The spending and tax proposals of the Gang of 6

Cool The Kid said:

It only seems that way because any change that doesn't fit with your agendas is bad.

I.e., if entitlements get touched in a way you deem negative, regardless of any other outcome, it's bad. Regardless of the fact that as is we can't afford them.

Plus the whole point of the Go6 plan isn't to completely block the raising of the debt limit, or hold the nation hostage or w/e. It's ensuring that before we raise it again we commit to reversing our course away from the things that got us in this mess in the first place. I do think the grandstanding is a little ridiculous, but it's no less ridiculous than the idea that we can continue as is. The fiscal crisis >>>>>> entitlements.

Yes, I don't like their solution.

Yes, I think entitlements are always the first thing out of Republicans' mouths, or "centrists" mouths, and it's going to be the first thing out of Obama's mouth when the deal gets announced shortly.

The Go6's plan raises the debt limit, but as I said above, it's primary tool to deal with the debt is the same old shit:

lower taxes

reduce social services

Nothing about national defense.

Nothing about health care costs.

Nothing about the Bush Tax cuts

Nothing about estate tax or capital gains tax.

Nothing new, nothing progressive.

Oh, and in case the Go6 and their hype men in the media haven't noticed, America is out of work, and getting bankrupted by health care and housing costs by the minute.

But hey, how about those taxes, eh?

BG, your accusations about the right prioritizing tax cuts etc. can be equally hurled at the left for raising taxes.

The bottom line is, if you're really about progress, and not about class warfare, then I don't see why it's so hard to understand why everyone has to sacrifice. The idea that SS or welfare programs should be completely off the table while everything else you just *happened* to hate anyway need to be slashed reeks of hypocrisy.

Not to mention, you chastize the Go6 for being vague, but then chastize them for not taking all the programs you hate off the table. If we don't know what the plan is, how do you know the programs you hate won't get touched? Are you formulating your opinions on what you "think" you hear or what you actually know?

We need to get our heads out of our assess fiscally, and w/entitlements accounting for half of the gov'ts outlays, as well as borrowing paying for half the gov'ts outlays, and entitlement + military programs growing at a much faster clip than revenues, yes, we have to look at everything, even your sacred cow. It's almost like you are OK w/bankrupting the gov't, as long as entitlements are protected in the interim. Makes no sense.

"class warfare" is a useless label generally wielded by people who are in denial about our wealth disparity, or the effects of unemployment, the housing crisis and the health care crisis, to name a few things.

In other words, usually the "haves" who don't accept that most of the rest of the country is the "have nots". Or the "haves" who feel that the only difference between them and the "have nots" is work ethic.

I don't know whether this applies to you. That is up to you. I feel very strongly about our problems w/r/t to social services, taxes, debt, and govt policy. Label it whatever you would like.

I don't see why it's so hard to understand why everyone has to sacrifice.

First of all, for 832nd time, I am fine considering many social services cuts. At no point have I advocated a one-way street, and if you read it that way, you're misunderstanding me.

All I've ever argued is that (1) there are other things that need more attention than social service cuts and (2) everyone's response to the debt or govt spending is always to cut things first. It's tired and wrong.

More significantly, your position that "we all must sacrifice" seems to imply that everyone's starting point is equal.

IE. Everyone is getting equal levels of things we can't afford and everyone can equally afford to lose these things.

If that is not your presumption, I apologize. However the ways in which I disagree with that starting premise should be obvious by now.

I feel our starting point already heavily favors the wealthy, the super-wealthy, and corporations. So asking everyone to cut equally is far from being egalitarian about things.

It's actually completely reenforcing the very problematic status quo.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/obamas-bad-debt-deal-getting-worse/2011/07/22/gIQAJcDbTI_blog.html?wprss=plum-line

This deal is great. Obama makes trillions in cuts. Repubs promise to THINK about addressing revenue at an undetermined future date.

Bipartisanship!

Your faith in the righteousness of our political system is commendable.

Boygabriel said:

All I've ever argued is that (1) there are other things that need more attention than social service cuts and (2) everyone's response to the debt or govt spending is always to cut things first. It's tired and wrong.

(1) I think we differ here in that I think everything deserves the same amount of attention... or at least attention in proportion to its growth/size in the budget; your reasoning for why social services should be looked at last boils down to your bias for them, where as I see them, for better or worse, as one of many line items on the budget we can't afford... as your reasoning for protection is personal and can really be applied to anything. I.e. some warhawk could make an emotional plea to protect the military. Doesn't really mean anything.

(2)I'm not sure how else to approach the problem. Plus many people including myself have advocated for tax cuts in the form of the cancellation of tax breaks. There's nothing fair or logical about a tax break for a mortgage, a child, a marriage or a corporate jet.... the gov't has no business in changing our behaviors beyond protecting us from criminals and dangerous threats.

And the stance that the rich should be penalized more heavily for having more is downright socialist. Unless you want to completely neutralize any kind of income or wealth inequality, ultimately those with more will always be at some advantage beyond those who aren't....

Where I differ in how I think the wealth gap should be approached lies in our differences in feeligns about "the rich"... I bear no animosity towards them; you feel they should be "punished", just as you feel "all" Republicans are bent on destroying the country regardless of evidence to the contrary. Ultimately, the country will benefit most with everyone moving forward, and the problem we face now is that much of the country has stalled. But I don't think getting everyone else moving has to happen by exacting revenge on the rich.... it will come from policies that make sense and a legitimate environment that enables private businesses to grow (which does NOT mean kickbacks or meaningless tax breaks for the rich). As long as we foster a culture of dependence on gov't entitlement programs we will never get out of this quagmire. People need real jobs and wealth, and there is plenty of evidence to show that entitlement programs & "stimulus" is not the way to get that.

No, I have expansive feelings about wealth and inequality in this country, and where power is held, who benefits from influence, how the system has operated to date, etc.

If you choose to read it as a blind desire to "punish" the rich that says far more about you than it does about me.

But either way, you're painfully wrong in summarizing my arguments.

Republican Party leadership!

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/naked-blackmail/

July 23, 2011, 10:10 AM

Naked Blackmail

It turns out that in the final stages of the debt negotiations, Republicans suddenly added a new demand — a trigger that would end up eliminating the individual mandate in health care reform.

This is telling, in a couple of ways.

First, the health care mandate has nothing to do with debt and deficits. So this is naked blackmail: the GOP is trying to use the threat of financial catastrophe to impose its policy vision, even in areas that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, a vision that it lacks the votes to enact through normal legislation.

Second, this is a demand Obama can’t accept, unless he plans on changing his party registration. Health reform doesn’t work without a mandate (remember the primary? Maybe better not to). And if health reform is undermined, Obama will have achieved nothing. So by adding this demand, Republicans were in effect saying no deal — unless, I guess, they believed that Obama is a total pushover.

Awesome.

Keep in mind that health care costs are one of the single biggest sources of our national debt. And here are the Republicans: literally threatening financial catastrophe in an effort to undo the minuscule little amount of progress that Democrats were actually able to make to reign in our insane health care costs.

Republicans, ladies and gentlemen!

I forget, did the far left threaten financial collapse if they didn't get their way?

Did they shut down the government?

On false equivalencies, that are so popular these days:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/07/25/110725taco_talk_packer

http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/07/22/health_care_reform_and_the_debt_ceiling/index.html

First, the hostage-holding bank robbers asked for $10 million in cash and a helicopter ride out of the country. When those demands were met, they asked for another $100 million, a private Lear jet, free massages, and a signed note of apology from the SWAT team that was obnoxiously pointing guns at them during the negotiations.

The individual mandate, readers might recall, was originally a Republican idea, a crucial part of the GOP's strategy to preserve a private market for healthcare insurance and fend off the evil specter of true, government-provided universal healthcare coverage. But once Obama was elected, the notion that everyone should be required to have health insurance so as to make it economically feasible to cover, well, everyone, somehow became a betrayal of all that is good and decent about the United States of America.

It's also probably worth mentioning that the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Affordable Care Act has scored it as likely to reduce the deficit. This seems like a relevant thing to bring up in the context of a discussion of the debt ceiling. Boehner's proposed penalty is to scuttle a government healthcare reform that, on paper, is supposed to lower the deficit.

Well, heck, why not? If we are to believe current reports, Obama has agreed to significant cuts in Medicaid and Medicare without any quid pro quo except for promises of tax reform in the future. That's a huge win for Republicans. So why not go for broke -- why not gamble everything on knocking out the one triumph Obama can hang his hat on?

If we needed any further demonstration that the fight over the debt ceiling isn't really a fight about how to get government finances in order, but is instead simply about one party's determination to use the threat of economic disaster to wage total political warfare, then we have it now. Congressional Democrats are absolutely correct to be distraught at the direction this evolving mess is headed. But will they show the resolve of their Republican compatriots in the House and draw their own line in the sand? If recent history is any indication, the answer is no.