U.S. political impasse threatens world?

[astralis]

7th,

As of today, money markets aren't giving good vibes. Consumer confidence is reported down. Everyone seems a bit skiddish now that the deal is done.

Was it the right deal? What would be the right deal? Why do we keep making "deals" for our very livelyhood?

because investor confidence in the US was damaged just by seeing how close to the wire Congress went to not fulfilling its own deadlines/promises to pay.

if we had a Congress that was a bit more mature, it would have been easy to pass a clean bill, and then debate out the proper role of government.

what just happened was effectively kicking the can down the road. from a centrist perspective, i couldn't be more disgusted at either party (although IMHO one wing of a certain party demands more appropbrium).

really, the solution is not that hard-- cut loopholes/individual deductions, make a new bracket for millionaires+, push back medicare eligibility, and you have more than enough to lower overall tax rates (including the corporate rate) and shore up SS AND reduce the deficit.

it's the political posturing, including using the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip, that makes this difficult.

[Laser]

We need some watchers. To watch the watchers, that are watching the watchers.(ha)

[highsea]

...what just happened was effectively kicking the can down the road. from a centrist perspective, i couldn't be more disgusted at either party (although IMHO one wing of a certain party demands more appropbrium).

I assume you mean the progressive caucus and the congressional black caucus, who all voted against the bill en bloc. Or perhaps you mean the Senate wing of the democrat party, who have been on strike for two years.

Oh, no you mean the evil tea partiers, who only have about half the numbers of the two I mentioned previous...

[astralis]

highsea,

so, tell me, in the final bill, who got more of their priorities? the Tea Party Caucus or the two that you name? and which party was against the idea of a clean bill?

and who blocked john boehner from negotiations that had considerably steeper cuts than the one signed?

[highsea]

highsea,

so, tell me, in the final bill, who got more of their priorities? the Tea Party Caucus or the two that you name?

I don't think anyone got their priorities. The tea partiers didn't sign on. The cuts are phony, from what I can tell the bill is a joke.

and who blocked john boehner from negotiations that had considerably steeper cuts than the one signed?

Cantor, according to you. But I wasn't in the room, so I don't know what the deal even was. All we have is Obama's version of the story.

If you ask me something about actual legislation I can probably answer. But I haven't had time to read this bill, it was all done back-room.

My opinion is and always will be, that the Senate is the reason we had this mess, and the mess will continue until we have a new Senate and perhaps a President who is familiar with the Constitution.

But tell me- what do you think of Obama threatening to not send out Social Security checks when there are $2.6 Trillion in treasuries in the trust fund that can be sold at any time to cover SS payments?

[astralis]

highsea,

I don't think anyone got their priorities. The tea partiers didn't sign on. The cuts are phony, from what I can tell the bill is a joke.

which makes you wonder why we went through the whole rigamarole, and why republicans didn't want a clean bill. as it is, we're talking about "phony cuts", and not "phony revenue increases", which is probably a tad closer to what the Progressive/Congressional Black Caucus would rather be discussing.

certainly, if you like, i'm more than happy to assign some blame for how badly congress is run to them. but it wasn't those two caucuses which sought to make the debt ceiling vote an absolute emergency. for all the issues dems faced with party unity, the republicans have had considerably more trouble this time.

Cantor, according to you. But I wasn't in the room, so I don't know what the deal even was. All we have is Obama's version of the story.

considering boehner's actions afterwards ("get your ass in line"), and the lack of a republican talking point...i'm inclined to believe that this was more or less true.

But tell me- what do you think of Obama threatening to not send out Social Security checks when there are $2.6 Trillion in treasuries in the trust fund that can be sold at any time to cover SS payments?

it's not quite as easy as you think.

in the end, i'm quite willing to state that democrats didn't exactly cover themselves in glory here; it's true that using the word "terrorist" to describe what's going on is reprehensible.

so, when are you willing to state that republicans did anything wrong? are you willing to state that it was foolish or arrogant for budget negotiations to be done under the threat of not passing a debt ceiling vote? you do realize that if, in the future, a republican president holds such a vote...democrats might remember what happened here? how is this good for any of us?

[highsea]

highsea,



which makes you wonder why we went through the whole rigamarole, and why republicans didn't want a clean bill. as it is, we're talking about "phony cuts", and not "phony revenue increases", which is probably a tad closer to what the Progressive/Congressional Black Caucus would rather be discussing.

certainly, if you like, i'm more than happy to assign some blame for how badly congress is run to them. but it wasn't those two caucuses which sought to make the debt ceiling vote an absolute emergency. for all the issues dems faced with party unity, the republicans have had considerably more trouble this time.

Those two caucuses always vote en bloc. They have twice the numbers of the tea party caucus. Yet all the rhetoric is aimed at the tea partiers, because the people doing the aiming disagree with their ideology.

That's my point, not who got what.

The bill went through without the the tea partiers, because enough ground was given to get half the democrat votes in the House.

considering boehner's actions afterwards ("get your ass in line"), and the lack of a republican talking point...i'm inclined to believe that this was more or less true.

Maybe it is, I have no way of knowing. There was never any public disclosure of the proposal.

Politico is a pretty slanted view, so I don't much care about their version either. I prefer to form my own opinions based on reading the bills and watching the hearings on C-Span.

it's not quite as easy as you think.

Been done before, it could be done again. Also in cash, the Treasury has $100 Bn in unspent stimulus funds, $129 Bn in TARP funds, and $20 Bn in normal general funds. That doesn't count the continuous stream of money coming in from payroll taxes.

That's plenty of cushion to cover a treasury swap of slightly less than what was needed for the August payments. AND there's no way in hell the Congress would have tried to stop such a move. The dems all lined up behind Obama on the threat, but when it came time to vote you know damn well it would have been unanimous.

And any arguments about the so-called legality of using the trust fund for it's intended purpose ring hollow considering the many ways this administration has flouted the laws of the US. From the way TARP funds were used to bail out car companies while re-writing bankruptcy laws by executive fiat, to ignoring immigration laws, telling private companies where they can build factories, telling citizens what kind of insurance they have to buy, the list is endless.

The legality of any given action has been no impediment to this administration.

in the end, i'm quite willing to state that democrats didn't exactly cover themselves in glory here; it's true that using the word "terrorist" to describe what's going on is reprehensible.

And Doyle came back in an "apology" and said "If I had used the term 'hostage taker' it wouldn't have been an issue. Geez.

I guess he wished he would have emulated Obama, who routinely accuses the repubs of being hostage takers.

I won't even mention that idiot Biden, who has always been the biggest demagogue in the democrat party.

so, when are you willing to state that republicans did anything wrong? are you willing to state that it was foolish or arrogant for budget negotiations to be done under the threat of not passing a debt ceiling vote? you do realize that if, in the future, a republican president holds such a vote...democrats might remember what happened here? how is this good for any of us?

Republicans didn't create the situation. Senate democrats did. The republicans passed a budget back in April. Harry Reid directed Kent Conrad to sit on the Senate version.

So no, I can't lay blame on republicans for the fiasco. I can criticize Boehner for going along with this stupid process, and I have. He should have never met with Obama at all.

What should have happened is Senate dems could have met with Obama all they wanted, then passed whatever budget they could get passed in the Senate, and gone to conference with it. This could have been done 4 months ago, and we wouldn't have been in this situation.

[DOR]

so, tell me, in the final bill, who got more of their priorities?

Here's the official (Democratic) description of what was agreed upon ---


o A down payment on deficit reduction that includes historic long-term spending reductions, including almost $1 trillion in spending cuts, in a way that avoids damaging our economy. They are balanced between domestic and defense spending, and they protect essential initiatives like aid for college students.

o A longer term process to achieve another $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction with a committee structure that is going to put everything on the table, including reforms to taxes and entitlements. To stop either side from utilizing procedural tricks that would stop Congress from acting, the recommendations of the committee will get fast track authority, meaning they can’t be filibustered or amended.

o Setting the stage for a balanced agreement that includes revenues. An increasing number of Republicans are united in agreement that any deficit reduction deal has to be balanced and must include revenue.

o If the Committee is not able to achieve meaningful balanced deficit reduction that includes revenue-increasing tax reform for the wealthiest Americans by the end of 2012, President Obama can put his veto pen to work to raise nearly $1 trillion from the wealthiest Americans by vetoing any extension of the Bush tax cuts for the most well-off individuals.

o The enforcement mechanism in the agreement will force cuts that are painful enough to both sides that Congress will have to act. By their nature, enforcement mechanisms should include aspects that neither side supports in order to guarantee action is taken. If Congress doesn’t act, then beginning in 2013 there are going to be $1.2 trillion in spending cuts through 2021 – 50 percent from domestic spending and 50 percent from defense spending. Low income programs such as Medicaid and Social Security and Medicare benefits would be exempt. Cuts to Medicare would be capped and limited to the provider side.

o This agreement does not accept entitlement reform without giving equal consideration to revenue-increasing tax reform, and it guarantees that low-income and middle class families won’t be forced to carry the burden of deficit reduction alone.

[Julie]

Looks to me that it is more appealing to the Democrats. They spared the college students, medicaid, social security, and a balanced agreement by the committee to include revenues. So what the heck?

[highsea]

Looks to me that it is more appealing to the Democrats. They spared the college students, medicaid, social security, and a balanced agreement by the committee to include revenues. So what the heck?

Obama was on TV yesterday repeating his speal about corporations and wealthy paying their fair share, etc...

[Julie]

Obama was on TV yesterday repeating his speal about corporations and wealthy paying their fair share, etc...

Obama is not helping matters at all and needs some duct tape over that big mouth for awhile. :)

[snapper]

Delayed at best is my estimate. $1tr over ten years is not enough for me to buy US bonds.

[Laser]

Delayed at best is my estimate. $1tr over ten years is not enough for me to buy US bonds.

Agree with you here. At the very least, I want to see the National Debt Clock running backward, even if very slowly, and this agreement does not even get us half way there.

So much for compromise. Whats needed now is some gorilla economics. An all out war against private sector job killing regulation.

[astralis]

julie,

Looks to me that it is more appealing to the Democrats. They spared the college students, medicaid, social security, and a balanced agreement by the committee to include revenues. So what the heck?

uh, not really. that's because you're reading the Dem talking points, vice the Republican ones. the debate was over how many democratic priorities should be axed, and now that it's over, of course the Dems are trying to make the best out of a bad situation.

you don't believe me, just go to PuffPo or DailyKos or any of the liberal rags and the rage is enough to cut through with a knife. it's full of threads such as "is obama actually a believing republican, or was he merely forced to betray us because he's a wimp?"

dem priorities got axed, republicans pretty much just kinda-sorta promised to maybe think about revenues in the future. or not.

if this were a Dem win, the bill would have probably involved considerably fewer spending cuts and actual revenue increases.

[snapper]

Italy will go before Christmas; Italy is 'bound to default', says CEBR - Telegraph