Taxes and the GOP walkout of debt ceiling negotiations.

[choff]

I don't understand the political strategy of telling seniors they won't get their checks if default occurs. If I were Obama I would be telling the military contractors they might not get paid, especially for projects in GOP districts.
I would have expected the IMF not to come knocking on the door for another 5 years, but default will hasten the reckoning considerably.
The foreign bankers that draw up the post default US budget will mainly be concerned with getting paid, and they'll be looking at the largest cash asset pools to do it. So the GOP might as well give up on the idea of no new taxes, because its pay now or pay later, bigtime.
The closest historical analogy I can draw on would be the sacking of Rome in 411. The Romans were left in complete shock, never saw it coming, even after all the territory had been swallowed up by the barbarians.

[Maui]

I guess I don't see why you think it would be better to cut off payments to soldiers than the elderly. Either way, it would be a horrible state of affairs.

And also, again, we may "default" in that we will be unable to pay all our "obligations", but it sounds almost certain that debt payments will be prioritized. As long as we do that, I don't think the IMF has any authority to dictate our handling of the situation.

[KitemanSA]

[/quote]

Restrict the excessive legal liability, you help small business create jobs but you unemploy lawyers.

Isn't this akin to saying "wear fishing waders and you unemploy leaches. And the downside is what?

Cutting subsidies to business to cut taxes and they cancel each other out, the only saving is on administrative overhead, but then you have unemployed administrators.

IBID?

Build a fusion reactor, you unemploy the coal and gas industry.

But employ the artificial fuels industry and stop sending $ overseas?

It's very hard game to win, the balance sheet might look better but more people end up hurting. Do nothing, more people end up hurting anyway.

Only an idiot wants to eliminate "pain".
When applied to a person, physical pain often prevents grave bodily damage. Might that be the same purpose to societal pain? Perhaps those who want to "easy society's suffering" are the societal equivalent of drug pushers; facilitating the creation of non-feeling society that can't properly use pain signals to tell itself to STOP!!!

[choff]

Restrict the excessive legal liability, you help small business create jobs but you unemploy lawyers.

Isn't this akin to saying "wear fishing waders and you unemploy leaches. And the downside is what?

Cutting subsidies to business to cut taxes and they cancel each other out, the only saving is on administrative overhead, but then you have unemployed administrators.

IBID?

Build a fusion reactor, you unemploy the coal and gas industry.

But employ the artificial fuels industry and stop sending $ overseas?

It's very hard game to win, the balance sheet might look better but more people end up hurting. Do nothing, more people end up hurting anyway.

Only an idiot wants to eliminate "pain".
When applied to a person, physical pain often prevents grave bodily damage. Might that be the same purpose to societal pain? Perhaps those who want to "easy society's suffering" are the societal equivalent of drug pushers; facilitating the creation of non-feeling society that can't properly use pain signals to tell itself to STOP!!![/quote]

Then the choices are relatively easy to make, in which case they should be straight forward and devoid of all the debate. That shows the extent that lobby's have skewed everything, and I'm not saying cutoff pay to soldiers, I'm saying Obama could cutoff pay to defense contractors.

I come from about as ultraconservative a background as you could find on the North American Continent. My parents were card carrying Social Creditors, and the Tea Party and Neo-Cons seem tame in comparison. Been there done that outgrew it.

The only rational explanation for what I'm seeing is that the American right is so totally bent on taking down Obama that they're completely willing to destroy their country(and themselves) in order to do it. The real winners in all this will be foreign banks, you will end up completely at their mercy. This will be the last great debate by American politicians, your elected representatives will exist solely to rubber stamp the bankers dictates.

[Jccarlton]

Restrict the excessive legal liability, you help small business create jobs but you unemploy lawyers.

Isn't this akin to saying "wear fishing waders and you unemploy leaches. And the downside is what?

Cutting subsidies to business to cut taxes and they cancel each other out, the only saving is on administrative overhead, but then you have unemployed administrators.

IBID?

Build a fusion reactor, you unemploy the coal and gas industry.

But employ the artificial fuels industry and stop sending $ overseas?

It's very hard game to win, the balance sheet might look better but more people end up hurting. Do nothing, more people end up hurting anyway.

Only an idiot wants to eliminate "pain".
When applied to a person, physical pain often prevents grave bodily damage. Might that be the same purpose to societal pain? Perhaps those who want to "easy society's suffering" are the societal equivalent of drug pushers; facilitating the creation of non-feeling society that can't properly use pain signals to tell itself to STOP!!!

Then the choices are relatively easy to make, in which case they should be straight forward and devoid of all the debate. That shows the extent that lobby's have skewed everything, and I'm not saying cutoff pay to soldiers, I'm saying Obama could cutoff pay to defense contractors.

I come from about as ultraconservative a background as you could find on the North American Continent. My parents were card carrying Social Creditors, and the Tea Party and Neo-Cons seem tame in comparison. Been there done that outgrew it.

The only rational explanation for what I'm seeing is that the American right is so totally bent on taking down Obama that they're completely willing to destroy their country(and themselves) in order to do it. The real winners in all this will be foreign banks, you will end up completely at their mercy. This will be the last great debate by American politicians, your elected representatives will exist solely to rubber stamp the bankers dictates.

Here's a start:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/ ... nario.html
The reality is that the choices only get uglier from here. The way that the government is spending is unsustainable even in the short term. It's way too much to expect that the rest of the world is going to put 20% of world GDP into US debt or even that the rest of world will be able to.:
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/gover ... -year.html
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/29151/
That even excludes that the rest of the world isn't heading right down road to disaster. Eventually you run out of other peoples money and we have.

[choff]

Restrict the excessive legal liability, you help small business create jobs but you unemploy lawyers.

Isn't this akin to saying "wear fishing waders and you unemploy leaches. And the downside is what?

Cutting subsidies to business to cut taxes and they cancel each other out, the only saving is on administrative overhead, but then you have unemployed administrators.

IBID?

Build a fusion reactor, you unemploy the coal and gas industry.

But employ the artificial fuels industry and stop sending $ overseas?

It's very hard game to win, the balance sheet might look better but more people end up hurting. Do nothing, more people end up hurting anyway.

Only an idiot wants to eliminate "pain".
When applied to a person, physical pain often prevents grave bodily damage. Might that be the same purpose to societal pain? Perhaps those who want to "easy society's suffering" are the societal equivalent of drug pushers; facilitating the creation of non-feeling society that can't properly use pain signals to tell itself to STOP!!!

Then the choices are relatively easy to make, in which case they should be straight forward and devoid of all the debate. That shows the extent that lobby's have skewed everything, and I'm not saying cutoff pay to soldiers, I'm saying Obama could cutoff pay to defense contractors.

I come from about as ultraconservative a background as you could find on the North American Continent. My parents were card carrying Social Creditors, and the Tea Party and Neo-Cons seem tame in comparison. Been there done that outgrew it.

The only rational explanation for what I'm seeing is that the American right is so totally bent on taking down Obama that they're completely willing to destroy their country(and themselves) in order to do it. The real winners in all this will be foreign banks, you will end up completely at their mercy. This will be the last great debate by American politicians, your elected representatives will exist solely to rubber stamp the bankers dictates.

Here's a start:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/ ... nario.html
The reality is that the choices only get uglier from here. The way that the government is spending is unsustainable even in the short term. It's way too much to expect that the rest of the world is going to put 20% of world GDP into US debt or even that the rest of world will be able to.:
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/gover ... -year.html
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/29151/
That even excludes that the rest of the world isn't heading right down road to disaster. Eventually you run out of other peoples money and we have.

If this is true, then all I can say is, try to keep things afloat until the end of the year. Then we'll know if the polywell works or not. It's a little like Germany in 45 hoping miracle weapons will turn the tide. Avoid default for as long as possible, faint hope I know.

[hanelyp]

...Perhaps those who want to "ease society's suffering" are the societal equivalent of drug pushers;...

Indeed. Taxpayer funded support has very much the quality of an addictive drug. Expect the addicts to misbehave when they get cut off.

The polywell would help the energy import picture, but even best case is far too little a boost to rescue the economy if the reckless spending continues.

[Maui]

...Perhaps those who want to "ease society's suffering" are the societal equivalent of drug pushers;...

Indeed. Taxpayer funded support has very much the quality of an addictive drug. Expect the addicts to misbehave when they get cut off.

Indeed. But as important as it is to cut spending, we must remember that it is far more important that the oil industry keeps their targeted tax breaks.

Since the Dems are unwilling to see that, we must reluctantly hand Obama the needle and allow him to keep injecting (but remember, the thing to take away from this is that we veto'd his injection, not that we handed him the needle).

[choff]

If Polywell works the effect on the market is psychological, we know that even if the markets fail some positive form of civilization will emerge from the ashes.

I've heard the arguement that Obama's government spending was needed to prevent deflation, also that managed inflation could reduce the deficit. But for that to work would require economic growth, and that won't happen if companies take profit and invest them in the BRIC countries instead of home.

If health care had been aggressively reformed in the 1st year of Obama's term to 8% GDP maybe reinvestment would have stayed put. Same with litigation reform. Another arguement was that instead of raising government spending taxes should have been cut to boost investment. That might also have worked if the healthcare and litigation reforms were also applied.

Another proposal was a jobs strategy like Germany, companies, politicians and unions putting their heads together. The US needs to figure out a way to get through the August deadline long enough to put a working plan together.

Never give up!

[Maui]

Carlton,

What about a $4T deal that included a balanced budget amendment. Would you go along with that?

To be blunt, no. Tue gov't needs to cut all spending back to 2005 levels and keep them there. Long term it the government's porton of GDP cannot exceed 15% until the long term obligations are dealt with. Otherwise, more than likely the US will continue on a death spiral of never generating enough revenues to be able to cover obligations.

So explain to me again why Denmark isn't in a death spiral? Or that the economy under Reagan -> Clinton wasn't?

[Diogenes]

I don't understand the political strategy of telling seniors they won't get their checks if default occurs. If I were Obama I would be telling the military contractors they might not get paid, especially for projects in GOP districts.
I would have expected the IMF not to come knocking on the door for another 5 years, but default will hasten the reckoning considerably.
The foreign bankers that draw up the post default US budget will mainly be concerned with getting paid, and they'll be looking at the largest cash asset pools to do it. So the GOP might as well give up on the idea of no new taxes, because its pay now or pay later, bigtime.
The closest historical analogy I can draw on would be the sacking of Rome in 411. The Romans were left in complete shock, never saw it coming, even after all the territory had been swallowed up by the barbarians.

The whole discussion overlooks the "Social Security Trust Fund." Whatever happened to that 2.7 trillion dollars that's supposed to be in there? How can Social Security recipients NOT get paid if the Democrats were telling the truth all these years?

[JLawson]

How can Social Security recipients NOT get paid if the Democrats were telling the truth all these years?

The question contains the answer...

[Diogenes]

So there are 2 polls out in the last 24 hours that by a 3 to 1 margin show people want the debt ceiling deal to include at least some tax increases.

You just don't get it. It isn't THEIR MONEY. At one time there was Public Support for Slavery. What the public wants doesn't matter if it conflicts with individual rights. THAT is the difference between a REPUBLIC and a DEMOCRACY. The founders HATED Democracy. If they were around now, they would hate Democrats too.

I'm sure the Tea Party is ecstatic with the GOP's stand (same with this board which seems to be Tea Party HQ), but this seems to confirm the GOP have dug themselves a bit of a hole.

Personally, I hope Obama continues to reject the McConnell deal and holds the GOP's feet to the fire on this. They demanded the deficit be addressed as part of any deal to raise the debt ceiling, I think Obama should hold them to it.

How many chances do you get to cut $4T? If it doesn't happen now, when will it?

Hey, let's start with that ObamaCare abomination! That ought to be worth a trillion or so.

[choff]

It's my understanding that large US corporations are flush with cash, but its only being reinvested in the BRIC economies. If they keep it away from home long enough the US financial system will collapse and the US denominated cash they hold will become worthless. If the right conditions can be created to reinvest in the US, in theory the money will flow back in. If they still don't reinvest then tax the heck out of them.

[Maui]

So there are 2 polls out in the last 24 hours that by a 3 to 1 margin show people want the debt ceiling deal to include at least some tax increases.

You just don't get it. It isn't THEIR MONEY. At one time there was Public Support for Slavery. What the public wants doesn't matter if it conflicts with individual rights. THAT is the difference between a REPUBLIC and a DEMOCRACY. The founders HATED Democracy. If they were around now, they would hate Democrats too.

Well, to start with, if you read my post carefully I wasn't using these polls as justification for doing it Obama's way. Rather, I was using them to point out that the GOP absolutist stand on taxes has them backed into a political corner that could come back to bite them in the same way Obama got bit on Obama-care.

The GOP options are:
1) Stand ground, refuse to support any compromise, and let Aug 2 pass with no agreement.
2) Support either the $2T or $4T compromises.
3) Puss-out and let Obama raise the ceiling, the admonish him for doing so.

1 will cause a firestorm from whoever doesn't get paid with a good chance of tanking the economy to boot. They would almost certainly have to be the one to cave if Obama has a compromise on the table that is asking nothing more than to close loopholes on the rich and oil companies (see above polls).

2 Will piss off less people, but will also mean renigging on their silly pledges (depending upon how you interpret the plan since apparently in the end the $2T plan is tax revenue neutral). Could mean the next Tea Party candidate in in the next election.

3) Leaves us in the same awful situation we are now.

The bottom line is what I'm trying to say is that right or wrong the GOP has to have the common sense to realize that if they think they can wait to get the numbers to do everything exactly the way they want to do it, they'll be waiting forever. Obama had a clean sweep, and even then he could only get a shell of his original health plan passed.

But maybe real truth is that more important to them than solving the spending delima is trying to figure which of their 3 bad options stands them the best chance of getting re-elected (darn democracy).