U.S. Politics

[KazigluBey]

They should just get realistic and severely trim Medicare right now, along with raising the Social Security age and cutting benefits. But it's a start.

Lets just end this farce and bring back the poorhouses of the 19th century.

[Lord O' Bones]

They should just get realistic and severely trim Medicare right now, along with raising the Social Security age and cutting benefits. But it's a start.

Chats,

If the geriatrics of the Republican party heard you say this you would be tarred and feathered. And not in a stylish way.

Admit it. You are one of us now.

[The Anti-Targ]

So the fix is in.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-07-31-Obama-Congress-debt-limit-deal-default_n.htm?csp=34news

•The creation by Congress of a committee to develop other debt reductions, including tax reform as well as changes to entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. The committee would be required to report back by Nov. 23. The panel would be charged with reducing the debt by another $1.4 trillion over 10 years.

•A second debt ceiling increase of up to $1.4 trillion. Congress reserves the right to disapprove of the second debt-ceiling increase, but the president can veto such an action.

•Votes in the House and Senate on a balanced-budget amendment if the committee can't reach an agreement, or if Congress rejects its recommendations.

•If the committee fails to reach an agreement, automatic spending cuts split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending will kick in starting in 2013.

•Automatic cuts — the enforcement mechanisms at the heart of the talks — would fall on programs important to both Republicans (defense cuts) and Democrats (health spending). Any potential Medicare cutbacks would affect providers, not beneficaries.

Neither Obama nor congressional Republicans called the agreement ideal.

But still yet to be voted on.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kaz,

Lets just end this farce and bring back the poorhouses of the 19th century.

Hyperbole for the win?

Tzanth,

The 14th would allow for the giant platinum coin but not debt that hasn't been authorized by Congress needed to pay existing debt.

[ThinkerX]

With a possible last minute deal underway, as per McCains prediction, this may be redundant, but still:

Yes, they would indeed walk away to China - or the "basket of world currencies", or AAA corporate bonds of international companies.

Again, this situation is global in one form or another. China has a multitude of severe problems from social turmoil to their own version of a housing bubble to a severe energy problem that tend to get ignored by western media.

I've seen the 'basket of world currencies' floated before, but it also doesn't seem to have made it past the talking stages.

As to AAA corporate bonds...wasn't a major chunk of the Great Recession created in the first place by AAA ratings applied to stuff that should have been tossed out with the garbage? Given that, why trust any proclimation of an AAA rating?

Or things would be really depressed for a long time. If we turned into Greece, financially, the world would be f*cked, financially, for a long time. And America would no longer be a world power of any sort.

That is pretty much how I would call it.

Ignore Isk at your peril. He knows what he's talking about.

I was just pointing out that there really isn't anywhere else to go to.

It is coming down to fix things - *REALLY* fix things, or welcome to some sort of modern day version of the dark ages.

[Lord O' Bones]

One of who? LOL!

Apparently I didn't do a good enough job of being the disenchanted and bitter former Republican that refuses to become a Democrat as a response.* Shit. I probably put the wrong fork on my salad when I was drinking the soup. ;)

* No wait. I'm pretty sure that has been made clear over six years. Must be the soup forks then.

[DanteGabriel]

Oh look! The Democrats* are cowardly curs. The Republicans* are soulless troglodytes. And once again the middle class is fucked.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

*Largely applies to the legislature. The actual people are mostly anywhere from warm-hearted buffoons to cold-hearted buffoons.

Not much to say. Quoted for truth.

Both parties will continue to sell us to their masters. One will be meaner about it.

[Selmy]

Not sure if this thing can get through the House. I doubt Boehner will be able to drum up 100% support and Pelosi doesn't seem happy.

I'm more than a little bit annoyed at Obama. Seems like he caved to Republicans. They're definitely getting the better end of the stick here. I understand compromise, but come on.

Also, looking around there don't seem to be much info on additional revenue. I know there aren't any tax hikes, but does anyone know if we're at least looking at additional revenue through closing loopholes?

[Smashing Young Man]

That deal seems ridiculously tilted towards the republican side of things. I was hoping there would be no deal and that Obama would be forced to use the 14th.

That's a good little totalitarian.

[Lord O' Bones]

That's a good little totalitarian.

I can't wait to meet this guy.

[tzanth]

Tzanth,

The 14th would allow for the giant platinum coin but not debt that hasn't been authorized by Congress needed to pay existing debt.

Maybe thats what your lawyers say. Shrug Id be happy to let the courts decide. Its a fight that I think the Democrats would win. Politically at least.

[TheKassi]

I don't see how this is a good deal from anyone's perspective. If passed, this bill will cut, at the maximum, an equivalent of one year's worth of spending on the DOD (which leaves out a great deal of military spending) and social security/medicare/cade spending. Around 7% of the budget. That assumes every promised dollar is cut, even the theoretical cuts.

It is not fiscally responsible, as it doesn't even covered the amount borrowed when you factor in interest. It also does absolutely nothing to resolve the issue of the rapid accumulation of debt. After all of the rants, and insults, and hypocrisy, and posturing, nothing was accomplished, outside of a clause in there designed to be a future political trap for Obama, when a republican controlled congress kills the next debt increase to pay for the budget that congress will approve, allowing them to wear the mantle of fiscal conservatism, even though all they really are doing is refusing to pay for the spending they signed off on.

So political ends were seen to in this bill, but the problem it was supposed to address? Not so much. The democrats got played the fool, and the country has no hope to get a truly fiscally conservative GOP in office, because the current GOP will continue to let spending run rampant, while waggling their fingers at the DNC.

Giving the democrats the enough rope to hang themselves shouldn't be an apt political strategy when the problems go unsolved. We are going to be lucky if we only have a twenty trillion dollar debt by 2016.

[ThinkerX]

So political ends were seen to in this bill, but the problem it was supposed to address? Not so much. The democrats got played the fool, and the country has no hope to get a truly fiscally conservative GOP in office, because the current GOP will continue to let spending run rampant, while waggling their fingers at the DNC

The (still very possible) alternative is to default with all the fun and games that brings. The automatic cuts would go a long ways towards solving the deficit problem, I suppose...

[tzanth]

The more I think about this the more it pisses me off. I hope this "deal" fails in the House. :commie:

[ThinkerX]

Ok...this government secrecy issue has been bugging me...

On the face, sure, it's hypocritical. I think Obama's call for transparency sounded good during the campaign, but it was hopelessly naive

Naive? Why?

Are you supporting the notion that there is nothing wrong with government activity being 'presumed secret'?

The only place a politician can act like a negotiator rather a suborn doof, particularly the GOP side of things, is in secrete. Absent dark smoke filled rooms, our legislature would get nothing accomplished saved for posturing and ranting. When they failed to accomplish anything, they would be replaced by folks who campaigned on a platform of louder ranting, and increased strutting.

Not quite what I was talking about - although I would point out that a *lot* of deals get cut in back rooms that benefit very few people, and actually scr*w over the rest. I've pointed this out in the previous thread: despite all the posturing over the debt ceiling, Democrats and Republicans both passed piece after piece of legislation with little or no debate or dissent that essentially gave individual corporations substantial benefits, often at the expense of other companies. This is also why the financial mess was never really fixed: the banks just basically brought money in by the wheelbarrow full with the condition that real reform not get passed.

think government secrecy exists for a reason. I'm sure the president realized that when he started getting real intelligence briefings (and probably long before that). Even W. understood the need for secrecy and he wasn't exactly a posterboy for Mensa.

When we elect officials, we are choosing them to act on our behalf. That means we trust them to make decisions based on information we don't have and aren't likely to get. Hence the public outcry over the

false intelligence that led us into the Iraq War

The Iraq war is another good example. Something on the order of several hundred thousand Iraqi civilians ended up dead as a direct result of US military actions (possibly over a million, if the wilder stories have any substance). Yet, this information never really made it into the western media (or at least the US media). Likewise, the US government spent quite a while trying to shove a 'license to steal oil' scheme down the throats of the Iraqi government, which ultimately didn't do all that well - and again, that never really made the media. Both these tidbits were 'presumed secret'.

Likewise, that bit I posted about earlier on the true GDP rate over the past few years: the real numbers, apparently, were so depressing they were declared 'secret' and faked ones released in their place.

There are extreme risks to sweeping large numbers of secrets under the rug - especially secrets that effect a lot of people.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tzanth,

Maybe thats what your lawyers say. Shrug Id be happy to let the courts decide. Its a fight that I think the Democrats would win. Politically at least.

"[My] lawyers"? That's my interpretation of the portion of the 14th Amendment that requires payment of debt "authorized by law". How is that interpretation incorrect? Or does that phrase just not matter?

[Noroldis]

Both parties have come out of this looking bad, IMO. The Republicans might have come out slightly worse, with the intransigence on revenue raisers...but the Democrats looked just as bad for refusing to see the necessary cuts in entitlement spending.

But who got what they wanted in the end? The Republicans, with the massive cuts. Who didn't get what they wanted? The Democrats, given that there's no raise in revenues and/or taxes. The Republicans may come out of this looking slightly worse in the public eye, but that will be temporary. But I very much doubt they care about that - this deal is a clear Republican victory, which means it's a clear loss for the middle class and the poor.

[Selmy]

So political ends were seen to in this bill, but the problem it was supposed to address? Not so much. The democrats got played the fool, and the country has no hope to get a truly fiscally conservative GOP in office, because the current GOP will continue to let spending run rampant, while waggling their fingers at the DNC.

Eh we've dug ourselves a massive hole. Announcing massive cuts and austerity measures would simply chop and already weak leg out from underneath the economy. I think both sides agree that change and cut need to happen gradually.

Also, are there really any fiscally conservatives Republicans left, or were there ever?

[mcbigski]

The Iraq war is another good example. Something on the order of several hundred thousand Iraqi civilians ended up dead as a direct result of US military actions (possibly over a million, if the wilder stories have any substance). Yet, this information never really made it into the western media (or at least the US media). Likewise, the US government spent quite a while trying to shove a 'license to steal oil' scheme down the throats of the Iraqi government, which ultimately didn't do all that well - and again, that never really made the media. Both these tidbits were 'presumed secret'.

Blood libel. Something on the order of multiple thousands if Iraqi civilians ended up a dead a direct result of US military actions. You're off by at least an order of magnitude. Probably two. Without even considering wilder stories.

IBC has the current figure at an upper bound of around 111,000 reported, and that includes "deaths caused by US-led coalition forces and paramilitary or criminal attacks by others." Which is kind of like saying Wilt Chamberlain and I have slept with a combined total of over 10,000 women.

[Fez]

Fuckaduckducky, I go the beach for a couple days and when I get back I get to find out about this shit sandwich of a deal? Not a fair trade that. What a horrible failure on the part of the Dems and in the long run this deal may end up being just as bad for the country as a default would, and it has the added bonus of weakening the Democratic party politically. At this point I hope the House Democrats revolt and the deal goes down in flames. We're probably going to get a credit rating downgrade anyway, which admittedly is not nearly as bad as full default, but so long as all debt interest can be paid we wouldn't be in a full default anyway.

We don't have a spending problem in this country, we never did, we have a revenue problem. A revenue problem caused by a recession, low effective tax rates, and too much wealth concentration. The only spending cuts that need to occur is ending the 2.1 wars we're currently in.