Debt deal

[Ddrak]

So... who's going to blink first?

Dd

[Kulaf]

The voters.

[MeGusta]

I think that the President is making a terrible mistake in trying to be a "centrist".

[Fallakin Kuvari]

He's only playing centrist because the Democrats don't control the House and he needs to be at least somewhat convincing to get any sort of deal done.

Not that its going to help anything. More than likely it'll just hurt him in the long run.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I'm not sure there will be a blink. I think there are enough people on both sides that are so poalrized that they are iwlling to let this thing play out and let the debt ceiling get hit. Then the Admin has to make the choices of who gets paid and who doesn't.

[Ddrak]

So do you think not doing a deal would hurt Obama or the GOP more? The way things are reported over here it seems like the GOP would come out worse, but I can't tell how it is over there.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

GOP will be murdered in the media, sans Fox, if a deal isn't reached.

[MeGusta]

The "Backup Plan", if adopted, would lay the onus entirely on the President. He would get the blame for raising the debt ceiling and congress will be able to say they disapproved but he raised it anyway.

That measure would create a new legal structure authorizing the president to raise the debt limit by as much as $2.5 trillion in three installments. The first, an increase of $700 billion, would come immediately. The next two, worth $900 billion each, would come this fall and sometime next summer.

On each occasion, Obama would be required to submit to Congress an explicit request for an increase, along with a menu of proposed spending cuts equal to the requested increase. The submission of the president’s first request would automatically raise the debt limit by $100 billion to give the Treasury Department breathing room while Congress considers the request.

Lawmakers would then have 15 days to pass a resolution of disapproval, giving them an opportunity to go on record against raising the debt ceiling. But Obama could veto the resolution, and the debt limit would then rise, providing that at least 34 Democratic senators stood firm in upholding his veto.

McConnell’s strategy makes no provision for spending cuts to be enacted. Aides said lawmakers could pick and choose from the president’s list when they put together appropriations bills in a separate process.

[Kulaf]

Amazing how willing Congress is to cede their authority to the Executive when it suits them.

[Ddrak]

I think taking the 14th amendment option would be better than that legal mess. In short, you assert that the President has the authority to uphold the constitution, which states "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Most legal analysts say the application of the 14th Amendment to the debt ceiling won't fly. Even if it did, it would be challenged in court, which would take a lot of time, and there's no guarantee a judge would let it just happen, considering that Congress has the authority to change things up.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Interesting that Obama rejected a short term debt limit increase. He's talking out both sides of his face, If he's really worried about the calamaty that may enuse should the US default, then he should take the short term limit increase and keep negotiating.

He won't consider linking it to a balanced budget amendment either...

That said, I think he's won the public image battle on this. Unless he blows it, he's managing themessage and presentaiton much better than the Republicans. Whatever Dem (probably Pelosi) is responsible for muzzling the far left portion of the Democrats should be congratulated as well. It makes the Dems look pretty cohesive, even though I know some of them are seething about cuts to the big entitlement programs.

Going to be interesting to see how this shakes out. Personally, I am all for not raising the debt limit, and then watching the Obama admin try to decide who gets paid and who doesn't. What's lost in the debate is that the US still has significant revenue. It can pay for a lot of things, just not everything without borrowing more money. So we can still meet obligations... the question will be which obligations will the administration choose to meet? The Republicans can win this either way, they just don't see it yet.

If they refuse to raise the debt ceiling, and calamity doesn't happen, they get to say "See, we told you so, we don't need to keep going furhter into debt". Or if a lot of shit happens, and some people don't get paidfor whatever reason, the Reps will state that if they were in charge, they WOULD get paid. They win that battle too.

The only way they lose is if it gets soooo bad that it affects the average American (and it might, especially with interest rate increases on mortgages, and devaluation of retirement holdings)). Where it will hurt is bond traders, big banks and Wall Street in general... not particularly favorites of Joe Lunchbox.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

GOP has a ace up their sleeve too, should Obama hold his Birthday bash and no deal has been reached.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I think that the President is making a terrible mistake in trying to be a "centrist".

He's not trying to be a centrist. He's using this to position himself to get re-elected. If he was centrist, he'd go for a temporary hike in the debt ceiling and keep on negotiating. He's merely playing the part for political image purposes.

If he was truely serious about this, he'd lay out a plan for a budget that wasn't percentage based on spending, but actual dollar based and without percentages tied to GDP (and he has some VERy aggressive increases in GDP predictions). And start from there for negotiations on the debt ceiling.

You can see his percentage based spending proposal based on future GDP here. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... tables.pdf

Look... if Obama really wants increased revenue, he has to stimulate hiring. More people working means more income taxes. More income taxes means more revenue. Free up business by reducing regulation and taxation (because all that tax is just a cost and gets passed to the consumer) and he'll get an increase in revenue without having to up anyone's tax rate, or impose new taxes/fees.

And the progressive nature of our tax code has gone too far. When people actually get a federal tax refund without ever having to pay any federal tax, we've gone over the edge. Almost half the US wage earners PAY NO INCOME TAX. Why don't we spread that out a bit? The Republicans are afraid to mention this because it smells like a tax increase to people who don't otherwise pay Federal income tax.

And it is, effectively.

But these aren't the people that tend to vote conservative and Republican. These are people that have been reaping the benefits paid for by the other half of the population. Does no one but me see the inequity here?

[Embar Angylwrath]

I found a great piece of property to build the 15,000 sq. Ft. Dream home I want to retire in. I went to my bank to secure financing. My banker told me that I had not only reached my credit limit, I have accumulated so much frivolous debt that I can't feasibly pay it back in my lifetime. I said, no problem, let's just raise my debt limit. He said no. Can you believe that? What is with those bankers and their standards?????

[Lurker]

wow. what a moronic analogy.

Free up business by reducing regulation and taxation (because all that tax is just a cost and gets passed to the consumer) and he'll get an increase in revenue without having to up anyone's tax rate, or impose new taxes/fees.

What you are proposing doesn't increase revenue and it doesn't lift up the middle class. Your party's economic policies are proven failures. You and your party haven't had an original thought in 40 years.

[Ddrak]

Almost half the US wage earners PAY NO INCOME TAX. Why don't we spread that out a bit?

Because that would make no significant difference. Those people earn less than $30k. They represent about 10% of the total income of Americans. Let's say you "spread out" the tax load to them to, say, 10% - guess what happens? You drop the effective tax rate of the rest by about 0.75%. That's right - less than a percent, while hammering the people who are hurting the most.

Of course, once you add in the fact you're driving up poverty levels that will end up needing government programs to deal with, you're probably not even going to break even on tax for the top 50%. In short, it's probably a wash.

So, is that really you're plan? To stick it to people earning under $30k, which does nothing for everyone else's taxes? Seriously?

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Its more than people making less than 30k getting tax refunds.

[Ddrak]

Not sure what you mean, Fall.

Dd

[Harlowe]

Free up business by reducing regulation and taxation (because all that tax is just a cost and gets passed to the consumer) and he'll get an increase in revenue without having to up anyone's tax rate, or impose new taxes/

You're high. That doesn't work. It's never worked. Corporations are showing record profits and the money doesn't go into more jobs or lower costs, it goes into their pocket. They have never magically hired just because they have less regulation and more money. They hire what they need and if people can't consume more shit, they aren't going to expand to need more people to create more shit.

Reducing regulation is also asinine. Companies do not self-regulate.

Good lord....