Consider this me trying to parse the difference between "expecting to get" and "being dissatisfied with not getting".

I know 100% success is unlikely (so I don't "expect it") but that doesn't mean it isn't something I desire and/or am content about.

I'm already on blood pressure medication. I can't afford to be pissed off about every little thing the government does that I don't agree with. :)

I think taxation/spending is a big part of it. Again, though, I'm content with my historically low federal tax burden. I don't like a lot of what gets spent(we agree on defense and the War on...) but I don't think I'm overtaxed at the federal level. As my wife and I are looking around at homes in the area I'm much more concerned with the 8k-12k average yearly property taxes. I really don't think I'm getting anywhere near adequate local services for that level of taxation.

Yeah, I can see that (and I recall the same thing when I grew up in NY). Here in Colorado, or in my specific county/city, taxes are very low. I spend twice as much annually on local/state sales tax than I do on property tax (which is under $1k). I send three times those amount combined (I think) to the federal government (non-SS). As I said before, I don't mind giving them what I do, I just want them to be a whole lot smarter before I send them more.

I agree with a lot of what you said. I wasn't arguing that, just when you said we should shift stuff from federal to more local areas. I just don't see a lot of areas where this can be done.

And while it can be better from a decision standpoint, often times it's more affordable to do on a national level. It's much cheaper and efficient to have a CDC on a national level instead of having 50 seperate ones.

Agreed on things like the CDC, the FAA, the FDA, and the like, although aside from the CDC I think many of them need some reform to be actually effective. I would say the Federal government needs to get out of education entirely, given how badly they've botched it.

I agree but with the caveat that the federal government can & should make educational (and many other) guidelines in terms of the minimum content. Putting out additional suggestions as well is fine but in my mind the state and local community needs to be more accountable for these things (and accountability only occurs from the voting base).

Same with social programs. For instance, California is the type of state with a lot of disparity between the top & bottom earners & cost of living(and has more top earners by % then most states). If California has boatloads of millionaires/billionaires and wants to subsidize housing costs, health insurance, social safety nets for retirees, etc. for lower income citizens due to these high income/high cost factors (which also benefit California)...then so be it. They can answer to their own electorate for such ineptitude if they screw it up.

So Social Security and Medicare would be left to individual states?

Public Employees retirement programs and accounts are left to individual states, are they not? (Not saying SS/Medicare should be though.)

Sure, why not?

It is partially why you have such massive subsidization for states like Florida & other sunbelt spots where people retire to, collect their benefits, spend their retirement money there, etc.

All the while, it isn't benefiting the local economy (where they came from) & employers who (presumably) paid their share of the SS & Medicare taxes for all those years.

As an example, if you flipped the switch (I'm not suggesting this to be the best way to do so...just an example) and forced Florida & other states to provide their own social safety net programs and no longer get the benefit of the federal taxes paid in (years ago) and now being spent locally...you'd see a dramatically different local tax structure & system which would necessitate property taxes to be much higher to compensate for the same level of services (among many other things). This would have a very real effect on voters and force them to truly consider the merits of programs on their tax bills rather than some (I know I'm a broken record with this term) obfuscated money sources which come from nowhere (or more precisely...the debt).

Again, my view is to make everybody more accountable for their decisions & societal desires, and part of that is to stop all of the back & forth of money between government organizations that we have little control of.

Dola,

Look at this way as well. When people say we are financing both sides of the same war...we aren't purposely intending to do that...we just are.

So, the same can be said for financing both sides of debt & inequality. We finance both sides of it because giving money to a federal government is not a transparent process. So, my view is let's cut back on the unecessary (by my definition) programs for a federal government to fund since the federal government cannot demonstrate any ability to manage it.

Of course the federal side doesn't look too bad...that's because they aren't collecting enough to cover all of the things they've spent your (future) money on. :)

You'd end up with a lot more elderly people living in poverty. Poor states just couldn't fund SS and Medicare at anywhere close to current levels and in recessions the benefits would have to be cut to balance state budgets. I'm not sure it would make anyone more accountable, but it would certainly set back the gains in quality of life for the elderly that have been made since the New Deal.

Poor states would have problems with the current landscape & concentrations of the elderly that exist today. But I would submit that most retirees don't move to the south only because of the warm weather. Many retire there because of the lower tax liabilities & how far their dollar carries them. If SS & Medicare weren't nationalized programs, they wouldn't have that luxury unless the state was trying to cater to them.

Either way, I don't think you can say with any level of certainty that states would cut elderly benefits first in a different SS/MediCare structure. Not to mention, in states like Florida you aren't getting re-elected if you think cutting benefits to the elderly is a good thing. They WILL turn out and vote you out.

A lot of poorer states aren't getting major influxes of retirees, they're homegrown. MS, AL and a lot of western states just couldn't afford to pay the same benefits as retirees currently receive.

I don't think they'd cut SS/Medicare first, but with deficits in the billions they'd eventually get to those programs. You can argue that on balance this would be a better approach, but you can't say with a straight face that this plan wouldn't lead to benefit reductions in poorer states.

And if it wasn't benefit reductions it'd be reduction in spending on education, public safety, etc.

I think you are both hitting on the fundamental problem (and missing the solution) though. We are already spending more than we take in from tax revenues. This does have to stop.

And the problem I presume that the progressive standpoint sees is that conservatives do not want to raise taxes to pay for these programs. But the beauty of such state-accountable programs is that you can have a more progressive state, with more progressive taxes, which funds such programs adequately. While the more conservative states which may not fund these programs adequately, would need to answer to its electorate (which one might believe would lead to the same rate of taxation...or at least an ousting of elected leaders who can't balance the dynamic).

I would think such a level of accountability would make a progressive happy as the conservative elected leaders would then need to be upfront about the taxes needed to support the services (or the cuts to them).

Naturally, the more conservative states could also have a policy that they don't support such programs. But again, you'll find that they are simply doing what their voting base accepts & allows them to do (over time).

Win/Win in my book. :)

But I think there are some things a society should do even if 51% are against it. A decent quality of life for our elderly is a moral imperative AFAIC. Again, you can argue otherwise, but there is no way a state like MS can support the retiree population at the same level. Pension and healthcare will be largely dependent on where you live and I don't think that's beneficial for our society.

My contention is that the states that you think would leave old people dying in the street would not. They would not because that is somebody's grandmother, uncle, etc. so they would generate enough tax revenue directly (via property, state income, & sales tax) to account for it.

What about if they can't raise the revenue except through ridiculously high levels of taxation though? Either because of a low # of citizens or because of a poor corporate tax base? Then you would just say "well jack the rates up on those people" which would just exacerbate the flight of jobs/people out of those states.

Who is going to live/do business in a Mississippi with a tax rate X% higher because they have to pay for their seniors/people on medicare & medicaid/etc. themselves (not to pick on Mississippi - just tried to pick a state that I imagined would fit the bill)? And because all their money is going to that they're going to have shitty schools that are going to churn out stupid people who won't be able to innovate and create jobs. So more people & businesses will flee from them, only accelerating the problem.

You're basically talking about creating a permanant underclass of states that can't compete with the states that have thriving business communities and big tax bases.

I'm not sure how that would be possible though under a republican controlled state. Republicans have defined the line quite clearly that taxes are evil and I don't see how they would raise taxes, even for a state's aging citizens. Unless there is some kind of fundamental change within that party...those old folk are going to be dying in that scenario.

Here is the problem. Our definitions of underclass, and the need to compete, are not altruistic concepts that require intervention.

First, you'd have to operate on the premise that the masses in MS are ignorant and need to have people 1000 miles away determine their life pursuits because they aren't mentally competent enough to make such decisions for themselves. While we joke about such things...I don't seriously think the state of MS is incapable of advancing itself...albeit at a pace I may or may not like. Hence why I have a choice to live there or not.

And why would you want to determine a mass amount of peoples' lives (sounds like Iraq)? All in the hopes that some day the light will go on and they will all of a sudden thank all of us really smart outsiders & validate our sense of purpose or self? Or are we just trying to send them more jobs because we have too many already? Is it because we secretly want to live there but can't stand living amongst the ignorant?

Also, perhaps some states aren't really trying to "compete" with NY, CA, CT, or MA for high tech jobs...so what is the reason for forcing different philosophy & values on people? Are people not allowed to be less techie, less materialistic, and lead a more basic lifestyle? Or if they aren't actively trying to be the next Silicon Valley then they must be ignorant crazies? What if we applied the same logic to the Amish?

We all know politicians are liars...yet we continue to take them at face value? :banghead:

Don't let the talking points used by Repubs in any way confuse you with their desire to be (re)elected. They will turn on a dime & raise taxes. Also...don't forget, state senates (made up of plenty of R's & D's alike) aren't nearly as bashful at raising your property taxes, income taxes, and sales taxes. Why? Because they can't just spout talking points....they have to actually balance a budget.

Aww yay. I knew someone would take my argument the wrong way and try to make it like that.

We want people all over the country to innovate and succeed (in whatever their business is) because it fuels economic growth as a whole. That doesn't mean that EVERYBODY has to succeed and innovate, because lord knows there's room for all different types of people in society, but it does mean that you should create an environment/society where people are afforded every opportunity to innovate/succeed. That's how we end up with some of the amazing technological breakthroughs that create whole new industries and drive big engines of economic growth for regions/sectors of the economy.

I don't want to "determine the life goals" of people in MS. I just want to ensure that they're afforded every opportunity to succeed and to bring whatever unique talents they may have to both their benefit, as well as everybody else's benefit (whether that's in flipping burgers, or creating toys, or solving world hunger by creating a new strain of rice). Underfunded schools severely reduce the likelehood of that happening. As do communities where other basic services are curtailed.

If you're poor or retired, or bound to the state by something other than your job (say sick family or a highly specific job location) why should you suffer, as well as your children suffer just because of that. Or why should you be forced to make the decision to abandon that so that you/your kids don't have to suffer in that environment. That's not right.

Your last paragraph is pure BS, and frankly I'm not even going to respond to it, because my responses to the first two already indicate that that wasn't what I was trying to say, and you're just going off on a tangent accusing me of thinking everyone else is an ignorant crazy. I wasn't aware that "access to decent public education and a basic standard of living (say ensuring environmental safety, law&order) was "imposing values and a philosophy on people." That's just being silly on your part.

Actually, I'm a firm believer in that, a politicians first and second responsibilities are to get re-elected. Everything else is a distant 5th at best.

The corner that that republicans have painted themselves into by cow towing to the tea party, is; "No taxes" or they won't get re-elected. Now that may change, but, as it stands right now, pretty much any incumbent republican politician will not get that re-election or support if they vote for any tax increases. Yes, at the state and local level, they are more apt to not follow what's happening at the national level, but, the tea party influence is being felt at those levels too. So, they are carefully walking on egg shells. I think Minnesota is a good example of that.

In this discussion I'm primarily concerned about people that can't take care of themselves. If you're right, decades from now MS will be closer to average economically, but in the meantime thousands of elderly have been denied the same healthcare and pension that people in other states would receive.

Right. You want them to have the same opportunity that you are willing to fore go their own right to choose the opportunity in the first place. This is what is meant by that. I'm just challenging the concept, not the intention.

I'm not saying you are consciously stating that they are ignorant, but when you say that an entire state cannot be trusted because they will underfund themselves and undereducate themselves...that's really not much different, in my view. You are saying "we have to save them from themselves". And that, IMO, is only necessary for the mentally incompetent of society.

Why would somebody necessarily suffer because they are poor in MS? Again...you are saying that an entire state cannot be trusted to provide for their elderly, sick, and incapable.

Take it however you choose to take it. I was only extrapolating on the concept that a federal government is needed to tell MS not to leave their elderly homeless in a hypothetical scenario with hypothetical questions related to how far you take those concepts.

No different than asking how my HOA would finance its own police force.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying they are being denied healthcare & pensions right now which apply in other states strictly due to MS leadership?

Or are you saying an initiative to move towards state-based SS/MC would be disastrous right now?

I'd agree with the latter. I don't think I know the details behind the former.

The Tea Party influence is certainly there...but in my view it only exists & continues to feed because of the influence & power of the federal government. With no more federal government trying to institute "socialism" any more(in my hypothetical scenario of pushing more social safety nets to the states)...the tea party would fizzle out. It wouldn't be interesting to hear "no more building socialized hospitals on 4th st near our kids!!!" any more. :)

This.

But the Norquist tax pledge exists in most state houses. There's also a very organized effort to push identical corporate written legislation through GOP controlled statehouses.

Well if it exists, they must not be following it very well because my taxes have not failed to go upwards every year, save for maybe 2009 (and that's only because my property value went down so far that it couldn't be helped.).

Now that begs a question, is it because it's the federal government in general or is it the inefficiency of the federal government that is the problem? It would be nice in a non hypothetical situation if the tea party did fizzle out. Unfortunately, their stand on issues is too absolute. One size doesn't always fit all and they don't seem to comprehend that or be willing to compromise, which I think is what will be part of what brings them to an end.

Haha! Those damn socialized hospitals! I'm not sure I'd want to be admitted to the Stalin Memorial Hospital, not sure if I'd ever be seen again. :)

I think its blamed on the inefficiency (or wastefulness) coupled with the debt level being run up but imo its really because of the amount of money in play at the federal level. SS & Medicare have astronomically huge numbers associated to them so you will get a lot of backing & funding to protest whatever it is you want to protest that can benefit people/corporations with lots of money & a lot to gain or lose.

But that's why I don't like these things at the federal level. Not only does it dilute the average voters' authority on the issue...but it also lends itself to being the type of thing where it takes big bucks to actually protest (for any prolonged period anyway). And that's not to even mention the very real fact that the fed level has pretty much proven they are unwilling & incapable of truly keeping our debt under control. Hence my desire to truly hold elected leaders accountable by having them be directly responsible at the state level.

Any system is imperfect and has flaws. But at least I'd like to be able to see the flaws, year to year, and vote accordingly with some worth to that vote.

The Federal Government clearly has a role, as defined in the Constitution. But they have abused their power and have made it very difficult to affect change, compared to smaller governments and consumer-centric corporations.

Chalk up this one as yet another Federal Law of Good Intentions. Basically, instead of just offering the choice of equal opportunity, the federal one-size-fits-all approach turned it into forcing equality by denying opportunity to others.

What is your solution to the Civil Rights Act then? Just let each town vote on whether black people can attend school?

*shudders at the thought*

I certainly hope not. Because that would be reeeeeally ugly on all sides.... :(

Poor word choice here. These may be their PRIORITIES, but in no way shape or form are they RESPONSIBILITIES. And a key problem is that their PRIORITIES don't match those RESPONSIBILITIES.

Interesting end game coming up. Wonder how much the stock market will fall next week.

Boehner pulls out of White House debt talks - politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com

I knew I should have pulled the trigger on selling off some investments yesterday. If the market isn't in the shitter Monday I'll probably do it.

I wish Obama had the balls to say the deal is there for the taking, but if the GOP refuses he'll use the Constitutional option and dare the Supreme Court to stop him. It will mean a Constitutional crisis of some degree, but at least the global economy wouldn't be shit on.

I don't want to come across as saying balanced national budgets are in any way practical in the real world... the phenonmenon of what happens in a downturn is quite real and I'm sure you can find some countries with less friendly economies than the U.S. to serve as case studies.

However, the notion of a nation having positive surplus 'rainy day funds' does have its merits if you can pull it off. A government does not need to be in debt (there is some interesting capital creation economics involved that some economists might mention but I think they overstate things a bit too much and too naively). If the U.S. was capable of running a surplus it can almost be thought of as a really large corporation, they can return the money to 'shareholders' (dividends in the form of tax cuts) or they retain the earnings to get a bigger long-term ROI (spending on infrastructure to keep TECHNOLOGY growing which is necessary in the long term for economic growth in the private sector if you break the debt bandwagon line of thinking).

All budgets balance in the long term, either through decreased services to my generation (as for any kids I might have I might as well strangle them in their sleep, it may be a gentler fate) or through a hidden tax of inflation which is nice for maybe 1-5% of Americans but will make the rest of us into a third world country. Luckilly I have my ticket to the 1-5% so ya'll can enjoy stagflation, I am mostly immune.

Balanced budgets have existed since ancient times, all debt provides is another tool for liquidity like currency.

I love whenever inflation is about to happen they decide it is time to change the consumer price index. It is wonderful to have a completely made up statistic at your whim.

I also love how they manage to put in yet another tax cut for the rich, who already are floating in cash but still haven't had the balls to invest it. Tax cuts only effect capital... we gots plenty, more capital doesn't stimulate shit if you do not spend the capital you got. Arguments about people accounting for getting a bigger return due to perceived lower future tax cuts are bullshit... no investor worth his ass stops to think about whether he is going to pay 34% or 29% on his profit, he needs to profit either way to make a living.

Economic studies show consumer spending is tied to lower tax brackets when it comes to taxes... that is why they are so eager to give those dinky refunds to everyone, because it almost immediately gets turned into spending. I also love the reduced corporate tax rate, again corporations are floating in capital and lower tax rates doesn't impact the parts of the balance sheet that need to get moving for an economic rebound to occur (the country should want increased expenses at businesses which are 100% tax deductible and create jobs and future wealth at the expense of the ability to distribute out wealth today to the equity holders, tax cuts actually are a mal-incentive in many ways for economic growth).

The Gang of Six are scum.

Part of me wonders if House leadership wouldn't love for him to do exactly that. If SCOTUS rules against POTUS on something like that, you know the next step for the House would be introduction of impeachment charges.

Remember, the goal for the Republicans isn't anything so noble as "Country First."

It's "Obama's Waterloo." Other consequences are secondary as long as they can "destroy" President Obama.

Dola,

Think about it - what's the downside, from that perspective? The adults in the party, for whatever definition of "adults" you care to use, know that the debt ceiling has to go up. I have family who are as hardcore tea party on the spending issue as you'd care to name, and even they're adamant that "default is not an option."

So that part of it is going to happen anyway.

But realistically, the genie isn't going back in the bottle on spending cuts, no matter how the ceiling gets raised and default gets averted. And the President has been on the record in recent days talking about how "tough choices have to be made" etc with respect to entitlement reform and so forth, so no matter how the ceiling gets raised, the House can hold his feet to the fire on spending cuts in those areas in future budgets. This isn't a case of "If we don't get $3 trillion in cuts right now we never will."

So you know the ceiling is going to get increased, and the only question is whether Congress will take the responsibility and do it, potentially inviting blowback from their own base, or whether they'll force Obama's hand somehow.

If President Obama directs DoTreasury to ignore the ceiling on Constitutional grounds and he ultimately wins, again - the genie isn't going back in the bottle on addressing the deficit. If anything, that's a scarecrow campaign issue for the Republicans moving forward - "vote for us because if you give the Democrats control there's nothing to stop their tax-and-spend ways!"

If he loses, then he's done something that SCOTUS has decided is in contravention to the Constitution, and now the House has the ability to pursue impeachment charges that might actually carry some weight with the public, and to do so before the re-election campaign. Even if they can't impeach him, they can hang that albatross around his neck and try to make it an issue.

If you accept that the ceiling is going to increase any which way, it's really a no-lose proposition, at least for GOP House members.

Even if someone is adamant about cutting spending and getting out of debt, isn't there some honor in paying back your debt? We borrowed it and should pay it back.

That's an interesting read on it SA. While I suspect they would be happy to see Obama try that route, I don't know if its something they planned that way.

I think they are just backed into a corner to do precisely what they have been campaigning against. And since raising the debt ceiling & continuing the massive deficit are things that most assume they will do ultimately...I just think they are trying their best to put a scare into Obama & Dems in the hopes that they can get some concessions & at least go back to their base with "something".

I don't think it is working though. It is scaring a lot of people, but I don't think Obama is one of them. And as a consequence...he's pretty much hanging them out to dry on it.

They can get a three trillion deficit reduction package at 4 to 1 cuts/tax increases. That's an historic victory for the GOP if they would only say yes.

What "something," though? What concessions beyond the existing $3-4 trillion in cuts on the table can they honestly expect to get? The President isn't going to say "Okay, let's defund the health care law," neither he nor the Senate Democrats are going to agree to a cuts-only bill, so what does that leave? Planned Parenthood and NPR? Are they really willing to have the financial equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis over those two issues?

This is what I don't get. They can do this and use this as a platform for 2012. "We are the party cutting spending and closing the deficit". "We are the ones that got things done". "Let us finish it off in 2012". You're getting a ton of concessions all the while the Democrats hold the Senate and Presidency. That's a remarkable accomplishment on its own.

Not sure why they'd destroy all that momentum over some stupid pact they made. I'd be using this as my campaign pitch for 2012. We are on track toward fixing the deficit problems but need more power in Congress and the Presidency to make it happen. Seems better than sending us into a recession and pointing a figure the other way and saying "He did it!".

The GOP House is full of radicals intent on destroying as much of the current government as possible. If that means destroying lives in the process, so be it. They have more in common with Leninists than Jefforsonians. It's time more people realize that.

Yeah, that's a valid point. I'm not really sure I have a grasp of it myself.

Maybe they actually are trying to blow up the economy.

Someone as smart as yourself usually doesn't wallow in the pits of hyperbole. But whatever works for you sitting in the safe haven of elite academia, I guess it's par for the course compared to everyone else, including me.

What do you call a group that will put the world's economy on the brink of disaster all because they can't get 100% of what they want? The Senate seems to have plenty of reasonable Republicans, but nobody in the House is willing to give a single inch.

Ooooooh....he dropped the "elite academia" on you. That's my fave.

lol

From Andrew Sullivan:

Only in America is telling someone they have a good education somehow an insult.

Seriously. What a :banghead: moment.

How else do you go from the lone behemoth bestriding the globe to teetering on the edge of Romanesque collapse in two decades?

I generally think Buc's a good guy, but for some reason he's gotten a bug up his ass regarding me. I figure every time he yells at me I'm at least saving a young child the ignominy of him hollering, "Get off my damn lawn!"

You mean "have too much sense than to throw it down the abundance of dry holes that are available". Good opportunities can find investments (as can plenty of bad ones for that matter), it's a shortage of good opportunities that keeps money in pockets.


On that we agree, the worthless bastards are willing to increase revenue when what the only justifiable move is to reduce spending.

That's capitulation to the enemy. Not one more f'n dime, not under any tax system that punishes success & rewards failure.

That leaves no increase in the debt ceiling.

On a side note though, isn't Obama being unwilling to agree to cuts-only irrelevant, as a willing Senate could override the veto. Right? (yes, I'm genuinely asking, is there something that mandates his cooperation that I'm overlooking?)

Without Obama on board it's inconceivable that both the House and Senate could get 2/3 to override a veto.

Clarifying: I wasn't talking about likelihood, I was simply inquiring about the procedural possibility (it's late, I'm feeling old & tired, wondered if maybe I was coming up brain blank on something that made this different procedurally than a regular old bill)

Except when it comes to banks, contractors, or any other large business that makes its money by lobbying for advantageous laws and contracts outside the scope of a capitalist system. Raising taxes on the rich is bad, but if their business fails, we all need to pitch it and help them out.

:lol: At least I pay attention to you, unlike DT. :)

Whatever.
:p

Neither you nor Jon are worth trying to have actual factual, policy-discussions with anyways.

Then by all means, don't try.

Count the number of posts where I mention your name vs the number where you mention mine. I'm not the one with the apparent compulsion, wtf did I have to do with your little feud with Bucc? In the last page I've engaged SA, jphillips, and sportsdino ... I've looked three pages back & don't see where I've even addressed any of the horseshit you post lately, most of it I haven't even bothered to bypass the ignore on (which I will do with anybody at times if the breaks are disrupting the flow of the thread too much or there's an incomplete quote in another post or whatever). So if you aren't interested in any discussions with me, wth even bring me up?

At this point in your Chavo,Jr FOFC career, you really aren't going to get much rub from trying to work an angle with a main eventer, just be happy that your limited talents have gotten you into the midcard & roll with it for crying out loud.

Bringing you up because I lump you into the same category as Bucc, that's all. Just didn't want him to feel singled out. I have no "feud" with him, nor do I have a compulsion with you. Notice how I've been letting all your BS go lately? Because I don't deign it worthy of responding for the most part, unless it's particularly egregious/bigoted/disgusting.

And at ~400 posts behind you in effectively 4 years less (I registered in 2002 but lurked until 2004) I'd hardly call my "FOFC career" a "Chavo Jr." career, so bite me. Wherever you are I'm right there in the same position on the card. Not that I think that's particularly relevant or anything.

Neither side is doing this imho - this is 'shock/scare' politics, its being played for big stakes in front of a very public stage.

Both sides ultimately know that the debt ceiling has to be raised - but both are also trying to ensure that the deal decided makes them look good ... simple as that.

They don't ultimately care particularly if the stock exchange plummets on monday, they know that so long as a deal is signed off before the sh*t hits the fan it'll recover quickly enough afterwards ....

This. You have learned the ways of American politics rather quickly, Marc.

One can always count on Jon to be deliberately ignorant of the question being asked if the answer he gives lets him masturbate politically.

Amazing how you just skipped completely past all that "wtf could they be holding out for, given these other realities?" because the idea of default made you splooge.


In a political vacuum, where you evidently live, yes, his willingness is irrelevant. In the real world, given that I already said that both Obama *and* Senate Democrats are not going to give in to your fairy-tale world of "cut $3 trillion in spending AND cut taxes", what it means is that if the President doesn't say "aw, fuck it, cuts-only," the Senate isn't going to follow his lead.

Do you remember what happened with the extension of the Bush tax cuts? Same principle - the Senate Democrats were not on board with extending the cuts for people making over $250k, and the President went to them and said "Look, this is the best deal I was able to negotiate."

So what happened? Said cuts were extended through 2012. Without the President's assent on the issue, there's no way the Senate falls in line. He's their political cover if people get pissed off, because one face will draw more ire than 50+.

A willing Senate could override him. Sure. So could a willing House. A willing Jennifer Love Hewitt could come play mattress for me. Why are we discussing any of that? It's about equally unlikely.

Oh please. It was a direct answer to what seemed like a pretty obvious question.


How about you, I dunno, read what I've said consistently throughout the thread instead of shooting from the lip & looking like a damned idiot? For what seems like weeks I've said I've got no problem with the debt ceiling being raised so long as there were no additional taxes in the process.
I've got no desire for a default, have never once said I was looking/hoping/wishing for one ... I simply prefer that option over a solution that includes new/higher/additional taxes and/or de facto versions of the same. You may not agree with that position, you certainly don't have to like it, but it certainly seems to be in line with a significant portion of the people who will actually be voting on it.


Again, how about either reading what I said or, failing that, just don't waste your time or mine by responding with your trademark pompous bullshit? I tried, twice in fact, to make it clear that I was asking about procedural stuff, NOT anything remotely to do with how likely it was. For crying out loud, I even left the door open for an easy joke about me having a brain blank on it. How the hell much clearer could I make it? Would pictograms help next time?

Reading is fundamental, you really ought to try it sometime.

I hope you're right, but there is a sizable group in the House that thinks default is a good option. Apparently close to 100 GOP House members have signed a letter that basically says Cut, Cap, Balance or default.

Which is sheer idiocy, given that they attached a constitutional amendment to it, and failed to even get 2/3 of the House to vote for it, making it a dead bill before it even left for the Senate.

With all these proposals being bandied around combining spending cuts and revenue increases, I kind of wish they would give an example of what the effective tax increases (including loophole closing and whatever else gets tossed into that category) would look like for say a small business pulling in 600k / year. Saying how much total revenue a deal would generate over ten years doesn't give me any feel for that. If I know it's an increase of say $800 / year, I can rightfully question someone calling this a job-killing bill. If it's $80,000 / year, I might not feel that way.

Either way, it seems like it would be to one side or the other's favor to do this, as well as people like me who just want a better idea of what we're talking about. Then again, I guess it's just as likely that no one really knows because there isn't time to crunch the numbers or study the details or they aren't well spelled out.

Yep...that's part of the problem I have as well JAG is that there really isn't enough transparency with these proposals & not enough time to digest such massive sums of money being discussed. I suspect the same would be true for a lot of the Senate & House who would be voting on this as well.

That's why I think we really need to move as much as practical to the state levels as they can be considered year to year and with greater transparency. Not perfect...but at least you'd know where you stand and could also consider what other states do (both well & not so well) as a comparison in the decision making process.

simple, cut spending, raise revenue, raise debt ceiling.

Right, if major tax hikes start closing up small businesses or seriously damaging their ability to hire employees, we're screwed. Somewhere, the Wal-mart corporation is smiling over all this.

Flasch...I'd be curious what you think of cutting the mortgage interest deduction since it would have bearing on your industry?

Personally, I think it probably should never have been there in the first place but with the housing market struggling to get its' footing, I don't know that it is the best time to do such a thing. Or maybe it doesn't matter at the end of the day since most people have likely refinanced at such low rates that the MI deduction may not be as big as it used to be?

I think there are plenty of opportunities to get things on the cheap and grab markets. The best timing would have been a year or two ago if you wanted to raid talent from companies forcing pay cuts on nearly everyone. The people who looked ahead and bought stocks or commodities when they were depressed by the mass hysteria are now looking at 100-200% returns within two years. The people who look ahead and invest in their business could be the ones leading the boom time and cashing out when it is high, instead of pouring money in when it is about to turn back towards bust.

For all the stupid people out there maybe there is a lack of good opportunities, but for anyone who knows 'buy low sell high' the logical leaps are not too hard to make.

Im fine with it. I think that they could cut it on homes assessed over a certain value at a certain rate and then stagger it downwards. Meaning a larger writeoff for someone who owns a home assessed at say, $100K while someone who has a mortgage on a $500K home gets less of a write off.

The no new taxes angle is irresponsible... unless you want to couple it with an across the board spending cut. That means cutting corporate welfare, cutting contracts to corporations, cutting military spending. Basically some of the things where you say "Hell no you can't cut that"... well they need to be cut.

That is how taxation works. You can try and claim your categories are special, but if the budget is 10 trillion, military spending is 6 trillion, and you are trying to cut 5 trillion from the budget... then military spending has to decrease by 1 trillion (or proportionately 3 trillion). That is how NUMBERS work, not just fancy pants politico budgeteering.

I don't agree that taxes need to be maintained at this level, the pain is clearly not distributed fairly (rich pay LESS as a percentage as the middle class) and there is a whole lot of economics out there showing that growth doesn't come from massive stationary piles of wealth horded in the top few percent of the population.

My position has always been to tax more and use that to push through cuts. Couple a high corporate tax and link it to corporate welfare, and successful firms will lobby and demand a massive reduction in useless corporate pork. Simplify the tax code down to a simple progressive bracket again and cut the invisible spending which is government subsidy through tax cuts.

If you want to take the efficient markets approach you need to get the government out of propping up so much of business and personal finances.

A tax hike is more than fair when you are adding 3 trillion dollars worth of pain that is going to hit a hell of a lot of people. Rich asses who got us into this mess need to shoulder a portion of the work as well.

I say this as a rich ass who did not cause the financial meltdown or massive malinvestment of the past few decades, because that tax hike isn't going to break me. I pay a little more on my winnings on the stock market casino, oh well, if I have losses they are deductible, and I am not going to stop playing the game just because I have another percentage point shaved off my spending money.

I think they should get rid of it altogether and give a tax cut on the lower brackets. Net effect is the same, but you stop encouraging mortgage debt. You have a mortgage why are you any better than a person who is taking their income and investing it, or paying down credit card debt?

Overall tax cuts with fewer loopholes is much better for everyone, and in the longrun reduces the number of idiotic bubbles the economy has to pop.

Same for college, I used to think it was something magical that had to be done, but really all it means is we have massive amounts of education debt and rapidly rising college prices all to put together a workforce that can't find a job even with a degree.

This has been my contention as well regarding education, housing, and many other things that are financed (or encouraged to be financed). It really just adds to the wealth disparity that exists & creates new debt-slaves. Many certainly benefit from higher education, and we should strive to have some percentage of the brightest continue with it, but I don't think everybody needs to pay $20-100k to do half of the jobs that need to be done in this country.

There's also this dynamic at play I think as well...instead of companies having a vested interest in training, educating, and cultivating talent...over time they have just deferred that to the employees. I'm not really saying these should be linked heavily, per say...but I do wonder what ever happened to OJT? And I mean...real OJT.

The trend that I have seen in my company and in the industry as a whole (IT) is far less emphasis on college coursework and degrees and more on training and targeted skills. I remember 10 years ago our annual budget would include enough for every staff (in my section) to take 3-4 college courses each year (we paid for tuition). Now such budget item is almost zero but our training/seminar/conference budgets have remained high. HR is slowly coming around, we are getting them not automatically reject those without much college coursework. It's more cost effective for young people not to ring up so much debt (from college or otherwise) and for companies to invest more into on-the-job training. It's a win/win, we wouldn't have to pay as much such a candidate and the candidate wouldn't have to play catch up so much.

There is one specific example I can give that happened earlier this year. There was a person in another department hired solely to run my mapping application for customers. He was not very bright but did his job effectively, albeit in somewhat of a disconnect kind of way. I asked about this relatively low-level position and he said he just needed something to help pay off $50,000 in student loans. I didn't push further but two thoughts ran through my head: 1) what on earth did that $50k accomplish?? and 2) why would you even consider taking on that much debt in the first place??. Due to an increasing level of incompetence and an indescretion (I don't know what), he was fired a couple of months ago. He was replaced with a bright, young lady with exceptional customer service skills (and was able to pick up my complicated application rather quickly). She has no student loan debts and we are allocating training funds for her to move up to the next levels.

Moral of story: If you feel the need to take on massive student loan debts, make sure you have clear plan on having the resources to pay them off as soon as possible. Same goes for public and private entities, and governments.

Good post, Buc.

I agree 100%. The emphasis on targeted skills is really the key for me.

Just want to point out that tax increases don't necessarily kill jobs like many pundits think. Taxes can close businesses down which can cause a loss of jobs, but a lot of people seem to think that raising taxes on a company will cause them to fire a person of that amount tomorrow.

I personally hate the interest deduction on mortgages. It artificially inflates an industry and gives an unfair advantage. I'd go farther and say the same for the automobile industry and the credits that are given. It's sort of underreported because people do benefit from them, but the biggest beneficiaries are the actual businesses involved.

There are times when credits/deductions make sense when it benefits the country as a whole.

I'd also throw in that while I don't like credits/deductions, I think it's counterproductive when they cap them. If the goal is to increase ownership in new homes because it may help other businesses, why would you not want rich people going out and buying big homes? Aren't those the people we should want spending their money?

Caps are merely to make it look like it is not a handout to people who don't need it. The point is that no one should need it. The tax rate should not be high to begin with and then through the magic of buying what other assholes tell you to buy you end up with a livable tax rate. Instead the tax rate should be low, people should buy reasonably sized homes, and others who want to put the money elsewhere can do so.

And I think Buccaneer's scenario should be encouraged, most skills are not taught in the schools anyway and you need to learn as you go. If you are going to be an engineer, fine go to school I don't want my bridge to collapse, but if you are going to be a damn flower shop clerk, coffee shop coffe-maker guy, or a secretary don't put yourself thousands of dollars in debt.

Besides you are slowly pulling down the statistics of college degrees earning more and I don't want to be associated with peasants. Shove off you scurvy dogs, no one is going to pay you more than 20K a year to mix expressos.

Economically, I blame the internet. It has really allowed globalization and we were not able to keep up, prevent the offshoring of jobs nor the growth of the other countries. I'm not saying the internet is bad, just stating the internet was the vehicle for the US not keeping its stranglehold.

Unlike the 80's, 90's when we offshored manufacturing and said that we have IT to fallback on, we have offshored IT and I don't see the next big thing ...

Societal, I blame ourselves. I've been to Asia and Europe the past 4 years. The difference in "sloth" is striking. Prior to reading your message, I've thought myself of the analogy of US=Roman Empire collapsing from within.

Obama is such a failure. Politics as usual in Washington.

There's also some measure of luck there. At the end of WW2, the US was the only functioning 1st world economy. That can't keep up forever but it does lead to a generation of tremendous prosperity. There was only one way to go: down. Combine that with the idea of American exceptionalism and the complete disregard of the previous first couple of sentences here ("Yeah, we're better not at all because of chance but because we're super awesome!") and it's any wonder why the fall is here.

So, on one hand- due to gravity, the fall was bound to happen. But, on the other hand, we aren't at all trying to prolong our own success, instead squabbling amongst ourselves and making it that much shorter.

SI

I'm not exactly going to debate the first sentence. But, as for the first, how is Obama responsible for all of the politics in Washington? What could he have done differently with regards to that aspect of politics?

SI

To me this all boils down to the 2012 election. McConnell stated that his sole purpose after 2008 was making sure Obama wasn't reelected. The Republicans have stood on this issue and made it the battle ground.

The way they see it, they can all point at Obama and yell that he didn't give them what they wanted and they did all that they could. If they force a last ditch deal, they win because they live to fight their battle another day. And if Obama still get's his deal they can say that they won, because they were solely responsible for the safe passage of the bill.

The whole thing is a spin war, where the best sound-byte wins and most ignorant voter loses.

Seems like community colleges would help fit the bill here.

It really says something about the sad state this country is in when those we entrust with keeping the nation strong have sold themselves to the highest bidders and only use their positions as footholds in a struggle for more power.

It says even more that people continue to elect these liars and thieves into office.

IMO: It doesn't matter if those elected are Republican, Democrat or any other party. Anyone who is given the power to make laws is damn near impossible to trust anymore, because corporations have the real power and manipulate them like puppets. We're a country of millions where only a few thousand really have the ability to influence anything. Its going to take something drastic to change that.