Then the American people are even fucking stupider than I thought (which is kind of hard to imagine)

Bucc, we can pretend that the libertarian working at the public utility really shouldn't be the one casting stones, but our business is about making money - I couldn't give a shit about the politics of our entrepreneurs. If Alabama was good at this, we'd invest there. Its not. A significant majority of entrepreneurs in tech and social media is that they lean very very heavily to the liberal side, and this environment fosters more of that - they want the liberal artsy stuff, they want the SF culture stuff, they want the appealing to people that outcasts / different type - the stuff Alabama just does not have (or at least does not dominate). And since the majority of VC is out here (followed probably by NYC and Boston), we can either believe what I've seen , or what you believe which is based on some random BS.

Or maybe they're smarter then you thought, and you're the one who suffers instead?

It's foolish if anyone thinks they're winning the PR war. Obama is spending his time blaming others while the House and Senate stumble along looking like buffoons.

The Republicans look like idiots (and hostage taking terrorists) right now. Either they care to reduce the defecit or they don't. If they do, make the cuts, raise the taxes, and make some real changes here so we can fix this thing. Otherwise, STFU about the defecit because ultimately you don't give a crap. You care more about all this posturing and trying to solve a problem in a way that can't possibly solve it by itself.

I'm sick of people in control thinking because they were elected they have some mandate from the people. You're in there because the other side didn't get it done. If you don't get it done, you'll be gone next.

And if you agree to raise taxes (or even "increase government revenue") despite having an (R) by your name, you're lucky if gone is all you get.

:lol:

Seriously - the guy works in VC and is providing us with his experience and you're just going to discount it because it doesn't fit your narrative??

That's just lazy.

How many times did Reagan raise taxes?

Wait, who's in control here? Last I checked, both parties had power in 1/2 of Congress and the President was a Democrat. We're in a political stalemate here. Neither party is in power right now.

I suspect you're confusing me with someone who has
a) canonized Regan
and/or
b) fails to recognize any differences between now & 1980-something.

Exactly...so compromise and get it done.

Both sides have to do so. I haven't seen any movement from either. Both have proposed options that they know damn well the other side will reject. So I'm not sure why only the Republicans were the sole target of your vitriol when neither has done any compromise.

Bullshit.

The Dems are willing to compromise on spending and entitlements and the GOP isn't willing to compromise on taxes. Both sides are not equally culpable in this case.

Exactly...if this cause is your #1 talking point like it is for the Republicans you fight it with all tools needed and not give some half-assed attempt at fixing the situation. Especially, since the last president you had in control jacked the debt up beyond all belief and your poster boy did the same throughout the 80s.

And you'll come back saying something about Obama in the first two years spending more than blah and blah and I agree.

The only difference between these two parties is what they'll try and bankrupt the country on. Republicans want to bankrupt it spending on defense and making sure the rich get theirs so they end up being taken care of themselves. Democrats want to bankrupt it spending it on all kinds of programs for the poor because they will get to stay in power.

They're the same at their cores...just a matter of what it's for.

Not sure why we're even arguing about taxes. The cuts expire next year. The Dems will get that very soon by just leaving it alone. They don't have to get any concessions.

I'm hoping for no debt ceiling increase. In that case, Obama is the one that makes the hard decisions on what gets cut to avoid default (note that raising the ceiling and default aren't mutually exclusive). I think we'd find out just how good (or bad) of a leader he is in a big hurry under that scenario.

Hoping for no increase? You do realize that will mean real pain for millions around the globe? All so you can stick it to Obama.

I was thinking tonight that the debt ceiling debate is turning into the typical "whatever pisses off liberals must be good" scenario, and your statement certainly backs that up. You'll be willing to tank the global economy as long as it makes Obama look bad.

Country First.

Lazy, sure, I'm just trying to connect the dots on the different modes and attitudes of entrepreneurship, esp. outside of the Bay Area (which is one story). One of the interesting things I read was that immigrants are twice as likely to start businesses.

Also, I take exception in saying that there is no recession in Silicon Valley. They will recover more quickly but it's still similar to many other parts of the country. From Daily Finance in early 2011: "A new report from Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network and Silicon Valley Community Foundation shows compensation and unemployment in the region haven't improved since the downturn, and it's not entirely due to the tech layoffs during the recession. The problems of poor pay and joblessness stem from widespread troubles which have plagued the region for years."

What? I said I want to see Obama in action. What does that have to do with 'sticking it to Obama'? If he's able to make the necessary cuts and changes needed, he comes out smelling like roses. He'd make the Congress look worse than they already look if that's possible. I'm not sure where opportunities are now looked down upon. Where I come from, opportunities for change are a good thing, even more so in this case.

The way I see things is to equate it to a household which has far too large a credit card balance and a mortgage to pay.

The household COULD pay the credit card balance off really quickly by not paying the mortgage or feeding their kids etc. ... but that'd be foolish and detrimental to the household, what they need to do is structure things so its paid off sensibly over time without destroying the households integrity.

Its entirely possible that if there is something large required in the short-term (perhaps fixing a car so you could get to work) that might involve upping the credit limit on the car - the important thing is to work out a sensible strategy going forward and stick to it.

.... which is to say for me not raising the debt ceiling and the financial tail winds that would cause aren't even a starter; all the 'but it doesn't mean we default' talk is hogwash - whether the US technically does or doesn't default in that situation doesn't matter .. it'd spook investors and trigger ratings changes which would ultimately react pretty much the same as a default.

If you're hoping for no debt ceiling increase (and a default), you're a freaking idiot. End of story.

I don't disagree with that. I just think the shenanigans by all three sides of this situation are equally as ridiculous. There's a bunch of posturing and threats that simply will never come to pass. They'll get a deal and any talk that they won't is just 'hogwash' as you say.

I'm hoping for it because I'd love to see all this posturing by these idiots backfire in their face. If there's one thing that we know, it's that the American people have a great ability to survive the lack of leadership by most of their politicians. They'd do so again if it came to that, but it won't.

So, you want to rubberneck at the nationwide trainwreck? (as opposide to the nationwide carwreck, which happens in NASCAR). I stand by my previous post.

I've noticed that whenever that phrase gets thrown around, what's usually meant by it is 'the people who agree with me.'

The ones who don't aren't real Americans, of course. I learned that from Sarah Palin.

It's posts and people like this that makes me believe there is a chance that the debt ceiling won't be raised. People so caught up in the "politics as sports" game that they'd be happy hurting millions of people who don't give a shit about this if it proves a point on a message board or to boost their own self-esteem. It's like actively rooting for the riots in Vancouver because you don't like the fans of the team even if it means a bunch of innocent people who don't care about hockey get hurt.

With that said, I'm considering pulling out of a lot of stuff that I'm currently in. Most notably an index fund I have been heavily invested in since the markets tanked a couple years ago. It would suck to have to pay taxes on those earnings this year, but I don't know if I have the stomach to see it take a 30-40% dive next month. I thought there was absolutely no way that people were dumb enough to let this happen, but I'm starting to believe they are.

I don't give a shit what side people need to play in their little partisian games, not raising the debt ceiling is one of the most retarded ideas ever concocted and hurts a lot of innocent people who don't give a shit about scoring meaningless political points on stupid fucking blogs and message boards. For a party that prides itself on "morals", they sure don't mind defaulting on their debts.

And my opinion on this whole thing has changed recently. Last month we put up an ad to hire two new people. Got almost 800 resumes for this. Many of these people did everything right. They went to college, learned a skill, worked internships, got experience. Yet they still couldn't find jobs. We had people who had families that had been out of work for over a year. People desperate for a real job in their field.

It was one of the most depressing experiences I've ever had to go through. Turning people away or down for a job they desperately needed and were more than qualified for. It wasn't like other times where people knew they could find one elsewhere. There just aren't many jobs right now for people who need them. And these weren't screw-offs, they were people who were really smart and talented. My Dad has even been forced to take a retail job he is woefully overqualified for just to get some health insurance and have some income coming in.

So when people turn this into a sport it pisses me off. Real people get hurt. Real people who don't give a shit about puffing their chest out when "their political party" wins some point. Who realize this is all just a fucking retarded dog and pony show for people who can't release their competitive outlets into something that doesn't effect lives so much. So people who root for this shit or care about what side "wins" the argument at the expense of regular people, fuck you. You've lost sight of the world.

Then don't pretend you're for balancing the budget. You can't have it both ways. Can't sit there and say we can't bring in more revenue and at the same time say we can't cut our biggest costs (defense, social security, medicare).

Lemme see here ... at what point have you seen me say that balancing the budget by August was a big priority for me? Or with any specific timeline for that matter?

Further, just for the sake of clarity, at what point have you seen me indicate that I opposed raising the debt ceiling?

Anyhoo, to your original statement, run the numbers with just those three things plus the interest on debt & see where you're at. Then add the number for the reduced federal payroll. Then we'll talk about touching defense & social security. But we won't be having that conversation before then.

Something like 67% of the spending in the budget is what we call "non-discretionary." That entails: Medicare, Social Security, defense and debt service.

So if the proposed budget is, say, $4 trillion (last number I heard was $3.68, but let's round for simplicity's sake), that means that $2.68 trillion goes into those four areas. That means you have $1.32 in cuts in discretionary spending that can be made, assuming you whack every-fucking-thing else. And you're still spending more than you take in at that point. The WSJ says the projected FY12 deficit is $1.65 trillion, so we'll assume that's the worst case (since they've got an axe to grind, it's reasonable to assume that they're not going to pick *rosier* numbers).

That means you kill federal highway funding. That means you kill the state parks. That means you kill college grants, merit-based, low-income, whatever. That means you kill SNAP - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance, which is relevant to low-income families and single mothers.

That means you cut Justice, which means no enforcement of federal laws.

That means you kill the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, both of which exist separately from non-discretionary defense funding.

Offhand, only about 1/3 of that discretionary spending comes in non-security areas.

Which means if DHS and DoD are sacred cows to you because they're defense related, you actually have around $500 billion that you can cut from the budget before you start talking defense and entitlements.

So, hint: you can kill everything in the government that's not debt service, Medicare, Social Security, and defense, you're STILL $500 billion in the hole, and you're not going to get there without either raising taxes or pruning other hedges.

In the meantime, you've put a bunch of people out of work, what with cutting the Departments of Justice, the Interior, Education, and God knows what else, so the tax base that was supposed to support your spending without 'increased revenue' just took a shit, which probably increased your deficits again.

Congratulations!

You seemed to be agreeing with the Republican side and saying we shouldn't add any revenue. That's fine, but that means we need a lot of cuts in other areas. Now I don't know your position on it, but the Republicans seem to want no new revenues and no signifigant cuts to things that will actually get rid of the debt.

So we just cut out all the other spending? Not sure about you, but I like driving on roads, I like having law enforcement and a justice system, and I like having agencies that will monitor air travel and major diseases in the country. I'm sure there are areas you can cut everywhere, but they are not signifigant enough to solve the problem without completely altering the lifestyle we enjoy (that of a 1st world nation).

There have to be cuts to Defense, SS, and Medicare if we want to seriously eliminate debt without raising revenues. I'm not a fan at all of higher taxes, but at some point we have to pay for the debt we ran up. It's wrong to pile that on the next generation and force them to make the major concessions.

To balance things there either needs to be more revenue or more cuts. Republicans don't want more revenue and don't want more cuts. It's just political posturing.

That wasn't what I meant at all.

The fact that most of you are taking this comment so seriously just further makes my point. The idiots are making ludicrous claims that certain things will happen and you're buying it hook, line, and sinker. There's absolutely zero chance that a) an agreement won't be reached or b) the debt ceiling isn't raised.

The only point I'm making here is that I'd love to see these idiots deal with the mess they'd make if they didn't do so, just because they're idiots. People might see that we need real reform, rather than this 'change' shit that we're having to deal with from all sides right now.

You are doing a pretty good job of making a "sport" out of this too. You totally contradicted yourself in this post by saying that 800 people applied for 2 positions and all 800 of them had the right experience...yet all were suffering and trying desperately to take care of their families. Where did they get all that experience? Working soup kitchens down of 3rd street? What kind of positions were you looking to hire for?

In my experience, most people that "went to college, have experience, and have done all the other things right" already have pretty decent jobs and are just floating resumes at potentially better jobs.

As a matter of fact, I can't remember the last time we hired a guy that was struggling to find work. Although there have been plenty of folks we didn't hire because they failed to "do everything right" and the resume had to be discarded.

The bottom line really though is that those 2 people you picked either did everthing "right" better than the other 798 applicants and I would question how many man-hours were spent doing this and that would indicate that not all 800 did everything *perfectly* right....or you simply grabbed 2 and threw the rest out...in which case, I'd say it would be overdramatized to say it was one of the most depressing experiences you ever went through.

In any event...GO POLITICAL TEAM.

Totally agree with this. I've done quite a bit of hiring of late at my business. There's a flood of resumes initially. I can usually filter out 60-70% of the people because it's blatantly obvious why then don't have a job or didn't keep their previous job(s).

9% unemployment = lots of lazy people

Another overdramatization.

Yep...this is actually consistent with labor statistics.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm

No HS Diploma - 14%, Only HS Diploma - 10%, Some College/Assoc Degree - 8%, BS Degree - 4.4%

Also, the participation rate follows these numbers as well (in the opposite direction, of course).

Still...this is why I continue to say that while the highest unemployed sector (HS Diploma & lower educated) has lost the majority of their jobs such as construction, manufacturing, etc...that is why we should have focused on getting them back to work in 2009 & 2010. While the Dems weren't primarily to blame (imo) for the economic mess (though they do not get a pass either), they had an opportunity to help fix it with traditional Dem programs such as real infrastructure initiatives to get this sector of education working again and to also allow the Bush tax cuts to expire (which they did not even in the lameduck period).

Energy, civil, manufacturing, etc. initiatives all have plenty of work for non-college grads to do until such time that housing (and similar traditional construction) jobs would be needed again. The timing couldn't have been better...as I'd give a swag (from 2009) at about 5-7 years to return to "normal" levels.

Having said that...now we have the Repubs essentially doing nothing and making idle threats. I don't believe the Repubs are necessarily looking out for the common people either in all of this so I guess we'll just have to wait for the next election cycle and see how badly the economy is.

If its any worse...I dont think any incumbents are safe (whether that be the Pres, Congress, Senate). If its roughly the same...I still suspect the Repubs will be out and Obama likely stays. If its better(or more optimistic)...I think everybody (basically) keeps their offices unless there is a new superficial topic to distract everybody from important issues.

I don't treat it as a sport because I don't give a shit who wins. You do. It means something to you to have your team win the argument/game/whatever you guys call it. You post as a partisian. The issues don't really matter, I get that.

I didn't say all were great applicants, I said many. That's an advective if you didn't know that refers to "a large number" if it helps you understand it a little better. Many of those applicants were good people, and in fact much more skilled than we normally get for a position like this. Many had 4-year degrees, even good experience.

I've done hiring for years now and this round was much different. People seemed much more desperate than normal. We received many more follow-up calls, many more people who had been out of work for a long time. Perhaps I'm in the minority with this and everyone else is having an easy job finding jobs that pay well for their skills. Maybe all this recession talk and unemployment numbers are just a rouse by the liberal media. I'm just posting my experience and I found it depressing. There were people who had no business applying for a lower paying job like this that were.

And I never said all 800 did things perfectly right. So that isn't overdramatizing anything, just you not having adequate reading comprehension.

What did I say that makes you think that? (Then I'll read whatever else you wrote. :) )

These numbers don't take into account recent college graduates who are having an incredibly difficult time finding jobs (14.5% unemployment rate). It doesn't account for individuals 24 and under. Their unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in 3 decades. The employment to population ratio is the lowest ever recorded for those 24 and under.

That's dangerous territory considering how many of these young adults are coming out with large loans that need to be repaid. You're sending out an entire generation into the world at a huge disadvantage.

Those numbers also don't account for underemployment which takes place during any time where unemployment is high. When there are less jobs available, people have to take ones they are over-qualified for that pay less.

Every political post you make is boilerplate Republican talking points.

To add to the unemployment demographics discussion, I read a report somewhere that whites, asians are below the 9% and african americans, latinos are way above.

The best part is going to be when these "leaders" take their media victory lap after they come up with some half-assed deal to solve a problem that they created over the past 20-years and then perpetuated by waiting until the last minute to "solve it."

Yeah...and it will almost certainly be half-assed.

Well, I do lean to the right, no doubt, but there was no political bent in me questioning a post from the other side of the aisle. It simply didn't make sense. At least it is no more political sport than JPhillips not questioning it (for instance). So yes, I suppose if questioning only one POV and remaining silent when hearing your side is "sport" then I would agree...I think I've clearly pointed out though that it's not something that the right is particularly better (or worse?) at than the left...which was the erroneous point of your post that I had the pleasure to question today.

I'm not on the other side of the aisle. I honestly don't believe that the debt ceiling is an issue that should have sides. We're talking about defaulting on our own debt. It's just insane.

I don't care how the debt problem is solved. Whether it's increased revenue, massive cuts, whatever. Just get it done and don't send us into some tailspin because some people wanted to prove a point.

I'm not hoping for "no debt ceiling increase", but I am very, very afraid of a half-baked compromise that allows for business as usual for another decade or so until we finally HAVE to default because all our money is paying that debt instead of stuff we need, or our credit rating starts the tanking being threatened now and the cost of the debt itself goes up, and we end up with an even WORSE crisis than we get by defaulting now.

So if my choice is between "default now" or "default later", yes I'm all for "default now". And I don't see a sign out of either party that we'll get real reform. Even the JPhillips list of plans above still has no timeframe for the cuts mentioned.

Oh you mean with regard to this particular issue? Well, I am not of a political bent then with the inaccuracies of your post, if that's what you are getting at. I'd like for you to stop talking about political parties then and explain some of your innacuracies. Sorry, I misunderstood.

gstelmack: That's why I'm shocked Obama offered the most cuts.. but since it touches the R's third rail of "No new taxes, EVAH!" it doesn't have a chance. I saw a political cartoon that fits:

Politics, Political News - POLITICO.com

And yes I'm all for the survial of the country too. :)

Good to hear Dutch :)

I think the solution is both sides. Nate Silver had a link to some interesting graphics in this article:

G.O.P.'s No-Tax Stance Is Outside Political Mainstream - NYTimes.com

The gallup poll asked folks what part of fixing the deficit should come from raising revenues (IE, eliminating tax loopholes and letting the Bush-Obama tax cuts on the wealthy (Bush started, Obama continued) expire), and which part should come from cutting spending:

Democrats: 46% revenue raising, 54% spending slashing
Independents: 36% revenue, 64% spending
Republicans: 26% revenue, 74% spending

That's right, even identified as Republicans, they think that at least SOME revenue needs to be raised. But the R in the House are so tied in lockstep with the "teahadists" that they can't or won't countenance anything.

Again, this is why I'm shocked Obama comes out as the most mature in all this. His plan does the most to fix this issue, and he's wiling to take significant political heat from his own base to do so. Why can't the Republicans do the same? That's the question I'm asking.

What innacuracies are you upset about?

And I don't have a side on this issue, nor in general. I have sides on issues, but I don't think I'd fall into the tight box that both sides seem to have which consistently change depending on who is in office.

Because destroying the New Deal and creating a Randian wonderland is more important than deficit reduction.

I think Republicans are under much more pressure from their base now that Obama is in office. Democrats also scare pretty easily when pressure is put on from the other side.

I'm not upset? What makes you say that? (Then I'll read the rest of your post. :) )

Who says they won't, though? I see this as more of a used car negotiation where, you won't find out the lowest price somebody will take until you essentially walk away (or at least have the other side believe you will).

But I don't chalk it up to the Dems not playing poker as well...I see it as they choose to use the negotiation tactics to score points while the Repubs choose to use it to show their base they "aren't like the 2000-2006 R's". In the end...both sides will cave and some compromise will be reached.

Otherwise...I'm not paying my mortgage either. :)

So it's okay to make up an argument or tug at emotions to support that (or not support it?).

All the deficit reduction projections from both sides assume a ten year window. That's a long standing Congressional budgeting rule.

As to your point, I really don't understand why anyone would favor a crisis now when the crisis in the future doesn't have to happen at all.

I don't care if you do. You don't seem to be able to comprehend much as it is.

I'll admit my phrasing is over the top, but the plan to drown the government in debt to force a crisis that severely cripples the role of government has been discussed openly by all sorts of Republicans over the past couple of decades. The Norquist no tax pledge is all about "starving the beast".

I'm not totally evil. :)

As you said though, it's "scoring points" on an issue that is incredibly important. It's not a used car negotiation, it's a game of chicken in two high speed cars by individuals trying to impress the pretty girl watching.

Agreed, that's why I was asking questions. STOP DODGING ME LIKE THIS IS A SPORT!!! :)

I really don't have any problems with you being concerned about any of what you are saying here. We should be questioning the logic of any and all of this, it's a mess.

I hope so. I'm beginning to doubt it though, every move is seemingly designed to worsen the economy while playing the blame game. You even see it in the latest move where they want to abrogate their responsibilities and make it the President's problem because they can't see a deal that passes the House and they don't "want co-ownership of a bad economy"

Too bad boys, you're already there (Personally, I think they are more responsible 55/45 ish, but that just be my independent-to-D leanings)

Not pointing at you specifically, although I admit we're probably on different sides of this.

Pointing more to the fact that whenever the phrase "the American people..." gets uttered in a political context, it almost never is used to mean, literally, the body politic. It refers to "the people with whom I am in ideological agreement."

Or, perhaps, "the people with whom I want to believe are in ideological agreement with me." In Washington, the two are sometimes confused.

I wouldn't disagree at all. And depending on your view of what the Republican party "should" stand for...they might be even more to blame for the mess as they are supposed to be the party of small government that acts as the counterbalance to the Dems and their social engineering (to put it simplistically). Unfortunately (imo) the Repubs decided to reverse engineer the social aspects and not act as a barrier to government intrusion & expansion...so here we are.

I'm less optimistic that the Repubs will solve any real issues related to the economy, however, besides raising the debt limit & hopefully pulling spending inline to a more sustainable level(not to be confused with a good plan, per say).

My optimistic view at this point is to hope the Repubs at least are able to pull in spending, make the business climate less uncertain, and then wait for the Dems to get voted in to (hopefully) be the party to launch an ambitious plan for energy independence. Or at least thats the pipe dream.

I'm not sure how much blame one can lay at the feet of the current crop of Republican Congressmen, unless you want to argue the point that the economy would be improved without the stonewalling of Republican Senators for two years.

On the other hand, the Republican Congress during W's administration drastically increased defense expenditures in the form of two major conflicts at the same time as they voted for sundry tax cuts.

One or the other might have been defensible, but not both.

If you look at the first budget George W. Bush submitted, for FY 2002, included about $2.05 trillion in spending with intake of $1.95 trillion. The Iraq war hadn't yet begun and the Afghanistan war would have been in its infancy. So we're talking about a $100 billion deficit, which is small potatoes, comparatively speaking.

The final budget he submitted, for FY 2009, was around $3.1 trillion. The government took in about $2.1 trillion in revenue - a net increase of about $150 billion over his first budget, while spending increased by 50%. Wikipedia says the final deficit that year was about $1.4 trillion, and I'd guess the $350bn in TARP spending probably accounts for the remainder of the difference between $2.1tn and $3.1tn. But even leaving that out, the size of the federal deficit was 1000% larger in President Bush's final budget than in his first. I mean, that's massive. President Obama would need to submit an FY 2017 budget with deficits of around $15 trillion to accomplish that.

President Obama's budgets for FY 2010 and FY 2011 included greater deficits than that of the FY 2009 budget. That's absolutely true. It's also absolutely true that federal income has been basically flat between FY 2002 and the current situation, and that we're only tentatively emerging from the shadow of a pretty goddamn significant financial crisis.

So lost in all of the tea party outrage over the budget situation right now is just exactly how it GOT to that point. Tax cuts without the wars, we're not looking at $1.5 trillion annual deficits. The wars without tax cuts, and we're still probably not looking at $1.5 trillion annual deficits. Both of them together, plus the question of what the government's proper role is when the country takes an economic shit? Yeah.

And, yeah, that's not sustainable. But to bring it back full circle, I'd say that it's not a two-way split of the blame; it's more like 3-way.

The plurality of it has to go to the Republican Congresses of 2000-2006.

What's left depends on how you want to parse it. Do you want to blame the Democrats for spending money in 2009-10, or do you want to blame Republicans from stonewalling efforts at trying to get the economy running again?

I'm not even gonna blame President Bush on this one. He submitted the budget, but the House still has the power of the purse, and some of the budgets when President Bush was in office wound up being greater than his requests, because Congress was in the throes of patriotic madness where not voting for more funding than requested was the same thing as cutting spending, hating troops, kicking puppies and giving Osama bin Laden sloppy head.

The current crop of Congresspeople certainly have their culpability, but the smoking gun points right at the 107th, 108th and 109th Congress.

I personally don't think its either the Democrat or Republican fault alone - its the fault of the political system (combined with an short-termist entitlement mentality which has been engendered on the population as a whole).

The situation hasn't happened overnight, its been a build up of the country living beyond its means for decades, its only now that its becoming increasingly visible that something has to be done about it really - see my analogy earlier about a family with a credit card, you can only make minimum payments and run it up for so long before you have to start the painful process of paying it down.

To complete the circle and start another circle, because if Washington puts a bandaid on this and doesn't REALLY change their spending habits, it WILL happen. Those threatening a crisis now are trying to ensure the one in the future doesn't have to happen, but if you think we can continue to survive with budgets that commit $3.8 trillion in spending with only $2.2 trillion in revenue pretty much ever, well, you're wrong.

Don't forget it's taken the threat of the crisis to get the Dems to even talk spending reductions that remotely approach what is actually needed. And $400 billion/year in spending cuts (based on your $4 trillion over 10 years) is probably half what's actually needed here. So maybe the Repubs are holding ground because the biggest spending cut option on the table from the Dems still isn't enough?

I will concede that the answer might be defense cuts to take that much closer, so it may be Repubs blocking that from going higher, but regardless none of the 3 options listed goes far enough.

don't forget the peace dividend that will be coming from the US getting out of Iraq/Afghanistan, or at least severley lowering their expenditure there,

Yup. This conversation started in the early 80s, picked up steam in the 90s (see the entire H Ross Perot campaign), got hidden by a sham of prosperity in the 2000s (see all the economic fraud cases ending with the near collapse at the end of Bush II), and is now home to roost. None of these guys have fixed this, including the Dems when they had the Presidency and all of Congress under their control.

I will also agree with this. Very disappointed in how the Repubs handled the purse strings when they had their chance. They could have fixed this back then, but chose not to, just like the Dems a year or two ago.

Which is why I think it's going to take tactics like are currently being undertaken to actually get someone to make the cuts that are so desperately needed.

The GOP doesn't want to go to 4 trillion right now because that would have to include tax increases.

Even with what you have stated, I still don't understand why you'd want a crisis now. Why not give in a little and start to solve the structural deficit? That's the part I don't get. There are options for dealing with the deficit. The Dems are willing to cut what would have been considered a mountain of spending just four years ago, but the GOP won't give an inch on new taxes. That's because they don't really give a damn about the deficit. It's just a tool to use to radically alter the size of government. If the deal is solve the deficit, but increase taxes they almost all prefer to live with a huge deficit.

They didn't have anything to fix. They just had to leave the Clinton tax rates in place and find a way to pay for Medicare D. Even the added defense expenses wouldn't have killed us.

But the debt crisis has been part of the plan for decades. That's why people like Greenspan could say that a balanced budget showed a need for massive tax cuts that would explode the deficit. The deficit is just a tool to use to repeal as much of the New Deal as possible.

So...two years in the mid-90s when the deficit was significantly smaller (granted, an easier job of it then, assuming that none of the later structural implosion happens), or two years in the aftermath of a significant financial crisis when every economist who had the President's ear was telling him that massive spending cuts would exacerbate the problem, and the Republicans in the Senate were forcing cloture votes on every bill to come to the floor.

I'll grant you that they SHOULD have tackled it in the 90s.

I'm not certain they COULD have tackled it in 2009/10, even had they wanted to, though whether they wanted to is another question entirely.

Because that's the last 3 decades or so. No real change at all. I'm all for Congress pulling their heads out of their butts and showing some real fiscal responsibility to avert this crisis, but I'm not very hopeful. The three choices are:

1. Big crisis now, forcing real change to dig us out.
2. Worse crisis later, forcing real change to dig us out.
3. Real change now before the crisis hits.

I'm all for #3, but would rather have #1 than #2. I just don't think our national politicians have what it takes to implement #3. I would love to be surprised.

Debt fallback plan gains momentum as GOP plans symbolic votes - CNN.com

And here comes option 2. Sigh.

Yeah. That's such a sad and cynical end to this. Basically, no one can agree to solve the problem, so the "solution" the two parties devise is a system to spread the political blame.

I am still stupid and naive enough to have really hoped for the grand bargain. $4 trillion in deficit reduction--3/4 of which would be spending cuts, including cuts to entitlements--would have been awesome.

Yup, #2 was their only choice. The greed and backroom deals will never stop, so it will always be #2.
They'll also do this again when we go through the next financial crisis around 2020-2023. Come 2030, or a few years later, there will be no #2 option left and it will be the end of this country as we know it.

And that's why I preferred the crisis now, we could at least survive it, although with the magnitude this may have been iffy. Not sure we'll be able to survive it in a few years...

Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll come to their senses over the next few years and actually fix this mess. I can pray for that at least.

Note to self: Be fluent in Mandarin by 2030.

We need more of these proposals. If you get three or four different proposals of this magnitude, you can take pieces of each one and create a bill that's truly going to do something worthwhile. Kudos to Coburn for pushing this kind of bill.

Coburn Ups Ante in Debt Ceiling Standoff, Pushes Plan to Save $9 Trillion - FoxNews.com

Sounds like that has potential ... as long as those pieces don't include tax increases (or stealth increases like the ones included here) ... and as long as the approx. $1t from defense is itemized, reasonable, and does nothing to inhibit national security.

OMG IT'S A TRILLION DOLLAR TAX HIKE!!!1@1

God forbid you should own seven homes like Frank McCourt and not be able to deduct the interest on six of them.

The story lists 2.5 trillion. Where does the other 6.5 trillion come from?

Assuming that McCourt has paid as much in taxes as I suspect he has, until the day comes when punitive methods such as progressive taxation are eliminated then the more deductions the merrier afaic.

This doesn't itemize but it does seem to give a better idea of where some of the rest is coming from (over a 10 year period)

Coburn Budget Plan Proposes $9 Trillion in Cuts - NYTimes.com

It includes regular increases in Medicare premiums and a 15% reduction in the federal workforce.

Oh, hey, guess what?

The McCourts made $108 million between 2004-09.

How much tax do you think they paid on that?

Hint: I paid more last year than they paid in all five years combined. The wealthy and their advocates on the taxation issue are cordially invited to take their complaints and cram them up their collective assholes, sideways.

Dola,

I really don't care what you think about what the tax rates are or should be.

But when you're calling the elimination of tax deductions a 'stealth tax increase' on people who pulled down 9 figures and paid exactly ZERO taxes in a five year period, your sense of priorities are seriously fucked up. By all means, bitch about taxes, but let's make sure the people you're white-knighting for are actually paying taxes first before you go all Grover Norquist, okay?

McCourt didn't pay payroll taxes on employees?

Or on profits from the Dodg ...oh, wait, maybe that one isn't the best example ;)

Payroll taxes on employees are generally assumed to be taken out of employee wages, not owner profits.

That $108 million wasn't "this is what the Dodgers made."

That's "this is what the McCourts claimed in personal income." As in, income they paid themselves for running the team as President/CEO/etc.

{foghorn leghorn on} It was a joke son, a funny as it were {/foghorn}

This.

It looks good and is one of the few ideas that is addressing all the problems from Senior entitlements to Defense spending to revenue.

It's a good start.

GOP has no backup plan after vote - Jonathan Allen and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

Everyone keeps saying that the R's are just doing the best they can to move the needle on a deal.

This and other such stories shows they don't want a deal. They want a surrender. Remember the Affordable Care Act> They went all or nothing on that one previously, and got nothing.

Of course, in this case nothing means a worldwide recession and the downgrading of US debt that will instantly add 10-15% to the amount that every US Citizen owes.

The problem with the Coburn plan is it's unrealistic to think benefit cuts in Medicare will survive. Old people control elections and will only become a larger voting block. The eligibility increase would be hard to change once enacted, but the added cost sharing is very likely to get watered down over the next decade. Even the GOP 2010 wave was largely about Obama cut your Medicare.

We must be referring to different 2010 elections. The 2010 wave was largely that the economy sucked and the Dems had no real answers in power during the previous two years.