceptions: games (always a good thing)

And based on this I claim that the Dems are more serious about working on the problem as opposed to making political capital. If more politicians took this attitude, we'd all be better off. Again good approach for finding a better solution, even if it's a bad plan. Did I mention I don't like the plan yet? Just checking, because people seem to think I'm defending it.

In any case, you guys have fun pretending that "no-compromises" leads anywhere other than utter disaster. I'm done discussing it with people who can't even grasp why that approach is so berkeleying stupid.

In reply to keethrax:

I feel more like the Dems are trying to get the Repubs to agree to a plan and then Vilify them because they wont take out the parts the Democratic party doesn't like and then Vilify them if they try to back out of the tax hike and debt ceiling agreement. Proposing a plan you will never honor is not "being serious about working on the problem."

Edit-and the part the Dems don't like is the "rape the old people" portion so the Repubs are devils if they won't take it out, and the part the Repubs don't like is "getting back at those evil rich people" so obviously it should stay.

MrJoshua wrote: In reply to keethrax: I feel more like the Dems are trying to get the Repubs to agree to a plan and then Vilify them because they wont take out the parts the Democratic party doesn't like and then Vilify them if they try to back out of the tax hike and debt ceiling agreement. Proposing a plan you will never honor is not "being serious about working on the problem."

Proposing a plan some of your own party members won't vote for because they don't want you to have to honor it != will never honor it. That's my whole point. Some of his party hate it and don't want it. Good start. Nice strawman by conflating the two though. Now that we've resorted to breaking out straw men, I really do have to be done here. Few things piss me off more than that sort of bullE36 M3 argument. And I don't come here to be pissed off.

In reply to keethrax:

It's a very minor strawman. You minimize the importance of the Democratic opposition and I minimize the seriousness of the people proposing the plan. Any plan either side proposes is step one of a loooong process with the end result being far different than the proposed plan. Not agreeing to a plan is really not agreeing to the likely end result. The parts the Democrats don't like are far easier to trump up and get removed due to public sway.

MrJoshua wrote: In reply to keethrax: It's a very minor strawman. You minimize the importance of the Democratic opposition and I minimize the seriousness of the people proposing the plan. Any plan either side proposes is step one of a loooong process with the end result being far different than the proposed plan. Not agreeing to a plan is really not agreeing to the likely end result. The parts the Democrats don't like are far easier to trump up and get removed due to public sway.

Argh! Here I am again. I really need to take my own advice.

Really? That's what you're going to hang your argument on? That would be an absolutely golden opportunity for the GOP if that's what they were actually worried about.

Any member of the GOP not smart enough to be able to craft wording that ties the parts they do want to the parts they don't and insist it be included as part of the deal isn't smart enough to be in congress in the first place. This goes double for anyone trying to act in some position of leadership for the party in the legislature.

Suddenly, if you were right and that was the actual problem, they've just judo flipped the proposed plan into working for them against the Dems.

They're not stupid, and they haven't done so. As such, I will conclude that your conjectural problem is a red herring.

Or even worse: If you are right and it isn't a red herring, fear of even making a counteroffer would indicate that it really is all about the existence of any tax increase of any size and not about the cuts/deficit/fiscal responsibility of any sort. Just as I've been saying all along. One side is willing to discuss bleeding it's sacred cows at the expense of alienating it's wingnuts (right or left) as part of a solution. One isn't. One of these approaches (if not actual proposals, which once again I remind you I don't like) is how you work towards a plan for any problem this big. One isn't.

.

In response to no one in general... Blah blah blah de friggin blah. Fishin fer Flounder is Fackin fantastik.Eat an Orange and move on.

keethrax wrote:

oldsaw wrote: What are those specific proposals? Links, please?

Really? Wow. For starters Obama's "big everything plan" cuts *more* than the GOP has said they'd require to agree to raise the debt ceiling. Further, it cuts the traditional liberal no nos of social programs. The GOP plans? Refuse to cut *any* defense spending, and refuse to increases taxes at all. Traditional conservative bastions. For starters: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/09/john-boehner-debt-ceiling_n_893952.html "Obama had proposed to Republicans a "grand bargain" that accomplished a host of individual things that are unpopular on their own, but that just might pass as a huge package jammed through Congress with default looming. Obama offered to put Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts on the table in exchange for a tax hike of roughly $100 billion per year over 10 years. Meanwhile, government spending would be cut by roughly three times that amount. It's no small irony that the party's dogmatic opposition to tax increases is costing the GOP its best opportunity to roll back social programs it has long targeted." The GOP's already said (more than once) that without tax increases, cuts *smaller* than that would be enough to at least get the debt ceiling raised and end the immediate crisis. (very) rough Obama plan 3trillion in cuts + tax increase. (very) rough new? (new being as of late last week) GOP plan when even they couldn't agree on bigger cuts amongst *themselves* 2.something trillion in cuts. The #s the GOP has been putting forward are a bit fuzzy (thus the 2.something), which I made note of already. This is probably due to more than a bit of infighting. If you squint your eyes through Democratic colored glasses you end up with "those *cuts* are double the GOPs" but frankly, that's bull, and I said as much. Further, this deal attacks many "liberal sacred cows." Something the GOP adamantly refuses to even consider when it comes to their own holy bovines. Again, because it bears repeating: Nowhere am I endorsing Obama's plan. I have *extreme* issues with it. I *am* however using it as an example that one side is willing to make concessions to their traditional "do not touch" categories thus pissing of thier wingnuts, and the other side is sticking their fingers in their ears going "lalalala" and is so determined not to even consider things that their wingbuts love that their rejecting a plan with more cuts than their current plan.

After all that, you still failed to provide the specifics of the "big everything" plan. So, until it is on paper with the President's endorsement, it's no more than a talking point. The questions still remain - what spending cuts are guaranteed and how much are they worth?

As previously noted, Republicans have fallen (before) into the trap of conceding tax increases while Democrats have failed to honor promises of spending cuts. There is little historical (or present) incentive to buy into that ruse again.

Apparently Tom Coburn has released a budget plan to reduce the deficit by $9 TRILLION.

I haven't had a chance to look it over yet, but certainly it can't be anything more than a slash-and-burn attempt at reform.

EDIT: From the Washington Post

"The plan would cut $1 trillion in defense spending over the next 10 years; enact $2.6 trillion in deficit savings through changes to popular entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid; and generate $1 trillion in savings through reforming tax expenditures, including the elimination of ethanol subsidies."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/coburn-deficit-plan-proposes-9-trillion-in-savings/2011/07/18/gIQArcBvMI_story.html

HA!