Really angry about debt talks

[Anonymous]

I am feeling so angry and frustrated. Why the heck can't these people just compromise? SOME new taxes, SOME reduction in benefits, and yes I want a balanced budget amendment, at least phased in eventually.

Personally I am blaming the Republicans, but I'm a Dem, so obviously I am biased. Feeling so disgusted, so many of us have so much on the line economically, and they are playing this game of chicken with world financial security and stability. I'm just sickened.

[jsteele]

The difference between you and the politicians debating this is that they cannot settle for "some". They have to deal with specifics. It is easy to think about cutting spending and raising taxes in the abstract. It's not so easy when you get down to the details of whose ox is getting gored. Specifically, how much more in taxes and how much less in government services are you willing to personally accept in exchange for raising the debt ceiling?

The Tea Party Republicans have drawn a line in the sand regarding taxes. Some Democrats have drawn a line in the sand regarding entitlements. If each side respects the other side's lines in the sand, then we have the parameters of a deal. It won't be a deal that anybody likes, but it will be a deal.

I disagree with you about a balanced budget amendment. It would make no sense for a national government. Imagine that a balanced budget was passed and a natural disaster or war came along and a huge amount of spending was required in response. Do you really think Congress would be able to get it's act together to make the necessary cuts to prior appropriations to make up for it?

[Anonymous]

The bottom line is that they need to get it done and they aren't. Congress is just dysfunctional. Look at the NFL-- they at least got things done.

The only lasting effect will be an increase in our interest rates/debt service and that disgusts me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am feeling so angry and frustrated. Why the heck can't these people just compromise? SOME new taxes, SOME reduction in benefits, and yes I want a balanced budget amendment, at least phased in eventually.

Personally I am blaming the Republicans, but I'm a Dem, so obviously I am biased. Feeling so disgusted, so many of us have so much on the line economically, and they are playing this game of chicken with world financial security and stability. I'm just sickened.

Couple quick questions: Why in God's name would we want a balanced budget amendment? Also, why do we need a reduction in benefits. If you're a Democrat, it's understandable why we're in this mess in the first place. I blame Obama for completely abdicating the public debate to the far-right. People want to cut Medicare benefits even though that would put folks in private insurance which is more costly. A balanced budget amendment would hamstring the Feds ability to deal with economic downturns.

If we let the Bush tax cuts expire, and phased out the wars in Iraq & Iran, there wouldn't be a debt crisis. Raise the tax rates back to the way they were under Clinton, and we're on our way out of this mess. But, no, people who don't know any better have pretty much bought the framing of the farthest fringes of the Tea Party.

Thanks for the leadership, Obama.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:The difference between you and the politicians debating this is that they cannot settle for "some". They have to deal with specifics. It is easy to think about cutting spending and raising taxes in the abstract. It's not so easy when you get down to the details of whose ox is getting gored. Specifically, how much more in taxes and how much less in government services are you willing to personally accept in exchange for raising the debt ceiling?

The Tea Party Republicans have drawn a line in the sand regarding taxes. Some Democrats have drawn a line in the sand regarding entitlements. If each side respects the other side's lines in the sand, then we have the parameters of a deal. It won't be a deal that anybody likes, but it will be a deal.

I disagree with you about a balanced budget amendment. It would make no sense for a national government. Imagine that a balanced budget was passed and a natural disaster or war came along and a huge amount of spending was required in response. Do you really think Congress would be able to get it's act together to make the necessary cuts to prior appropriations to make up for it?

A federal government should be run like a family. That means they should never ever borrow money. Also, too, you don't see a parent taxing their family members to pay for things, do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The difference between you and the politicians debating this is that they cannot settle for "some". They have to deal with specifics. It is easy to think about cutting spending and raising taxes in the abstract. It's not so easy when you get down to the details of whose ox is getting gored. Specifically, how much more in taxes and how much less in government services are you willing to personally accept in exchange for raising the debt ceiling?

The Tea Party Republicans have drawn a line in the sand regarding taxes. Some Democrats have drawn a line in the sand regarding entitlements. If each side respects the other side's lines in the sand, then we have the parameters of a deal. It won't be a deal that anybody likes, but it will be a deal.

I disagree with you about a balanced budget amendment. It would make no sense for a national government. Imagine that a balanced budget was passed and a natural disaster or war came along and a huge amount of spending was required in response. Do you really think Congress would be able to get it's act together to make the necessary cuts to prior appropriations to make up for it?

A federal government should be run like a family. That means they should never ever borrow money. Also, too, you don't see a parent taxing their family members to pay for things, do you?

In my house there is a massive transfer of wealth from the tall people to the short people. Fortunately our bank bought part of our house and lets us use it for free.

[Anonymous]

A balanced budget amendment is economic madness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The difference between you and the politicians debating this is that they cannot settle for "some". They have to deal with specifics. It is easy to think about cutting spending and raising taxes in the abstract. It's not so easy when you get down to the details of whose ox is getting gored. Specifically, how much more in taxes and how much less in government services are you willing to personally accept in exchange for raising the debt ceiling?

The Tea Party Republicans have drawn a line in the sand regarding taxes. Some Democrats have drawn a line in the sand regarding entitlements. If each side respects the other side's lines in the sand, then we have the parameters of a deal. It won't be a deal that anybody likes, but it will be a deal.

I disagree with you about a balanced budget amendment. It would make no sense for a national government. Imagine that a balanced budget was passed and a natural disaster or war came along and a huge amount of spending was required in response. Do you really think Congress would be able to get it's act together to make the necessary cuts to prior appropriations to make up for it?

A federal government should be run like a family. That means they should never ever borrow money. Also, too, you don't see a parent taxing their family members to pay for things, do you?

First of all, why? Secondly, nearly every family in the USA borrows money. Does your family have a mortgage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The difference between you and the politicians debating this is that they cannot settle for "some". They have to deal with specifics. It is easy to think about cutting spending and raising taxes in the abstract. It's not so easy when you get down to the details of whose ox is getting gored. Specifically, how much more in taxes and how much less in government services are you willing to personally accept in exchange for raising the debt ceiling?

The Tea Party Republicans have drawn a line in the sand regarding taxes. Some Democrats have drawn a line in the sand regarding entitlements. If each side respects the other side's lines in the sand, then we have the parameters of a deal. It won't be a deal that anybody likes, but it will be a deal.

I disagree with you about a balanced budget amendment. It would make no sense for a national government. Imagine that a balanced budget was passed and a natural disaster or war came along and a huge amount of spending was required in response. Do you really think Congress would be able to get it's act together to make the necessary cuts to prior appropriations to make up for it?

A federal government should be run like a family. That means they should never ever borrow money. Also, too, you don't see a parent taxing their family members to pay for things, do you?

First of all, why? Secondly, nearly every family in the USA borrows money. Does your family have a mortgage?

Sorry, I forgot, in the age of the Tea Party, irony is dead.

[Anonymous]

Great article on where the debt negotiations stand currently:

Something you often see in negotiations is a mismatch between one side’s stated sticking points and its real sticking points. In the debate over the debt ceiling, for example, Republicans have sought to portray themselves as having two bottom lines. One is that any increase in the debt ceiling must be met dollar-for-dollar with spending cuts. The other is that no revenue increases can be part of the deal. What Harry Reid did yesterday was essentially call the GOP’s bluff by outlining a plan that raises the debt ceiling by $2.7 trillion and includes $2.7 trillion in spending cuts, a healthy share of which comes from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Republicans are rejecting this even though it nominally meets their demands. Why? Because it doesn’t achieve either of their two real objectives. In particular, the plan doesn’t cut Medicare, which means that Democratic party candidates for office in November 2012 and 2014 can accurately remind voters of the content of the Republican budget plan. In case you forgot, this plans repeals Medicare. Having repealed Medicare, it then gives seniors vouchers to purchase more expensive private health insurance. And having replaced Medicare with a voucher system, it then ensures that the vouchers will grow steadily stingier over time. It was only after voting for this plan that Republicans seem to have realized that repealing Medicare is unpopular. Since that time, they’ve been trying to entrap Democrats into reaching some kind of Medicare détente with them, which would immunize them from criticism. Reid’s plan doesn’t do that.
Second, while Reid’s plan doesn’t raise taxes, it also doesn’t take tax increases off the table. Currently, the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire in 2012. If Reid’s all-cuts plan passes, that still leaves the door open to significant revenue increases. Now that doesn’t mean this is brilliant 11-dimensional chess. The Reid Plan is consistent with substantial revenues coming online in 2012, but that will only happen if President Obama and Senate Democrats stand firm and play hardball on the tax issue. Back in December 2010, they utterly failed to do so.

[Anonymous]

This chart is from the New York Times, and shows in lovely, vibrant colors that George Bush was responsible for far more of our current deficit than Barack Obama has been. It's pretty dramatic, and in any case, probably understates the difference since the vast majority of Obama's contributions were specifically designed to be temporary reactions to the recession. Take out temporary recession spending from both sides and the tally is something like $4,000 billion for Bush and $300 billion for Obama. So now you know the facts.

[Anonymous]

I'd have no problem with a balanced budget provided there exists a rainy day fund to which government contributes 10% or so of revenues a year during non-recessionary times. So between 2002 and 2007, we'd have had what, about $2 trillion or so in that rainy day fund?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd have no problem with a balanced budget provided there exists a rainy day fund to which government contributes 10% or so of revenues a year during non-recessionary times. So between 2002 and 2007, we'd have had what, about $2 trillion or so in that rainy day fund?

Oh, for cripes sake. Here's an idea: Why not just elect Democrats? After all, they have a history of fiscal responsibility that stands in stark contrast to the other party. And that's not partisanship--just an observation.

At some point, you can't make the government (particularly fiscal policy) run on autopilot. All you can do is vote for adults who have the best interests of the country at heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd have no problem with a balanced budget provided there exists a rainy day fund to which government contributes 10% or so of revenues a year during non-recessionary times. So between 2002 and 2007, we'd have had what, about $2 trillion or so in that rainy day fund?

Oh, and by the way, you might want to look up "Greenspan Bush surplus". Ah, to hell with it, here you go:

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/26/news/mn-17371

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd have no problem with a balanced budget provided there exists a rainy day fund to which government contributes 10% or so of revenues a year during non-recessionary times. So between 2002 and 2007, we'd have had what, about $2 trillion or so in that rainy day fund?

Oh, and by the way, you might want to look up "Greenspan Bush surplus". Ah, to hell with it, here you go:

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/26/news/mn-17371

Incidentally, that "surplus give-back" is the item on the graph that dwarfs the entire Obama deficit, which included the stimulus to try to counteract the Bush Recession.