US Politics - Super-Congress Edition

[Shryke]

If we hit the debt ceiling, we have enough money to pay interest on the debt, so there is no external default, and entitlements. We don't have enough money to pay for everything else, which puts us at about the same level as a shutdown.

Not entitlements from anything I've seen. The US would have enough to pay the interest on the debt, some of SS/Medicare/Medicaid and nothing else. You would be defaulting on all your other obligations.

And I like that you ignored all the other shit like damaging the US's ability to borrow, crippling the economy and potential crazy bad unheaval in the world economy.

But yeah, totally the same.... :rolleyes:

As for compromising, it all matters on whether you're compromising on substance or process. I do not want a substantive compromise that "splits the baby", and locks in both spending and taxes I don't like. Especially since the spending cuts won't happen as promised. I would prefer an "agree to disagree" compromise that keeps the issue alive but doesn't make those changes, and leaves that battle for another day.

You may not want one, but your party only controls one house so compromise is what you will have to live with.

I mean, what's the plan here really? What if the GOP doesn't win any more seats next election? Keep not doing anything and refusing to give an inch till finally, potentially decades later, you get a majority in both houses? This is your idea of governance?

And your dislike of compromise doesn't suddenly mean trying to destroy the Us economy is a good idea.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The markets aren't acting spooked because they still don't think the US government is crazy/stupid enough to default.

Uh, wait a minute. If the markets don't think the U.S. government will actually default on those securities, then isn't all this talk about the GOP blowing up the world economy just rhetorical whining?

Here's what is really going on. There isn't going to be a default, and deep down, you know it. What is happening is that the threat to default is forcing a lot of public attention on the issue of the deficit and spending, and that's a discussion that is making Democrats extremely nervous right now. That's not saying that the GOP is blameless, because god knows those generally ball-less douchebags have contributed to it. But as of now, the dynamic in the GOP supports hard cuts, and politically, that argument is a winner right now.

That's why Obama doesn't want an extension only into next summer, because he knows it will force him either to piss off his base enormously, or piss off independent voters. It has nothing to do with "it will make the markets nervous." The timing is all about politics with him, just as this threat not to raise the debt ceiling is all about staking out hard political positions on the substantive issues. And to that extent, it serves a valid political purposes by forcing politicians to take public stands, thereby presenting voters with a more meaningful choice next year.

You guys all act like this is your first rodeo.

And if the GOP is smart, they will make a balanced budget or debt ceiling constitutional amendment the centerpiece of their 2012 strategy when this issue comes up again. Whether you personally like the idea doesn't really matter, because you don't get to vote anyway. Except in Chicago, perhaps. Voters like that idea overwhelmingly, and if the GOP pushes it hard enough next summer and gets it through Congress, they can make it an issue in state elections as well.

Heh heh heh.

[Xenophon]

Your lie about 50 percent paying no taxes is propaganda that is deliberately designed to make people like my parents believe that 50 percent of people out there who have no income tax taken out of their check.

Really? The question of whether people have income tax taken out their paycheck or not doesn't seem like that big a political issue to me. Whether people end up having paid the government any money after all taxes, credits, deductions, and exemptions are taken into account seems like the far more important point to your ordinary voter.

[Swordfish]

Actually, it seems to me that the markets haven't been spooked all that much yet. Am I wrong?

You are not wrong.

The markets are fine. Wall street knows, unlike blindly partisan pit bulls on both sides of the aisle, that there's very little risk of an actual default.

The catastrophe porn scenarios are only really being thrown around by those who want an excuse to engage in political dick swinging.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

It's a hell of a lot more than a technical difference when you're talking about closing income tax loopholes that don't apply to people not paying income taxes. I made the point about half the people not paying income taxes in response to a very specific issue -- the closing of those tax loopholes that benefit wealthy taxpayers. The loopholes they're talking about closing aren't going to affect those folks who don't pay any income taxes.

Babbling about payroll taxes in that context is like bringing up crayons in a discussion about sculpture -- it has no relevance.

Which "loopholes" would you target? (That is a real and not a leading question - I am curious what provisions are in your sights). ETA - Or are you just looking at the Boehner plan? The problem with using the closing of "loopholes" as revenue raisers is that their effect isn't straightforward. I mean, I see all the time provisions go into the code that are supposed to "close loopholes" and raise revenue, but all they actually do is cause people to do a different sort of transaction. Obama particularly targeted the so-called "carried interest" loophole in his speech - that is more symbolic than an actual revenue raiser, and trust me, the PE funds that benefit from it will just put together a different compensation structure. The "right" answer on the "loophole" front is to pull a Reagan, scrap the 1986 Code and start over again (like they did in 1984 - 1986). Otherwise, you really have to raise rates to be sure of the effect.

[Guest Raidne]

What's interesting is that in 2007 the percentage of people paying no federal income tax (which, of course, does not account for payroll and excise tax, or state and local sales, income, and property tax) was only 38%, whereas in 2008 that figure jumped to 49%.

To me, that says that the problem is not at all the fact that we're giving too many people a free ride. The problem is that a very significant number of people suffered reduced incomes from 2007 to 2008 due to a totally fucked economy. As such, unfucking the economy to get these people back into tax-paying status would be the priority for me.

But, I suppose it's possible that I'm an idiot and perhaps playing Russian roulette with the entire United States economy, or what's left of it, in an effort to ensure that people who suffered catastrophic income losses over the last few years pay some taxes already (those deadbeats!) is absolutely the wiser course of action.

[Shryke]

Uh, wait a minute. If the markets don't think the U.S. government will actually default on those securities, then isn't all this talk about the GOP blowing up the world economy just rhetorical whining?

No FLOW. It means they still think the GOP isn't this stupid. Because the markets may not be worried in the sense of moving, they are paying very close attention.

Basically, it hasn't yet reached the point of no return. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to head in that direction. And generally, you don't get usable warnings on these things. By the time people think you are that crazy (which chunks of the GOP are), it's too late to do anything about it.

Funnily, the bad economy is actually helping the situation.

Here's what is really going on. There isn't going to be a default, and deep down, you know it. What is happening is that the threat to default is forcing a lot of public attention on the issue of the deficit and spending, and that's a discussion that is making Democrats extremely nervous right now. That's not saying that the GOP is blameless, because god knows those generally ball-less douchebags have contributed to it. But as of now, the dynamic in the GOP supports hard cuts, and politically, that argument is a winner right now.

That's why Obama doesn't want an extension only into next summer, because he knows it will force him either to piss off his base enormously, or piss off independent voters. It has nothing to do with "it will make the markets nervous." The timing is all about politics with him, just as this threat not to raise the debt ceiling is all about staking out hard political positions on the substantive issues. And to that extent, it serves a valid political purposes by forcing politicians to take public stands, thereby presenting voters with a more menaningful choice next year.

You guys all act like this is your first rodeo.

And yet strangely, it's never happened before really. No one has been stupid enough to try.

If there's no chance of it happening, the threat isn't credible and no one would care. But people do care. They just still think the GOP will see reason eventually or a deal will be reached or Obama will tell them to go fuck themselves or something. But they care because the threat is credible.

You can see it as Boehner fails at cat-herding.

[TrackerNeil]

Here's what is really going on. There isn't going to be a default, and deep down, you know it. What is happening is that the threat to default is forcing a lot of public attention on the issue of the deficit and spending, and that's a discussion that is making Democrats extremely nervous right now. That's not saying that the GOP is blameless, because god knows those generally ball-less douchebags have contributed to it. But as of now, the dynamic in the GOP supports hard cuts, and politically, that argument is a winner right now.

I'm simply dumbfounded.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Which "loopholes" would you target? (That is a real and not a leading question - I am curious what provisions are in your sights). ETA - Or are you just looking at the Boehner plan? The problem with using the closing of "loopholes" as revenue raisers is that their effect isn't straightforward. I mean, I see all the time provisions go into the code that are supposed to "close loopholes" and raise revenue, but all they actually do is cause people to do a different sort of transaction. Obama particularly targeted the so-called "carried interest" loophole in his speech - that is more symbolic than an actual revenue raiser, and trust me, the PE funds that benefit from it will just put together a different compensation structure. The "right" answer on the "loophole" front is to pull a Reagan, scrap the 1986 Code and start over again (like they did in 1984 - 1986). Otherwise, you really have to raise rates to be sure of the effect.

I'm not targeting any loopholes. This discussion arose in the very specific context of the deal Boehner and Obama were discussing, which supposedly would generate an additional $800B in revenue from wealthy taxpayers. Neither party seems to disagree wiht that characterization. The specific changes weren't disclosed. Someone here said they'd prefer that the the rates be raised to get the money from the wealthy to help progressivity, and that's when I said that if the money is coming from the wealthy (presumably through things like limiting the upper limit of the home deduction, etc.) then you're getting your progressivity anyway.

Then someone brought up withholdings, which seemed a complete nonsequitor to me in context.

[Shryke]

Obama has bit this anti-keynes thing hook line and sinker.

He's totally on the reducing deficit bandwagon.

Yeah, unfortunately Obama has bought into the austerity idiocy. Or, at least, the belief that he needs to pretend to buy into it for political gain or some such.

Unfortunately, US economic policy and politics and actual economics continue to have nothing in common.

It's extra sad on Obama's part since he's good with the rhetoric and speeches and even seemed to understand the idea of changing the discourse with his talk about Reagan, but simply hasn't ever tried to do so.

[Shryke]

Also, for a slight change of setting:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/25/277592/walker-closes-dmvs/

Governor Walker's agenda:

Step 1) Require ID for voting to disenfranchise voters

Step 2) Make it harder to get IDs by closing the places where you get them.

[TrueMetis]

Point remains: Oil consumption in the US has doubled in the past twenty years, and increased the fastest during periods of high economic growth.

And yet it has increased much much slower than it should have if people were right about higher oil and energy consumption being required for high GDP growth. It is much much cheaper to save energy than buy more even when it is cheap.

Point also remains: Our entire civilization is completely dependant on cheap oil.

No, just no. Cause once again if this was true every time there was price spike in oil everything would have went to hell. That didn't happen did it.

Yes, we will start reducing our consumption - very, very unwillingly. And said reduction will be bitterly fought every step of the way by those with a vested interest in the current system, which, unfortunately, is just about everybody.

We are already reducing consumption, willingly and easily. (My link) Even oil companies see this, there's a reason there are less gas stations in the US now than there were 10 years ago. The US and most of the Western world doesn't need to continue increasing oil consumption to keep our economies going, because you can make more money by reducing consumption.

[alguien]

I liked this political cartoon:

The GOP's empty threat

Also, this article is interesting:

In 200+ Days The House GOP Has Voted To Kill 1.9 Million Jobs And Created 0

We are a little past the 200 day mark and the House GOP have yet to pass a bill that would create a single job. The only spending they are willing to slash is related to the poor, the disabled, women, Social Security and Medicare, but they have changed the way that the Congress does business by being so hardline that House of Representatives is irrelevant as a policy making body and has become an obstacle to agreement on even the most basic of legislation.

[The Stranger]

I just called Oregon's only Republican congressman and yelled at his intern. I recommend you all do something similar.

[Guest Raidne]

Well, I would, but we don't get to vote on bills and such over here.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I'm not targeting any loopholes. This discussion arose in the very specific context of the deal Boehner and Obama were discussing, which supposedly would generate an additional $800B in revenue from wealthy taxpayers. Neither party seems to disagree wiht that characterization. The specific changes weren't disclosed. Someone here said they'd prefer that the the rates be raised to get the money from the wealthy to help progressivity, and that's when I said that if the money is coming from the wealthy (presumably through things like limiting the upper limit of the home deduction, etc.) then you're getting your progressivity anyway.

Then someone brought up withholdings, which seemed a complete nonsequitor to me in context.

Thank you for clarifying. It is possible that closing loopholes as revenue raisers could disproportionately affect the wealthy. However, without knowing exactly what is being targeted, those same cuts could have a broader than intended effect. As a matter of tax policy, I generally (1) support removing social-policy type deductions and other benefits but (2)raising revenue by raising rates. (1) is not the subject of this debate, in particular. I believe (2) is generally more appropriate if the goal is to raise $x because the way they measure the effects of any particular "revenue raiser" can be funny money. That is, they assume that behaviour stays static when, in actuality, by removing the loophole behaviour changes so that the actual effect is much less. There was an article in Tax Notes about this a couple years back (though it would take me a while to find it).

[Shryke]

Good news everybody:

http://handthatfeedsyou.blogspot.com/2011/07/news-corp-crisis-no-one-is-talking.html

Fox News is losing viewers like crazy apparently.

CNN and MSNBC are up, by a bunch in some cases. Fox News is down, down, down.

Across the first two quarters of 2011, FOX lost nearly 15% of its prime time viewers.[...]

Here's the bottom line from the 2011 Q2 report via Mediabistro:

"CNN reached a cumulative Q2 2011 average monthly audience of 100.4 million, Fox News followed with 83.2 million and MSNBC trailed with 80.3 million."

Seriously, this graph:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BqnU_Kd4wfY/Tij4GS1oLQI/AAAAAAAABN8/WCyjA-u2auI/s1600/cable-news-2011-Q2+%25281%2529.jpg

[awesome possum]

Good news everybody:

http://handthatfeedsyou.blogspot.com/2011/07/news-corp-crisis-no-one-is-talking.html

Fox News is losing viewers like crazy apparently.

CNN and MSNBC are up, by a bunch in some cases. Fox News is down, down, down.

Seriously, this graph:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BqnU_Kd4wfY/Tij4GS1oLQI/AAAAAAAABN8/WCyjA-u2auI/s1600/cable-news-2011-Q2+%25281%2529.jpg

That's great. I wondered why the country felt slightly smarter recently...

[alguien]

Good news everybody:

http://handthatfeedsyou.blogspot.com/2011/07/news-corp-crisis-no-one-is-talking.html

Fox News is losing viewers like crazy apparently.

CNN and MSNBC are up, by a bunch in some cases. Fox News is down, down, down.

Seriously, this graph:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BqnU_Kd4wfY/Tij4GS1oLQI/AAAAAAAABN8/WCyjA-u2auI/s1600/cable-news-2011-Q2+%25281%2529.jpg

This is the best news I've heard all day.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Good news everybody:

http://handthatfeedsyou.blogspot.com/2011/07/news-corp-crisis-no-one-is-talking.html

Fox News is losing viewers like crazy apparently.

CNN and MSNBC are up, by a bunch in some cases. Fox News is down, down, down.

Seriously, this graph:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BqnU_Kd4wfY/Tij4GS1oLQI/AAAAAAAABN8/WCyjA-u2auI/s1600/cable-news-2011-Q2+%25281%2529.jpg

This is Jon Stewart's doing. Seriously.