Diogenes wrote: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?
Think about this for a second. Are you really advocating for this? Because the effect of this would be absolutely no different than raising the debt ceiling.
Anyway, I know supposedly the fund gets "raided", but isn't it congress that has to do the raiding? They are the ones that control the budget... I highly doubt Obama or the treasury have the authority to do so on their own. Says Wikipedia:
EXCLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY FROM ALL BUDGETS Pub. L. 101-508, title XIII, Sec. 13301(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104Stat. 1388-623, provided that: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of - (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President, (2) the congressional budget, or (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Maui wrote: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).
Back in 1988, George Bush Sr. made the campaign promise "Read my lips... No new taxes! " In 1991 he broke that promise under pressure from Congress. (They agreed to cut spending in exchange for new taxes. They lied. ) The only thing that was accomplished was the cuckolding of George Bush Sr. . When Campaigning against the most pathological LIAR to ever run for President up until Barack, Bush could not bring up the "Character Issue." He could not mention that Clinton lied about anything, or that it was a Habit for him, because he had a sword of Damocles hanging over his head; His own broken Promise. Clinton was horribly vulnerable on the lying issue, but George Bush couldn't beat him over the head with it because Clinton could beat him over the head with his Broken promise, and the MEDIA would help Clinton do it. Had he never broken that pledge we would have had a markedly better country than we have now. There would have been no Mortgage collapse, no economic crises, probably no Twin Towers or TSA or War in Iraq, or none of that other nonsense.
I would have let Washington DC burn to the ground before I broke that pledge.
Anyway, apparently the Democrats weren't so into raising the Debt ceiling thing a few years ago.
Debt Vote Flashback: Every Single Dem Voted Against Raising the Debt in 2006
Clinton’s $3 Trillion Raid on Social Security March 06, 2000
Once again, Bill Clinton is trying to outdo Congress in protecting Social Security. Two years ago, he challenged the Congress to save 60 percent of the surplus for Social Security. In this year’s budget, Clinton is proposing a "Social Security solvency lock-box" that is intended to secure every dollar of the Social Security surplus for Social Security. While this plan may conjure up images of stacks of cash waiting in Fort Knox for the Baby Boomers to retire, the reality is that his plan leaves the vault empty when the program begins to run large cash deficits in just 14 years.
There is only one place to put the Social Security surplus - in the Personal Retirement Accounts of hard working Americans
Clinton’s lock-box plan is nothing more than a scheme to use more than $3 trillion in Social Security surpluses to buy down federal debt. In exchange, the Social Security trust fund gets another $3 trillion worth of IOUs. To be sure, most Americans would rather pay down the debt than use Social Security’s surpluses to fund pork barrel projects. But make no mistake, once that money is spent – to buy down debt or fund new programs – it will not be there to cover Social Security’s long-term liabilities.
Diogenes wrote: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?
Think about this for a second. Are you really advocating for this? Because the effect of this would be absolutely no different than raising the debt ceiling.
You are misunderstanding my point. Bammy said that Social Security Checks wouldn't go out if the debt ceiling wasn't raised. Social Security checks are not supposed to be part of the General Fund, they are supposed to be self funded according to Democrats since FDR who created this Ponzi scheme.
Barack, by making this threat, is tacitly admitting what Republicans have been saying all along. The Social Security funds have been and always were a slush fund spent by (Mostly Democrats) Congress over the last 80 years. There is nothing in there but worthless I.O.U.s . All that money that people put into the fund that they THOUGHT was going to pay for their retirement? Poof! Gone. They just don't "get it" yet.
Maui wrote:[
Anyway, I know supposedly the fund gets "raided", but isn't it congress that has to do the raiding? They are the ones that control the budget... I highly doubt Obama or the treasury have the authority to do so on their own. Says Wikipedia:
EXCLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY FROM ALL BUDGETS Pub. L. 101-508, title XIII, Sec. 13301(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104Stat. 1388-623, provided that: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of - (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President, (2) the congressional budget, or (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Oh yes, it's Congress that has done the raiding. For our retirement funds we have paid for the worthless Dept. of Education since Jimmy Carter, likewise about a half dozen other worthless departments. They all need to go.
LAWRENCE SOLOMON: A Tea Party Budget. “Scrap the Department of Education, a failed Carter-era experiment that had its roots in president Dwight Eisenhower’s desire to imbue the education system with Cold War thinking, and out goes a US$77-billion annual expense. Likewise, scrap all or parts of the Department of Energy, the Small Business Administration, the Federal Transit Authority, Federal Highway Administration, Housing and Urban Development and other federal areas that intrude on state and local responsibilities. Apart from the dollar savings from eliminating duplication and cancelling perverse projects, the quality of public services is likely to rise when the former federal functions move closer to home in state or local government, or become privatized and are delivered in the private sector.”
Okay, so you seem to have eliminated option 2. So which is it, #1 or #3? My point is, there are no good options for the GOP.
I think that role call exemplifies the worst part of our political environment these days: nobody is allowed to think for themselves. Everybody has to toe the party line to keep the campaign $ flowing.
You know, I don't agree to raising the debt limit without cutting spending either. That's why its going to be such a shame to let this opportunity pass. When else are the Dems going to go along with such real and painful cuts entitlements? And when else would the GOP be willing to roll back the Bush tax cuts?
This deal would leave *nobody* happy which is the true mark of a worthy compromise. If you are truly worried about the debt, I think you absolutely have to be on board with this because there is no way the GOP is ever going to be able to push through this amount of cuts without compromising on something.
Diogenes wrote:You are misunderstanding my point. Bammy said that Social Security Checks wouldn't go out if the debt ceiling wasn't raised. Social Security checks are not supposed to be part of the General Fund, they are supposed to be self funded according to Democrats since FDR who created this Ponzi scheme.
Gotcha. Good point.
LAWRENCE SOLOMON: A Tea Party Budget. “Scrap the Department of Education, a failed Carter-era experiment that had its roots in president Dwight Eisenhower’s desire to imbue the education system with Cold War thinking, and out goes a US$77-billion annual expense. Likewise, scrap all or parts of the Department of Energy, the Small Business Administration, the Federal Transit Authority, Federal Highway Administration, Housing and Urban Development and other federal areas that intrude on state and local responsibilities. Apart from the dollar savings from eliminating duplication and cancelling perverse projects, the quality of public services is likely to rise when the former federal functions move closer to home in state or local government, or become privatized and are delivered in the private sector.”
You are entitled to that opinion, as are all the rest of the Tea partiers. I'm also entitled to my opinion. But neither you nor me nor anybody are ever going to have things exactly as we want them. That doesn't mean we have to cry about it and throw a wrench into potential progress that can be made on the debt.
Maui wrote:Okay, so you seem to have eliminated option 2. So which is it, #1 or #3? My point is, there are no good options for the GOP.
I think that role call exemplifies the worst part of our political environment these days: nobody is allowed to think for themselves. Everybody has to toe the party line to keep the campaign $ flowing.
You know, I don't agree to raising the debt limit without cutting spending either. That's why its going to be such a shame to let this opportunity pass. When else are the Dems going to go along with such real and painful cuts entitlements? And when else would the GOP be willing to roll back the Bush tax cuts?
This deal would leave *nobody* happy which is the true mark of a worthy compromise. If you are truly worried about the debt, I think you absolutely have to be on board with this because there is no way the GOP is ever going to be able to push through this amount of cuts without compromising on something.
You seem to have an unlimited faith in people who have proved time and again that they are incompetent and untrustworthy: http://www.city-journal.org/2011/eon0715ng.html
Why do you think the Progressives will act any different than they have before? This is not the GOP's problem. All they can lose is an election. It's our problem and the stakes too huge to screw it up with band aids and stupid compromises now. We are already monitizing the debt and starting a death spiral. The debt ceiling is meaningless unless we stop spending now. Not in some out year. Not next year. Now, or things are going to hell in a handbasket and there will be no bottom this time
Jccarlton wrote:
You seem to have an unlimited faith in people who have proved time and again that they are incompetent and untrustworthy: http://www.city-journal.org/2011/eon0715ng.html
Why do you think the Progressives will act any different than they have before? This is not the GOP's problem.
You've lost me. I can't tell if you are telling me the all politicians are untrustworthy (true) or just the Dems (false). The link you provide as evidence is arguing that we should stop worrying about deep spending cuts or closing tax loopholes for the moment and just raise the ceiling. That clearly is not your position.
All they can lose is an election. It's our problem and the stakes too huge to screw it up with band aids and stupid compromises now. We are already monitizing the debt and starting a death spiral. The debt ceiling is meaningless unless we stop spending now. Not in some out year. Not next year. Now, or things are going to hell in a handbasket and there will be no bottom this time
I agree with this for the most part. (Though for most Washington politicians, I think losing an election is far worse than any economic calamity).
But anyway, you are right. We must do something now. The $4T would certainly be a start. And I would be fine with balanced budget amendment, but let's be serious about it and not write into our constitution that tax breaks/loopholes would require a super-majority to remove. If reforming the tax code is hard now, can you imagine if any reform would require a 2/3 majority?
Maui wrote:Okay, so you seem to have eliminated option 2. So which is it, #1 or #3? My point is, there are no good options for the GOP.
The GOP abdicated their good option when they started saying no tax increase. They SHOULD have maintained the position, cut the budget by 75%. "Negotiating" from the current level is a complete Democrat win.
Maui wrote:Ru-roh! Coburn offers $1T in "tax increases" as part of a $9T plan. Somebody didn't get the memo... Coburn's plan
At least somebody is prepared to think outside the box. Us foreigners shouldn't meddle in US politics, unfortuneately this default business is a threat to everybody else on the planet. There needs to be much more focus on coming up with compromise solution proposals and far less partisan bickering. Both sides need to stop drawing lines in the sand and learn how to blink more, remember, nobody has a lock on truth.
Coburn's NASA plan seems a bit superficial and nitpicky overall (he wants to close the Hollywood liaison office, for instance, which involves firing one guy), but the really weird part is that he apparently thinks Ares I needs cancelling... "Somebody didn't get the memo", indeed...
93143 wrote:Coburn's NASA plan seems a bit superficial and nitpicky overall (he wants to close the Hollywood liaison office, for instance, which involves firing one guy), but the really weird part is that he apparently thinks Ares I needs cancelling... "Somebody didn't get the memo", indeed...
Actually, while I certainly don't agree with a lot of things in Coburn's plan, I liked the fact that gets down to details that involve a single job like this. It shows the cuts are well researched and that he's not just picking an arbitrary number out of thin air like the Tea Party is. He's actually considering the consequences of all of his cuts and weighing them against the savings. At the least, I'm a big fan of his methodology.
Also, as I recall when I was skimming through it last night, he doesn't call for Ares being axed. Rather, I believe he is merely pointing out that the program is on shaky ground, so it doesn't make sense to spend half a billion dollars to build a launching pad until you have confidence the program isn't going to be cancelled. This is brilliant common sense if you ask me.
Personally, given a limited budget I would much prefer manned spaceflight to be shelved in lieu of cancelling projects like the James Webb and providing additional $ for space probes. You get magnitudes more science for the dollar when you don't have to spend billions on life support and all kinds of fail-safes that aren't necessary on unmanned probes. (Disclaimer: My dad has an instrument on Juno which is launching on Aug 5th, government willing).
93143 wrote:Coburn's NASA plan seems a bit superficial and nitpicky overall (he wants to close the Hollywood liaison office, for instance, which involves firing one guy), but the really weird part is that he apparently thinks Ares I needs cancelling... "Somebody didn't get the memo", indeed...
Oh, I get it… cause Ares is already cancelled. I knew it was on the rocks, but I guess I didn’t the memo either, ha ha.
