• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Dr. Pangloss said:
And if we did it your way, would getting an extra 100 billion in taxes be worth it? A couple days to you might be fine, just so you can spike the ball and say you "won." But that doesn't really help the country or its citizens at all. How does kicking the Republicans' teeth in make them more open to change? How does making them choke on electoral losses restore our government to one that is based on compromised? How does that help feed people, ensure people get medical care, or anything at all? Sorry Obama didn't rub their faces enough in it for you. And I don't think he would come out of it as unscathed as you say.

And when it comes to the debt ceiling, what are Obama's incentives to compromise? Last time he did it to check it off his list as you say and use it in the campaign. Now what has he got to lose? He already cut discretionary spending. He won't touch Medicaid because it's tied into his legacy achievement of Obamacare. You think Obama wants to go down as the guy that raised the Medicare eligibility age? Something that has stayed the same since it's creation in 1965. Sorry, people aren't buying your bullshit anymore.
Click to expand...
I think we should elect PD to Congress. he'd be the best
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...2fe6de-5501-11e2-8e84-e933f677fe68_print.html

Saturday turned to Sunday, and Republicans had still not heard a response to their last offer. Nothing at 11. Nothing at 12. McConnell decided something was wrong. “We couldn’t get the majority leader to counter,” the GOP leader said later. There were now less than 36 hours until the deadline. “The clock was ticking and we were not moving.”

They weren’t moving because Democrats had decided that they had gone as far as they could. Reid and Obama had disagreed privately about what their next offer should be. At one point, Reid was unhappy with an idea that Senate aides said came from Obama — to put the change in Social Security benefits back on the table in exchange for a delay in spending cuts and a rise in the debt limit.

Aides said Reid actually tore up the proposal and threw it into the blazing fire in his ornate green marble fireplace. The paper burned. Reid said he didn’t want evidence that the idea had ever been considered.

Administration officials, for their part, deny that Obama ever considered including the Social Security change in the deal.
Click to expand...
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Dr. Pangloss said:
And if we did it your way, would getting an extra 100 billion in taxes be worth it? A couple days[/b] to you might be fine, just so you can spike the ball and say you "won."
Click to expand...

For a few days to get an extra 100 billion? Uh, yes?

You think Obama wants to go down as the guy that raised the Medicare eligibility age?
Click to expand...

Obama himself has proposed that idea multiple times.
 
D

dabig2

Member
Dax01 said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...2fe6de-5501-11e2-8e84-e933f677fe68_print.html
Click to expand...

Aides said Reid actually tore up the proposal and threw it into the blazing fire in his ornate green marble fireplace. The paper burned. Reid said he didn’t want evidence that the idea had ever been considered.
Click to expand...

So dramatic. I like it.

Fucking around with social security should only happen if you get the guarantee that the debt ceiling is abolished - not raised - abolished. Then we can hope a Dem president and congress gets elected in a 2016 wave to reverse the damage done to everyone's future social security.
 
T

Timedog

good credit (by proxy)
So what are the chances that Senate Dems use the nuclear option on filibustering?

Also what happens when they don't extend the debt ceiling, exactly? We can't sell any more bonds? We're forced to cut spending? Isn't that what they want?-or am I not understanding the debt ceiling correctly?
 
R

Rubenov

Member
Timedog said:
So what are the chances that Senate Dems use the nuclear option on filibustering?

Also what happens when they don't extend the debt ceiling, exactly? We can't sell any more bonds? We're forced to cut spending? Isn't that what they want?-or am I not understanding the debt ceiling correctly?
Click to expand...

As I understand it means a default on our obligations, and the inability to borrow so we can keep the government going. It truly is a fiscal nuclear bomb. Cantor holds the trigger.
 
T

Timedog

good credit (by proxy)
If we can't borrow money what happens? Wouldn't that entail huge spending cuts, which is exactly what the repubs/tea party want?
 
D

DragonSworne

Banned
Timedog said:
If we can't borrow money what happens? Wouldn't that entail huge spending cuts, which is exactly what the repubs/tea party want?
Click to expand...

This isn't about borrow money, but us deciding not to pay back our debt. We already borrowed the money. The debt ceiling only limits us to what we will pay back.


Spending cuts will not keep up with interest rates, only growth in the economy will.
 
C

codhand

Member
McNum said:
For those of us following US politics more as a spectator sport from the outside, what does this mean? What can he do with that?
Click to expand...

If invoked it states that the first African-American President upon reelection is permitted one bitch slap, delivered to the face (via back or open hand) per member of congress.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
McNum said:
For those of us following US politics more as a spectator sport from the outside, what does this mean? What can he do with that?
Click to expand...

No one really knows, honestly. Here's the part people want to use:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
Click to expand...

Not raising the debt ceiling could certainly be interpreted as "questioning" the public debt, authorized by law. But people aren't really sure if the supreme court would go with a broader interpretation of that amendment or not.
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
RDreamer said:
No one really knows, honestly. Here's the part people want to use:



Not raising the debt ceiling could certainly be interpreted as "questioning" the public debt, authorized by law. But people aren't really sure if the supreme court would go with a broader interpretation of that amendment or not.
Click to expand...

The only hurdle is getting Roberts to agree with it. I'm fairly confident the four liberal justices will side with Obama, if he decides to invoke it.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
DragonSworne said:
This isn't about borrow money, but us deciding not to pay back our debt. We already borrowed the money. The debt ceiling only limits us to what we will pay back.
Click to expand...

Just so you know, the debt limit only prevents the US Treasury from issuing more bonds. It only indirectly affects the government's ability to pay back debt because the Treasury will be short of the dollars needed to carry out the budget passed by Congress otherwise. Instead of defaulting, the government can simply redirect dollars away from other spending to meet its bond obligations. Instead of diverting dollars away from other programs, it could just mint some coins, deposit them at the Fed, and continue with business as usual but that would be entirely too easy and open too many people's eyes to the public nature of money. To be honest, this would be the best thing for the US.

I would actually prefer for the Republicans to not raise the limit and prevent the Treasury from issuing bonds. Not that I would be able to count on Democrats doing the right thing and minting coins in response, but if they did it would be a powerful lesson to Americans that bond issuance isn't necessary to spend. Maybe then the belief that the government has to "borrow" its previously spent dollars back in order to spend them again will be forever crushed.

Or we could just default on our bonds. I was listening to NPR this morning where there was a hideous panel of know-nothing economists on telling all the liberal listeners that entitlement programs are unsustainable and must be cut and it was funny because one particular idiot, Chris Edwards with the Cato Institute, when talking about these entitlement programs said something like, "well, people are going to have to understand that the government just isn't going to be able to keep all the promises it made." And I thought, "OK then. If we have to break some promises, how about we break the promises to bond holders instead of the promises made to the sick and elderly?"

So my vote is, if we have to default on promises, default on the promises made to bond holders. Not even close. Oh, and fuck you Chris.
 
M

McNum

Member
RDreamer said:
No one really knows, honestly. Here's the part people want to use:



Not raising the debt ceiling could certainly be interpreted as "questioning" the public debt, authorized by law. But people aren't really sure if the supreme court would go with a broader interpretation of that amendment or not.
Click to expand...
Thanks!

Looks fairly straightforward. But when it comes to the constitution, I imagine it never is... I can see why Obama might be reluctant to use this unless its a last resort. Using a constitutional amendment to strongarm Congress is not a great PR move, unless Congress is made to look like they really deserve it. Which I wouldn't rule out at this point. The House Republicans are... an interesting bunch to follow.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
empty vessel said:
Or we could just default on our bonds. I was listening to NPR this morning where there was a hideous panel of know-nothing economists on telling all the liberal listeners that entitlement programs are unsustainable and must be cut and it was funny because one particular idiot, Chris Edwards with the Cato Institute, when talking about these entitlement programs said something like, "well, people are going to have to understand that the government just isn't going to be able to keep all the promises it made." And I thought, "OK then. If we have to break some promises, how about we break the promises to bond holders instead of the promises made to the sick and elderly?"
Click to expand...

Yeah, I noticed a snipped on NPR this morning too when they talked about the fiscal cliff deal. They said it didn't do 3 things: 1) It didn't do anything about the debt ceiling, 2) It didn't do anything about the sequestration except kick it down the road, and 3) It didn't address entitlements and our unsustainable debt problem.

I let out an audible groan.


McNum said:
Thanks!

Looks fairly straightforward. But when it comes to the constitution, I imagine it never is... I can see why Obama might be reluctant to use this unless its a last resort. Using a constitutional amendment to strongarm Congress is not a great PR move, unless Congress is made to look like they really deserve it. Which I wouldn't rule out at this point. The House Republicans are... an interesting bunch to follow.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the problem is in the framing. I think if people knew what the debt ceiling really was, they wouldn't mind it much. As it is now, though raising the debt ceiling is suddenly unpopular, so using that amendment could be seen as overreach. And if it failed in the courts it'd be pretty devastating as far as PR goes.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Dr. Pangloss said:
And if we did it your way, would getting an extra 100 billion in taxes be worth it? A couple days to you might be fine, just so you can spike the ball and say you "won." But that doesn't really help the country or its citizens at all. How does kicking the Republicans' teeth in make them more open to change? How does making them choke on electoral losses restore our government to one that is based on compromised? How does that help feed people, ensure people get medical care, or anything at all? Sorry Obama didn't rub their faces enough in it for you. And I don't think he would come out of it as unscathed as you say.

And when it comes to the debt ceiling, what are Obama's incentives to compromise? Last time he did it to check it off his list as you say and use it in the campaign. Now what has he got to lose? He already cut discretionary spending. He won't touch Medicaid because it's tied into his legacy achievement of Obamacare. You think Obama wants to go down as the guy that raised the Medicare eligibility age? Something that has stayed the same since it's creation in 1965. Sorry, people aren't buying your bullshit anymore.
Click to expand...

The revenue is not the issue, dude. It's about drawing a line in the sand, beyond this line you do not - Walter

And I don't want to hear about poisoning the well. Obama compromised with this bill and what has been the aftermath? Boehner is saying he will no longer privately negotiate with him, McConnell is taking shots, republicans are waiting to take the economy hostage, etc. You deal with a bully by beating his ass, not giving him half your lunch money.

Obama already offered to raise Medicare eligibility, and reports say he was willing to STILL add chained CPI to a deal in late December. That should tell you he is more interested in the glory of accomplishment/success than protecting the social net. As I said earlier, if republicans truly cared about conservative dogma they could have exploited him for the last two years, just because he apparently wants David Brooks to write nice things about him.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
10 Juiciest Tidbits about the Fiscal Cliff Talks

From the National Journal: “The president spoke almost the entire 50-minute meeting, telling Republicans that if he did not get an agreement he liked, he would spend the next four years blaming them for what could turn into a global recession. The blame game would begin in earnest with his Inaugural Address and would follow up with a repeat performance in the State of the Union, a GOP source recalled. If they deny him now, he said, he would block future spending cuts for the next four years.”

From Politico: “The president — speaking for 45 minutes in a 50-minute meeting, Republicans said — suggested they could find a middle ground but warned that if they did not, he would use his inauguration address, State of the Union speech and every other lever of power to lash Republicans.”
Click to expand...

Now replace fiscal cliff with debt ceiling.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Dax01 said:
10 Juiciest Tidbits about the Fiscal Cliff Talks



Now replace fiscal cliff with debt ceiling.
Click to expand...
Yea ok

McConnell is saying no new taxes, which I assume includes deduction revenue, in the future. I'm more apt to believe his ultimatum than Obama's. This will be ugly. I'm guessing the democrat plan is to offer spending cuts in exchange for sequestration in Feburary, but republicans can just slow walk to the debt ceiling deadline as democrats slow walked to the fiscal cliff. And I don't see Obama holding firm with against the threat of self inflicted recession.
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
empty vessel said:
Well, he did. Actually, he probably lowered them slightly when you take into account the income tax cut. It's just that it was stupid not to make the payroll tax cut permanent.
Click to expand...

The payroll tax cut was set to be temporary. So not extending them doesn't mean the taxes were "raised" per say by the government. The temporary cut just wasn't extended. There's a difference.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
mckmas8808 said:
The payroll tax cut was set to be temporary. So not extending them doesn't mean the taxes were "raised" per say by the government. The temporary cut just wasn't extended. There's a difference.
Click to expand...

You're right in a way. The tax raise was voted on a couple of years ago. Obama still supported it, though, so I don't see how anything is different in that regard.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
I'm assuming you are labeling the tax credits stimulus correct? At what point in these discussions were they in danger, outside of the green energy ones? The liberal defense of this bill seems to be that it was the only way to get credits, UE benefits etc, otherwise...what? Republicans would stand firm and let taxes truly rise in a couple weeks? As Reid and others argued, the GOP was losing. Badly. And they would have continued to lose if democrats twisted the knife for a few more days. You think republicans would vote against child tax credits, unemployment benefits, and tax cuts?
Click to expand...

Yes. They have! That's how we got the payroll tax holiday in the first place, they killed the Making Work Pay credit. Remember, Republicans don't oppose taxes. They oppose taxes on the rich. Nor is there any way to jam it through. It's easy to envision a situation where the House is forced to let taxes go up on $250,000 and above-- that bill already passed the Senate. But there's no reason to assume we could tack a bunch more stuff onto that. It wouldn't even get to the floor, Boehner would just put up the clean bill since Democrats can't vote it down.

Basically, your implicit strategy is just "wait and try to force the Republicans to accept stimulus as the price of middle-class tax cuts." It should be obvious that that reverses the entire dynamic of the negotiation -- now the Democrats are the ones holding up middle class taxes so that they can get tax credit "handouts" for the poor. This would not be effective. Both parties want to keep taxes low on the middle class and neither party can afford to not do so, so they're not even part of the negotiations.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
Yea ok

McConnell is saying no new taxes, which I assume includes deduction revenue, in the future. I'm more apt to believe his ultimatum than Obama's. This will be ugly. I'm guessing the democrat plan is to offer spending cuts in exchange for sequestration in Feburary, but republicans can just slow walk to the debt ceiling deadline as democrats slow walked to the fiscal cliff. And I don't see Obama holding firm with against the threat of self inflicted recession.
Click to expand...

You've been wrong before...always, so you'll probably be wrong again.
TacticalFox88 said:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/03/1390191/the-worst-moments-of-the-112th-congress/

Like, Dax I miss the 111th.

*sigh*
Click to expand...

Filibuster was still there but at least they were getting shit done. You don't know what you have until it's gone.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Isn't Christie really the new Giuliani? His leadership during crisis and seemingly reasonable mindset makes him appeal to some on both sides as well as moderates, but get him in the primary and he won't seem anywhere near crazy enough to win?
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Chumly said:
Yep. Let them waste all their money on themselves. Maybe the dems can pick up a few seats because of it
Click to expand...

I'm quite glad Dick Armey left a tea party group. The fewer smart people they have who know how to win elections, the better. The tea party raised tons of cash initially in part to defeat Obama and Obamacare in a bad economy. Well they failed on both accounts and the economy is slowly improving. Their impact will be diminished by default in the future, but they'll make it worse by eating themselves to attain strict purity. Good.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
My wife just posted this on that farm bill that just passed. Thought you guys might find it interesting

We all know money is tight. And both the Senate and House agriculture committees have spent the year hashing out just how and where to make cuts within the vast sphere of food and farming. What they arrived at wasn’t perfect, but both saw the value of ending direct payments to large commodity farms. (Granted, the farm lobby was pushing for a “shallow loss” crop insurance program that would have done nearly as much to prop up the biggest commodity farmers, but even that shift might have at least left a few crumbs for the little guys.) Instead, a few big farms will continue making a killing. According to EWG, the top 10 percent of farms receive 74 percent of all subsidy money, while two-thirds of farmers don’t get direct payments at all.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kid these days will never...
Social 2 3 4
174
7K
Agent_Nobody replied
SAW 3 | A Finale on Life Support (HyperBitHero)
Opinion
4
903
HyperBitHero replied
  • Locked
RTX 4070 TI Super for sale. Never gamed on.
1
717
LSWilson replied
Scalable games should be the standard on consoles from now on
Opinion
31
1K
GHG replied
How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
1K
dragonyeuw replied
Top Bottom