Previous Thread
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
Obama hit the ball out of the park in his weekly address regarding the debt ceiling impasse:
<< Simply put, it will take a balanced approach, shared sacrifice, and a willingness to make unpopular choices on all our parts. That means spending less on domestic programs. It means spending less on defense programs. It means reforming programs like Medicare to reduce costs and strengthen the program for future generations. And it means taking on the tax code, and cutting out certain tax breaks and deductions for the wealthiest Americans.
<< Now, some of these things don't make folks in my party too happy. And I wouldn't agree to some of these cuts if we were in a better fiscal situation, but we're not. That's why I'm willing to compromise. I'm willing to do what it takes to solve this problem, even if it's not politically popular. And I expect leaders in Congress to show that same willingness to compromise. >>
Full Transcript:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/16/weekly-address-unique-opportunity-secure-our-fiscal-future
Video:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/16/weekly-address-securing-our-fiscal-future
That's an excellent summary of the debt ceiling discussions.
Meanwhile, Republicans say they will not agree to a compromise that includes $3 trillion in spending cuts and $8 in revenue (not that such a lopsided solution has been offered). That's eight dollars, not eight trillion or 8 billion. Just 800 pennies.
Source:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/07/15/270661/king-wont-accept-revenue-increases/
Maybe if Obama was willing to actually say what the 3 trillion in cuts actually were, the Republicans would have something to agree with. Obama's nebulous, "We're going to cut 3 trillion and we'll figure it out later, so agree with me." plan is worthless. If he actually has a plan, he should actually share it. Otherwise, it isn't a plan.
Josh
Josh
>Maybe if Obama was willing to actually say what the 3 trillion in cuts actually were, the Republicans would have something to agree with. Obama's nebulous, "We're going to cut 3 trillion and we'll figure it out later, so agree with me." plan is worthless. If he actually has a plan, he should actually share it. Otherwise, it isn't a plan.
I don't really think you can say that. We haven't been privy to the exact details of what they're saying in the deficit talks. I was under the impression that a lot of the details had been hashed out. From everything I've understood, the cuts would be passed at the same time as the ceiling increase, so I assume they've already been discussed in a non-vague way. The deal-breaker is not what the cuts are, but the fact that they include an additional 1 trillion in tax increases (which probably mostly involves the agreement to extend the lower bush tax cuts, without extending the upper end).
- Greminty
I don't really think you can say that. We haven't been privy to the exact details of what they're saying in the deficit talks. I was under the impression that a lot of the details had been hashed out. From everything I've understood, the cuts would be passed at the same time as the ceiling increase, so I assume they've already been discussed in a non-vague way. The deal-breaker is not what the cuts are, but the fact that they include an additional 1 trillion in tax increases (which probably mostly involves the agreement to extend the lower bush tax cuts, without extending the upper end).
- Greminty
<< I don't really think you can say that. We haven't been privy to the exact details of what they're saying in the deficit talks. I was under the impression that a lot of the details had been hashed out. From everything I've understood, the cuts would be passed at the same time as the ceiling increase, so I assume they've already been discussed in a non-vague way. The deal-breaker is not what the cuts are, but the fact that they include an additional 1 trillion in tax increases (which probably mostly involves the agreement to extend the lower bush tax cuts, without extending the upper end).- Greminty >>
It also ignores all the major problems facing the Country. Social security, Medicare, etc. Obama needs to show up with a REAL plan.
Josh
It also ignores all the major problems facing the Country. Social security, Medicare, etc. Obama needs to show up with a REAL plan.
Josh
>It also ignores all the major problems facing the Country. Social security, Medicare, etc. Obama needs to show up with a REAL plan.
Well, it doesn't ignore them. I believe both are trimmed to some extent in the "grand bargain" plan which Obama is pushing. Also, Social security isn't a major issue. It's solvent for 40 years, and with a few tweaks will remain so forever. Medicare is a problem though, and I agree that none of these approaches do any more than put a bandaid on that. Unfortunately, the only way to solve Medicare is a single payer solution, which has been effectively veto'd by the right. Any other solution involves seniors going broke which just won't be supported by our voting base (which is heavily weighted by seniors). Given the current political atmosphere, I imagine we'll eventually (in the next 10-20 years) end up cutting medicare drastically, and then enact some sort of single payer system in the backlash.
Of course, I wouldn't expect any REAL reforms in a discussion limited by an artificially imposed deadline and republicans who won't consider any plan that raises taxes by a single penny.
- Greminty
Well, it doesn't ignore them. I believe both are trimmed to some extent in the "grand bargain" plan which Obama is pushing. Also, Social security isn't a major issue. It's solvent for 40 years, and with a few tweaks will remain so forever. Medicare is a problem though, and I agree that none of these approaches do any more than put a bandaid on that. Unfortunately, the only way to solve Medicare is a single payer solution, which has been effectively veto'd by the right. Any other solution involves seniors going broke which just won't be supported by our voting base (which is heavily weighted by seniors). Given the current political atmosphere, I imagine we'll eventually (in the next 10-20 years) end up cutting medicare drastically, and then enact some sort of single payer system in the backlash.
Of course, I wouldn't expect any REAL reforms in a discussion limited by an artificially imposed deadline and republicans who won't consider any plan that raises taxes by a single penny.
- Greminty
Conservative columnist David Brooks observed in his July 4 column that what Obama is offering is the "deal of the century" and should be a "no-brainer" for Republicans:
<< If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred billion dollars of revenue increases.
<< A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.
<< The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.
<< This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.
<< But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That's because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative. >>
Full column:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html
This is probably the last opportunity to make significant reforms before the 2012 election. Because of the economy, there is a very good chance that a Republican will be elected in 2012, even with the weak group of candidates they are fielding. A Republican president will have greater difficulty reforming Social Security or Medicare than a Democratic president. If Republicans were smart, they would deal now.
<< If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred billion dollars of revenue increases.
<< A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.
<< The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.
<< This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.
<< But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That's because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative. >>
Full column:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html
This is probably the last opportunity to make significant reforms before the 2012 election. Because of the economy, there is a very good chance that a Republican will be elected in 2012, even with the weak group of candidates they are fielding. A Republican president will have greater difficulty reforming Social Security or Medicare than a Democratic president. If Republicans were smart, they would deal now.
<< If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred billion dollars of revenue increases. >>
No. It's tit for tat. A few hundred billion in cuts for a few hundred billion in taxes. Obama's "trillions" are over 10 years, which amounts to 400 billion a year in actual cuts. Extend the taxes over the same 10 years and your looking at trillions in taxes for trillions in cuts.
<< The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary. >>
This I have no issue with. I don't want to see a tax increase, but closing loopholes should be a priority.
Josh
No. It's tit for tat. A few hundred billion in cuts for a few hundred billion in taxes. Obama's "trillions" are over 10 years, which amounts to 400 billion a year in actual cuts. Extend the taxes over the same 10 years and your looking at trillions in taxes for trillions in cuts.
<< The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary. >>
This I have no issue with. I don't want to see a tax increase, but closing loopholes should be a priority.
Josh
>No. It's tit for tat. A few hundred billion in cuts for a few hundred billion in taxes. Obama's "trillions" are over 10 years, which amounts to 400 billion a year in actual cuts. Extend the taxes over the same 10 years and your looking at trillions in taxes for trillions in cuts.
If only! Unfortunately, all of the numbers being quoted are over 10 years. The best cuts:taxes ratio we're looking at is about 3:1. Obama wants 3T in cuts over 10 years along with 1T in taxes over 10 years (though the taxes don't actually start until 2013, so it's really over 8 years). Republicans want 2.4T in cuts over 10 years with zero tax increases (ever). The only number that's not quoted over 10 years is the increase to the debt ceiling which needs to be roughly 2.4T over the next 2 years. (The whole 1:1 ceiling to cuts idea is skewed from the start, since you're talking about funding 2 years of future spending with 10 years of cuts/taxes.)
- Greminty
If only! Unfortunately, all of the numbers being quoted are over 10 years. The best cuts:taxes ratio we're looking at is about 3:1. Obama wants 3T in cuts over 10 years along with 1T in taxes over 10 years (though the taxes don't actually start until 2013, so it's really over 8 years). Republicans want 2.4T in cuts over 10 years with zero tax increases (ever). The only number that's not quoted over 10 years is the increase to the debt ceiling which needs to be roughly 2.4T over the next 2 years. (The whole 1:1 ceiling to cuts idea is skewed from the start, since you're talking about funding 2 years of future spending with 10 years of cuts/taxes.)
- Greminty
By the way, I've mentioned this before, but here's where I think quoting these numbers in per capita amounts would be much more helpful to people. 100 billion, 1 trillion, 3 trillion, all sound about the same to the average person. But try saying we need to raise the debt ceiling by 7k (per person), and to do so, we'll be cutting about 8k (per person) over 10 years and raising taxes by about 3k (per person) over 10 years. All to combat our 4k/year (per person) deficit and 41k (per person) total debt.
It's a lot easier to understand, in my opinion.
- Greminty
It's a lot easier to understand, in my opinion.
- Greminty
