derek bomar;842845 wrote:what about gov't stimulus? does this just nix the idea all together in times of recession?
And I read this interesting tidbit just now:
*** Talk about business uncertainty: Last year, Boehner often attacked the Obama White House’s policies, arguing that they created business uncertainty. But as we’ve pointed out before, the GOP’s insistence on tying the debt ceiling to deficit reduction has created plenty of business uncertainty, too. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal reports that businesses are hoarding cash and delaying hiring because of the possibility of a U.S. debt default. “While companies generally expect Washington to resolve the debt-ceiling impasse at the last moment, they are lining up extra sources of financing, and carefully husbanding cash just in case a deal falls through. All the uncertainty comes just as businesses were starting to spend some of their record piles of cash. The confusion is also giving them another reason to delay hiring and investment.”
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/27/7178356-first-thoughts-boehners-boxed-in

Ummm, the GOP has came up with 4 deals to settle this, and Obama has shot down each and all of them, all the while asking them to compromise, which they have been doing. The left has to stop blaming everything on the GOP. Obama has not even come up with an idea yet.

The business uncertainty goes well beyond the recent debt crisis. I also don't understand the criticism of tying to debt ceiling to deficit reduction. The whole point of a debt ceiling is to impose some fiscal restraint. This type of holdout scenario to force some spending cuts is precisely the reason you have a debt ceiling in the first place, since there is no balanced budget amendment and there appears to be little effort to actually spend what we take in. If you are just going to raise the debt ceiling as needed, what's the point of a debt ceiling in the first place? There MUST spending reduction given in exchange for that or you might as well not have a debt ceiling. The only way I might view it differently is if the spending increase/debt ceiling was being breached due to an increase in interest rates/debt service (which is the 800lb gorilla in the room not many are talking about).

Being forced to spend what we take in wouldn't be nearly as painful without the massive growth in entitlements in recent years, along with the failed deficit stimulus efforts.

coyotes22;842849 wrote:Ummm, the GOP has came up with 4 deals to settle this, and Obama has shot down each and all of them, all the while asking them to compromise, which they have been doing. The left has to stop blaming everything on the GOP. Obama has not even come up with an idea yet.

It's like the teenager maxing out their credit card and then crying because Mommy & Daddy won't give her more money. "But you're not being fair!!!"

derek bomar;842845 wrote:what about gov't stimulus? does this just nix the idea all together in times of recession?

Recessions aren't a bad thing. They are apart of the natural eb and flow of the business cycle. I'd prefer the government to stay out of this natural cycle and stop messing everything up with policies that do more harm than good.

Stop the downgrade

FACT: CCB is the only plan on the table that would actually change the way Washington spends It is the only plan to date that:
1) Substantially cuts spending.
2) Creates enforceable spending caps.
3) Requires congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that includes a spending limitation and a super-majority to raise taxes before the debt ceiling can be raised.
FACT: Only the CCB Act would avert a downgrade and maintain our AAA bond rating. ("CCB = AAA.")
FACT: The Democrats have not passed a budget in 817 days.
FACT: The House Republicans have passed not 1 but 2 serious budget plans in just the past 90 days:

1. The Ryan budget
2. The CCB Act

So why on earth would the House need to pass a third, watered down plan that DOES NOT avert a downgrade?

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/dean-clancy/why-the-boehner-debt-tax-hike-plan-would-cause-a-d?src=facebook

coyotes22;842849 wrote:Ummm, the GOP has came up with 4 deals to settle this, and Obama has shot down each and all of them, all the while asking them to compromise, which they have been doing. The left has to stop blaming everything on the GOP. Obama has not even come up with an idea yet.

pot. meet kettle.

derek bomar;842986 wrote:pot. meet kettle.

But it is comical that with the GOP holding all the cards right now, NOW the Dems want to talk about compromise. People want significant spending cuts - they gave back the House to the Repubs because of it. And here's Obama and the Dems sitting with a gun to their head and their first instinct is to ask "are those real bullets?".

sleeper;842916 wrote:Recessions aren't a bad thing. They are apart of the natural eb and flow of the business cycle. I'd prefer the government to stay out of this natural cycle and stop messing everything up with policies that do more harm than good.

Balancing the budget and going a step further to start paying down the debt would be the same thing as leaving the debt unchanged and starting a "rainy day" fund for some deficit spending (and maybe not argue for stimulus, but there's an argument to be made for consistent, planned spending which will result in alternate suprluses and deficits depending on the economy).

Forget about another record stiimulus spending. We're at a point now where we can't even continue to spend on all the shiny new programs we've created the last decade. Stimulus needs to be replaced with austerity.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904888304576472061018861724.html
The jolt came late Tuesday, when the Congressional Budget Office said the plan, which was intended to initially cut $1.2 trillion in spending over 10 years while raising the debt limit by $900 billion, would cut only $850 billion from the latest spending projections.

That forced Republicans to start rewriting the bill because it appeared not to meet Mr. Boehner's own requirement that any debt-limit increase be matched by spending cuts of equal or greater value.
Meanwhile, the CBO found a competing proposal by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) would provide $500 billion less in deficit reduction than the $2.7 trillion over 10 years that Democratic lawmakers had projected. Mr. Reid would need at least seven Republican votes for his plan to advance in the Senate, and no GOP senators have so far signaled their support.

looks like Reid's plan saves more - so why aren't Republicans on board? It has no revenues as far as I know.

derek bomar;843158 wrote:looks like Reid's plan saves more - so why aren't Republicans on board? It has no revenues as far as I know.

Saves more what? Saves money from future budgets? WTF is that? He hasn't presented a budget in over 817 days and we're supposed to believe he's the wizard of smart now? What is his definition of "cut"?

He's being a master politician in selling future "cuts" from non-existent budgets to a sycophant media that gobbles up whatever he says. And people get in line behind him to cheer his side without having any idea what he's talking about. And people wonder why we are in the shithole we're in. Simply shocking.

BGFalcons82;843212 wrote:Saves more what? Saves money from future budgets? WTF is that? He hasn't presented a budget in over 817 days and we're supposed to believe he's the wizard of smart now? What is his definition of "cut"?

He's being a master politician in selling future "cuts" from non-existent budgets to a sycophant media that gobbles up whatever he says. And people get in line behind him to cheer his side without having any idea what he's talking about. And people wonder why we are in the shithole we're in. Simply shocking.

didn't know the WSJ are bunch of sycophants

What's funny is the CBO is saying these plans overshoot the savings the propose. The CBO, that great prognosticator and forecaster of economic realities far into the future. But, hey, at least this time we're TRYING to cut something as opposed to just writing another blank check.

derek bomar;843158 wrote: looks like Reid's plan saves more - so why aren't Republicans on board? It has no revenues as far as I know.

Actually, Reid proposed extending the debt ceiling by $2.7T, so Reid's plan is actually in the red by $500B. But what a good little Democrat you are to ignore the liability side of the equation.

This is the plan right here, Wake up Obama and Congress:

http://mack.house.gov/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=14d5b552-47e6-44f3-9c00-c038841dd57b

coyotes22;843452 wrote:This is the plan right here, Wake up Obama and Congress:

http://mack.house.gov/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=14d5b552-47e6-44f3-9c00-c038841dd57b

"Setting an overall spending cap of 18 percent of gross domestic product in 2018, and"

Gee, where have I heard that number before?

gut;843480 wrote:"Setting an overall spending cap of 18 percent of gross domestic product in 2018, and"

Gee, where have I heard that number before?

Embarrassingly, I honestly dont know.

coyotes22;843495 wrote:Embarrassingly, I honestly dont know.

I've said it several times here, others, too. It comes from the fact that revenues have historically averaged about 18% of GDP. So what he's basically saying is that gives you a long-run balanced budget, with surpluses and deficits in alternate years based on how the economy performs.

gut;843513 wrote:I've said it several times here, others, too. It comes from the fact that revenues have historically averaged about 18% of GDP. So what he's basically saying is that gives you a long-run balanced budget, with surpluses and deficits in alternate years based on how the economy performs.

O, ok.

coyotes22;843522 wrote:O, ok.

Yeah, Obama thinks we can SUSTAIN 24%, which is about 3% higher than we've EVER collected and fully 33% more than the historical average Only way you get to 24%, I think, is with the addition of a VAT.

BGFalcons82;843212 wrote:Saves more what? Saves money from future budgets? WTF is that? He hasn't presented a budget in over 817 days and we're supposed to believe he's the wizard of smart now? What is his definition of "cut"?

Reid's just kicking the can down the road. He knows that by doing so, he can lay blame on a future Congress and also defer making the big decisions to someone far more qualified. Reid's an idiot but he's no dummie.

gut;843340 wrote:Actually, Reid proposed extending the debt ceiling by $2.7T, so Reid's plan is actually in the red by $500B. But what a good little Democrat you are to ignore the liability side of the equation.

raising the debt ceiling by 2.7 does not equal spending 2.7 dude...I know it probably will lead to it without cuts in spending, but one doesn't necessarily imply the other

derek bomar;843593 wrote:raising the debt ceiling by 2.7 does not equal spending 2.7 dude...I know it probably will lead to it without cuts in spending, but one doesn't necessarily imply the other

In this case, it's a CERTAINTY. That's why Obama balked at Boehner's plan, because they want don't want to have this battle again in an election year. Running a $1.7T deficit pretty much guarantees we hit that new ceiling in about 20 months. Their "cuts" are really just reductions in spending - over TEN YEARS - and the deficits will add probably another $10T to the debt in that timeframe. $2T in cuts doesn't come close to a balanced budget - that only amounts to about $200B a year.

Nor does it change the fact that your post was intentionally or just ignorantly wrong. Boehner's plan only raised the ceiling $900B, and to get the additional $1.8T was going to require additional cuts on the table. So you were comparing apples and oranges.

For those who haven't seen it yet...pricelss

[video=youtube;mzciR8cDX3g][/video]

That clip ought to be playing all over the mainstream media. Reid would be fit to be tied.

majorspark;843640 wrote:That clip ought to be playing all over the mainstream media. Reid would be fit to be tied.

He's really all-in when he flip-flops. Sad part is, the numbers then somewhat pale in comparison vs. what they are today.