The spending and tax proposals of the Gang of 6

boygabriel

whynot_31 said:

Good luck not compromising.

Good luck Obama.

How's it working out for him so far?

whynot_31

Boygabriel said:

Good luck Obama.

How's it working out for him so far?

He is the best president we have had in decades, but I doubt he will be re-elected.

He would have gotten less done if he was as impractical as Kucinich.

boygabriel

Do we need to review why simply increasing the deficit is not an option in light of the about?

Was this english?

whynot_31

typo fixed:

Do we need to review why simply increasing the deficit is not an option in light of the above newsflashes?

boygabriel

whynot_31 said:

He is the best president we have had in decades.

Boy that sure is setting the bar high. Reagan, Bush and Clinton should be mentioned in league with Lincoln and Washington.

How are those foreign war drawdowns going?

How's health reform going?

How's defense spending going?

How's debt reduction going?

How's the job market?

How is financial regulation going?

How is the American education system?

Everything improving?

No?

Shocking.

I know the answer: compromise with the party that wants to elect Michelle Bachmann president or The Quitter from Wasilla VP.

whynot_31

While Obama has been president we have had in decades, I doubt he will be re-elected.

He would have gotten even less done if he was as impractical as Kucinich.

You have a hard time with the concept that the left isn't in charge, and -when changing a situation isn't possible- the idea is to make the best of the situation you are in.

boygabriel

whynot_31 said:

typo fixed:

Do we need to review why simply increasing the deficit is not an option in light of the above newsflashes?

I'm not as cynical as you.

I don't view our nation's political differences as insurmountable obstacles that can only be dealt with by endless compromise.

BTW- how is Obama's compromise in the debt ceiling working?

How come every time he concedes something, the Republicans tack on a new demand?

Couldn't be that they're irresponsible partners, could it?

whynot_31

where do you get this concept of partners?

this is open conflict.

..the left is losing.

It can either lose completely, or compromise. No one WANTS to compromise; they do it because they HAVE TO.

boygabriel

whynot_31 said:

He would have gotten even less done if he was as impractical as Kucinich.

Opinion.

Make sure to remember that. This is your OPINION.

You have a hard time with the concept that the left isn't in charge, and the idea of making the best of a bad situation.

No, I'm actually fully aware of it. And here's the key, pay attention closely:

I just think they could get more done by sticking to progressive and lefty ideas, not compromising with an increasingly irrational partner.

You have a hard time with the concept that anything other than compromise exists as a political tactic.

Which is strange b/c the absence of compromise is something you seem to admire in the Tea Party.

But not in Democrats.

I think you fail to grasp how irrational the Republican party is today.

I think you think we're still dealing with 1990s moderate Republicans.

boygabriel

whynot_31 said:

where do you get this concept of partners?

this is open conflict.

..the left is losing.

It can either lose completely, or compromise. No one WANTS to compromise; they do it because they HAVE TO.

You think compromise is the way to victory.

I do not.

There are our OPINIONS. They are DIFFERENT.

Let me rephrase something more to your liking:

BTW- how is Obama's compromise in the debt ceiling working?

How come every time he concedes something, the Republicans tack on a new demand?

Couldn't be that they're irresponsible negotiation adversaries, could it?

whynot_31

I have a difficult time with the bizarre concepts you call "victory" or "reasonable negotiation partners".

I live in a diverse city/country/world, with conflicting priorities.

As a result, I am never allowed "victory".

I am never allowed everything I want.

I am not usually treated politely by those who have substantially more power than me.

No one I know is able to achieve everything they want.

We all do the best we can with what we have. I live my life in a way that is dictated by how much power I have, relative to the amount of power they have.

Life is generally about who has power; it is rarely about being a partner. ...if you are lucky, marriage and friendships are about being a partner.

As a teenager, I had a tough time with this concept, and thought that I should have all of the power.

So I can sympathize with those who do not like compromise, and gently tell them "no one likes compromise, but life isn't about winning".

I am sorry that the the left doesn't have all of the power it wants; it should adjust.

I am sorry that the the right does not have all of the power it wants; it should adjust.

Denial by either group is not a productive long term coping mechanism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

You have read Marx, Nietzsche and Durkheim ....right?

cool the kid

Boygabriel said:

CTK:

If it gets us to a bad place with a more reasonable debt, I personally don't call it much progress.

And if "debt" is your sole goal, the 2008 crisis contributed massively to the "debt", some argue was the primary cause, so you'd have to take that into account.

I think you mean "budget", no?

The two go hand in hand. We've operated in a deficit for the last 10 years. The sum of those deficits, along with the debt taken on during the bailouts/stimulus, is our debt. The distinction between the two is semantics really, I meant both.

And what would constitute a "bad place"? Would you agree that a tax hike on the rich is not the only way for the country to come out of the hole we're in without most Americans being on the losing end of the reforms?

cool the kid

BG- there are ways to compromise that would be beneficial to everyone and there are ways that benefit noone. I.e., the deadlock we have now is one form of compromise. Another compromise would be for everyone to put their plans together. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that latter compromise is better than the former, at least for the country at large. It's odd that you blast the Republicans for not compromising, but then lambast Obama for compromising. If I didn't know better I'd have more to say about that.

whynot_31

Canada began to get its debt under control in the 1990s, when it was approaching 70% of GDP.

It took a lot of hard work and almost 20 years, but their debt is now a very manageable 35% of GDP.

Here's a non academic (but pretty well written) article, that uses many of the terms being thrown around in the present US debate, and advocates that we take a Canadian approach. I know we are not Canada, but I would love it if the US could achieve what Canada did.

http://jesse.kline.ca/news/70-opinion/224-us-looks-to-canada-to-fix-its-debt-crisis

Perhaps because they are less polarized, they were able to do it without having to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. I don't think we need a BBA either.

whynot_31

This whimsical graphic shows how much taxes would have to go up if we changed the balance by about $1T by only increasing taxes, and didn't cut spending.

http://www.bankruptingamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/TAXES_PublicNotice.jpg

[unsurprisingly, the tax increases would be huge]

.

.

.

.

To be fair, here's a critique of the Republican plan which favors cutting about $1T in spending (mostly in the form of entitlements) without increasing taxes:

http://www.cbpp.org/files/7-25-11bud-stmt.pdf

[unsurprisingly, the cuts to support programs would be huge]

whynot_31

Beer: Do we all work in mhtn? If so, we could just meet there.

cool the kid

Yea Manhattan works better for me for a few reasons. BK is an expedition.

Interesting point about Canada. But at the end of the day, they had a system fluid enough to enable the necessary swift changes. Also I'm curious as to which programs they cut

whynot_31

My knowledge of Canada's politics are rudimentary, at best.

So it would take me to much work to do anything more than reference them as an example thT a solution can be found. We are much different than Canada, but I think they still provide a glimmer of hope to us.

BG, Tate, et al-

What say you to a mhtn venue?

tateinbk

For a certain reason there can be no beer for me sadly, but I would be up for a voyage to Manhattan. During the summer I rarely venture in, but I've been meaning to see if Border's have better sales yet.

(I know, I'm looking to get a good deal when 10,000 jobs are being lost, it makes me not a great person. I have a book addiction problem, though, and I can't justifying buying them at full cost when I read them in a day.)

whynot_31

This expedition is guilt free.

We could go someplace where there is food and diet coke, and beer.

Disclosure: CTK and I have met on one prior occasion.

tateinbk

ewww, diet coke. No, my reason is not diet related. So food is always good.

whynot_31

Congrats in advance.

....we now need only to wait until tomorrow to hear from BG.

boygabriel

I'm in.

I work on the west side but can meet anywhere.

boygabriel

Cool The Kid said:

It's odd that you blast the Republicans for not compromising, but then lambast Obama for compromising. If I didn't know better I'd have more to say about that.

I'm not even blasting the Republicans for not compromising. I'm blasting them for not taking their unequivocal VICTORY.

They're long past not compromising. I'm not sure of a single aspect of the deals being discussed that they are compromising on.

I don't like Obama's "compromise" not b/c it's a compromise, but b/c the result is going to be bad policy, IMO.

And again, Obama isn't "compromising". He's giving the Republicans virtually everything have asked for.

No raise in revenue.

No long-term debt ceiling extension.

Massive cuts to social and govt programs.

I'll let Steve Benen take it from here:

I’m trying to remember all of the various offers Republicans have turned down over the last several months. They started from the sensible position that the debt ceiling must be raised, and then proceeded to turn down every viable alternative.

* Democrats asked Republicans to pass a clean bill, just as GOP leaders had supported many times in the past. Republicans said, “No.”

* Democrats invited Republicans to Biden-led bipartisan talks. Republicans quit.

* Democrats offered a $2.4 trillion debt-reduction package, 83% of which would come from spending cuts. Republicans said, “No.”

* Democrats sought a Grand Bargain, with more than $4 trillion in savings. Republicans said, “No.”

* Several Democrats offered some preliminary support for the “Gang of Six” blueprint. Republicans said, “No.”

* Many more Democrats signaled support for the McConnell/Reid “Plan B.” Republicans said, “No.”

Is it me, or is there a pattern to all of this?

Late yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced his support for a yet another approach that would meet all of the GOP demands: it would (1) include about $2.7 trillion in debt reduction; (2) bring in nothing in the way of new revenue; and (3) require only one debt-ceiling increase this Congress, just as GOP leaders requested.

By all indications, Republicans will reject Reid’s latest offer, too.

Which brings us back to the president’s question: “Can they say yes to anything?”

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_07/refusing_to_take_yes_for_an_an031072.php

boygabriel

whynot_31 said:

I have a difficult time with the bizarre concepts you call "victory" or "reasonable negotiation partners".

"reasonable negotiation partners"

I think you understand that I'm referring to the two camps (the two camps that exist in our Congress: Rep & Dem) involved in this.

Use whatever term you like.

"victory"

Really, you don't recognize or believe in terms like "legislative victory"

Really?

Anyway...

You think compromise is literally the only way forward for our nation or a political party or what have you.

To which I ask:

Has Obama not been compromising on everything?

How has it been going so far? How many bipartisan achievements does he have? How's his popularity rating? How are his policies doing? Employment? Economy? Wars? Health Care?

It seems to me that Obama is living embodiment of your preferred political strategy.

To which I respond: exactly.

whynot_31

While the left may see themselves as heroically standing up against an enemy, I fear this story will not end up as David vs Goliath..

This version may involve David getting his ass publicly kicked by the "forces of evil", and the left being seen as impotent.

As painful as it may be, the left may need to give in to the cuts, and hope that the public misses the programs ...and later forces their reinstatement through taxes, and the election of more democrats.

tateinbk

If the Republicans squabble all the way to the end and force Obama to cave to the loads of democrats pushing him to use the 14th Amendment then the Republicans will have gotten NO cuts whatsoever.

If such a situation were to occur I would really hope the "old school" Repubs go home in shame and do some serious thinking about what they let go wrong. They are being given a massive opportunity to impress "fiscal conservatism" on this country and they are wasting it at every turn. When faced with a Democrat plan that cuts more than the Republican plan and they say no to both? I say screw um.

They are also coming up with some great thoughts. Like Boehner saying nothing he does can influence the credit rating of the US from being impacted? Sheer gold I say. How about Eric Cantor saying that whether we default or not will be the fault of the Democrats for not accepting the Republican plan outright. Heck, not even the whole Rep. side can accept That plan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/28/boehner-debt-credit-rating-downgrade_n_912367.html

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/174183-cantor-to-reid-pass-house-bill-or-default-is-on-you

whynot_31

I propose beverages and food occur on Wednesday, August 3rd.

The day after we do, or do not, default.

tateinbk

That seems appropriate.

boygabriel

whynot_31 said:

While the left may see themselves as heroically standing up against an enemy, I fear this story will not end up as David vs Goliath..

This version may involve David getting his ass publicly kicked by the "forces of evil", and the left being seen as impotent.

As painful as it may be, the left may need to give in to the cuts, and hope that the public misses the programs ...and later forces their reinstatement through taxes, and the election of more democrats.

What left are you talking about?

Obama hasn't "stood up" to anything. They've conceded pretty much every single point.

All Obama does is compromise, and yet the Left is still losing.

Badly, I'd say.