I'll take a Quad-cab v6 pickup that gets 65MPG, hell yeah!

It is kind of sad that my first car was a 1986 model that gets more gas mileage than most "fuel efficient" cars today.

I love how it's "the least competent Republican leader". If this were Star Wars, Tom Delay is "We will then crush the Rebellion with one swift stroke" while Harry Reid is getting strangled for being as clumsy as he is stupid.

SI

Actually, he's pretty quick. Boehner needed multiple days to pass something with no bipartisan support, where Reid had near 60 votes in refusing it in hours.

They are complaining that the dems aren't doing anything, but are going to filibuster anything they try. Awesome!

It's like when you're a kid and grab your brothers hand and start hitting his face with it and yell "Stop hitting yourself!".

Wonder how the Tea Party will come out of this mess. I'm sure their core base will be as strong as ever but wonder if they lose/gain the Reps that were on the fence/sympathetic etc.

I just saw Steve King say he hoped a default would focus people so the balanced budget amendment would pass. As even Charles Krauthammer said, these people are opposed to the basic tenets of the Constitution. They know they can't get an amendment passed through the democratic process, but if they blow up the economy maybe people will give in.

We've been on a "war authorization" footing vs. terrorism since 2001. I don't see that changing soon, if ever.
The BBA includes an exception for "times of war or authorization of military force"
Therefore, even if miraculously passed legally, the BBA could simply be ignored until someone forced a vote that "ends" the war on Terror.

It takes a majority to override with a declaration of war and 60% in both houses to override for other military engagements. In other words, the chances for override in the near term are slim to none.

I don't think the balanced budget amendment is a good idea, but it's how they get there that makes this proposed amendment so odious. It limits spending to 18% of the previous calendar year GDP. It makes any increase in the "aggregate revenue" require a 2/3 majority. It makes any future increases in the debt ceiling require a 60% majority. It's scrapping the budgeting process and enshrining a far right vision in the Constitution. It's like they looked at the disaster in CA and said, "How can we do that here?"

In the BBA, is there some kind of provisions for emergencies? I mean lets say we are attacked or end up going to war. Do we just say "well we can't afford those new fighter jets because we're over budget for the year"?

I'm in Singapore right now, and everyone that I'm talking to can't believe that the US Gov't are still involved in a pissing contest, considering the stakes involved.

The US$ just dropped to its lowest FOREX rate the Philippines in ten years.

Seems like the avalanche has started. I don't know if the US Gov't can do anything at this point that can stop the slide.

News around the office and is that the US Moody rating is going to be downgraded (some say, it already has been unofficially downgraded). If that's true, then America will have to brace for some tough times ahead.

Our Congress and President represent the majority of the citizens in this county. A bunch of clueless, self absorbed, and gutless sack of shits.

I agree with this. Does anyone know what REALLY happens in Aug. 2nd if they don't get this passed and we default. Collapse of stock market? I am amazed by the somewhat lack of urgency on the part of all parties involved in this until the last couple of days.

A couple of things, haven't there been other deadlines in this that have come and gone? Why is this deadline significant?

Second, I understand the thought process here though. Everyone talks about the debt, but no one really wants to do anything. One way to make sure we live within our means is to limit the debt ceiling so something has to give. Whether that means cutting spending or increasing taxes can be determined later. But this is the way to actually do something with the debt.

One, the Aug 2 date is when the Treasury runs out of extraordinary means in dealing with the debt ceiling. From that date (or maybe a few days later due to higher than anticipated tax revenues) there are no more tricks and severe cuts start.

As for this forcing cuts, yes, but in the worst way possible. This isn't about spending going forward. It's simply paying the bills congress has already appropriated. Even shutting down the government due to a failure to pass a budget is far less damaging. The GOP is trying to force spending cuts through holding the economy hostage because they can't or won't do that in the budgeting process.

No. The way to do something about the debt is to authorize higher taxes and to authorize less spending. Not to simply refuse to borrow the money to pay for the low taxes and high spending that have already been signed into law.

The 1908 Ford Model T got 25 MPG. In over 100 years the average car get less then that. Technological advances? Where are they in the combustion engine?

No. The way to do something about the debt, while also cutting spending on existing worthwhile programs where possible, is to eliminate funding for programs that should never have been signed into law in the first place.

Easy comparison, but it paled in comparison to the mpg of horses.

Let's look at the differences between today's SUVs and the Model T of 1908.

To start with, Casey said, Model Ts reached top speeds of only 40 miles an hour. They guzzled motor oil, about a quart a month. The original tops were made of canvas, and they had no heating or cooling systems. They also had none of the safety features of modern cars: no bumpers, no air bags, no seat belts, no antilock breaks.

The cars had large, skinny wheels to more easily clear the obstacles on rocky, rutted roads. Corner them too fast and they could tip over. And if you crashed, the windshield would usually shatter into sharp, jagged pieces that could slice you to ribbons.

"The government would not allow anyone to sell Model Ts today because they're so unsafe," Casey said. "It's a car that no one would use on a regular basis today. It's not a fair comparison."

PolitiFact | Model T got better mileage than SUVs

I guess we'll need to pick and choose where to cut spending from this list?

Again, there's no legal basis for the President making any cuts. He's legally bound to spend all the money appropriated by Congress. If we don't get a deal and the President remains too cowardly to use the 14th amendment, there's going to be a legal crisis over the cuts. The executive doesn't have the legal authority to pick and choose what gets funded.

My point of posting this wasn't to say anything about the President...wouldn't this be a decent list for congress to look at while planning ahead?

The big white elephants in the room are Treasury Dept, Department of Defense and Health and Human Services.

Also, I'm still under the assumption that Social Security is paid for seperately and what you see is how much was given and there's no way to use those funds for anything else.

dola -- For the record, I'm not an expert at federal level taxation and spending...not in the least, nor will I ever pretend to be an expert.

My point is: When dealing with someone who has proven incapable of living within their means, the best way to make them do so, is to keep them from spending more than they take in. The only way we can do this with government is by leaving the debt ceiling where it is.

The government can figure out how they choose to balance their books, but they never will as long as they keep raising the debt ceiling. We need to figure out a way to hold Congress' feet to the fire on this.

I don't really think there's a lot to cut in Treasury. I think most of that is debt interest with a spike for TARP or some other recovery measure.

HHS is Medicare/Medicaid and that's the big problem going forward, but it's really just a symptom of out of control health care spending in both the private and public sectors. Just cutting Medicare probably won't work because seniors vote and they won't, nor should they, accept substandard healthcare. If something like the Ryan plan went through they'd just vote in people that would promise to keep their healthcare at higher levels. At some point providers will have to see the rate of increase for their services drastically decline if we want to significantly reduce healthcare spending. However, there doesn't seem to be anything close to the will to make that happen.

DoD(counting the wars) is where we could pretty easily cut a trillion or two over the next decade and still maintain high readiness. Again, there isn't the will to make that happen currently.

Because there are so many items with tough to budge constituencies we really need a grand bargain type agreement for anything significant to happen. If everybody sticks their necks out some will lose their jobs, but the cuts/tax increases are much more likely to survive long-term. I know I sound like a broken record, but any deficit reduction agreement has to have enough political buy-in to make it last long term.

That's really the point of the Balanced Budget Amendment. The favored path of the GOP is without anywhere close to enough political buy-in to make it sustainable, but if they can blackmail the Dems to go along they can enshrine it in the Constitution where buy-in becomes somewhat irrelevant.

As for SS, it has been running surpluses since the bipartisan "fix" in the eighties, with the extra funds being diverted into the general fund. In essence SS taxes went up and the money was spent rather than saved so both parties could overspend while hiding the degree of deficit. Those surpluses are ending and it's one of the many reasons the deficit has grown so dramatically.

I may be mistaken (or misunderstood when I read it), but isn't a significant portion of our debt actually owed to the Social Security Administration (ie: we borrowed money from them to pay for other things)?

The government has a moral obligation to pay it's bills. This money was appropriated and it isn't right to start stiffing people. The consequences of not paying the bills will be higher interest rates that could eat up any savings remaining in the fiscal year. You don't live within your means by refusing to pay your bills because of the consequences of that decision.

According to the Trustees Report, the trust fund is about 2.6 trillion. And yes, the government took that money and spent it through the general fund largely as a way of hiding the degree of deficit the country ran from the fix until now.

Your analogy would resolve the running deficit, but doesn't do anything to resolve the debt crisis unless your fixes generate enough revenue and/or cut enough spending (without destroying the current level of revenue generation) to pay off enough debt so that you don't exceed the current ceiling.

And, the problem is that the debt money that we owe (and are paying until Aug. 2, presumably) is not entirely owed to nameless companies or China (or insert whatever other country people like to think we owe money to). The lionshare is owed to Americans through things like pensions, VA benefits, monthly social security payments, etc. So, if those payments stop, not only do people suffer, but there is less money available to spend and the economy will stagnate even more.

Heck, my wife is a physician and makes a nice salary, but if medicare/medicaid aren't funded and her office doesn't get paid for several months, what are they supposed to do? Keep seeing patients for free, without paying their support staff, rent, loans on their equipment, etc.? I'm guessing the secretary, social workers, tech workers, etc. aren't going to show up without getting paid. Would you?

Hey JPhillips, I am pretty sure its a game to even your guys. Spin this one on the evil Republicans if you will...

Democrats enforce filibuster against their own debt bill - Washington Times

If someone is seriously overdrawn personally then there are two routes they can take:

* Painful and abrupt; declare yourself bankrupt, write off the debt as much as possible - you fry your finances in the short-term and make it so financial institutions won't trust you particularly for a long time afterwards.
* Long and slow; plan out an approach which slowly reduces the debt over time, it'll take longer and you'll 'hold' more debt in the short-term - but in the long term you're in a better position.

This as far as I can see is an identical situation for America - they can default on their debt and watch the shit hit the fan or they can try and restructure things sensibly in the long run.

(there is actually a third way for America - a large proportion of the debt (approximately 50% I believe) is actually owned by the American government; they could write that off and effectively make more 'room' for expenses for quite a while .... effectively just playing 'crafty accounting' really rather than anything else ..)

Exactly.

We can draw up all the simple analogies that we want, but this isn't like a kid in college maxing out his first credit card, deciding that he just can't pay it off, and bailing out on his bills.

This is telling people that worked for 40 or 50 years, paying ahead for social security and medicare/medicaid for their retirement, that they are SOL starting next week. Or telling our injured soldiers and veterans that we cannot afford to staff their hospitals this month.

Hell, I'm in my mid-30s and pretty much blame the Baby Boomers for the mess we are in, but I still don't think it is right to risk the economy and the standard of living in the United States when there are ways for us to sacrifice over a longer period of time without burning everything to the ground.

I'm just glad we finally got people of all stripes talking about the deficit, national debt and tremendous overgrowth of the federal govt. They had not been paying attention previously.

I'm not sure how that's a game. He's trying to find the sixty votes so we can move towards a solution. He's also spent the day negotiating changes that might pass. What else should he have done?

I am afraid nothing will come of this because our "leader(s)" is a financial moron.

We're still talking about 100 years. Look at the technological advances in everything else and the automobile industry is still beyond pathetic. While it may not be fair to compare those two cars, it is fair to compare that industry to others. It is fair to look at it as a whole and ask if we've seen signifigant advances in 100 years. In a society where we've managed to land on the moon multiple times, put mini computers in our hands powerful enough to call anyone in the world wirelessly, and put live video into our own living rooms, it's sad that cars are where they are.

The automobile industry has seen little advancement over the years and many of those were not even at their doing. Safety was pushed by the government and upgrades to on board systems were thanks to the computer industry.

My Way News - Late stab at debt-limit deal to avert US default

WASHINGTON (AP) - In a last-minute stab at compromise, Republican congressional leaders and the White House made significant progress Saturday toward a deal to avert a government default threatened for early next week, according to officials familiar with the talks.

Under the plan, the nation's debt limit would rise in two steps by about $2.4 trillion and spending would be cut by a slightly larger amount, these officials said. The first stage - about $1 trillion - would take place immediately and the second later in the year.

Congress would be required to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, but none of the debt limit increase would be contingent on its approval. ... Officials familiar with the discussions said that while the first-step increase in borrowing authority and cuts in spending would happen at once, the next step would be somewhat more complicated.

The additional increase in borrowing authority would depend on creation of a special committee of lawmakers charged with recommending spending cuts of a slightly larger size. If the panel failed to act, or its proposals were rejected in Congress, automatic spending cuts would take effect to slice spending by slightly more than the second installment additional borrowing authority.

Make that b.b. amendment vote land early enough in the 2012 election cycle & I'm good with it, so long as there's no tax increases (or "revenue enhancements") hidden in there somewhere.

Pretty much the same plan Obama and Boehner were working out last week. Everyone just needed a week of camera time before they could do it.

Get it done.

Sounds like diesel is going to become much more common in the US, as a range of modern diesel engines will get close to that figure pretty easily (and for smaller cars will easily smash it).

I had a 500 mile journey in my 180bhp BMW (2.0) at high speed (90mph most of the way, two hours in gridlocked traffic at the end of the journey) and averaged just over 45mpg. With no traffic and sitting at the speed limits I easily would have broken 50mpg.

My friend has a 1.6 Audi A3 diesel, and he can get 65mpg on his commute if he drives smoothly.

All figures above are US mpg, not imperial mpg.

What a disaster. The GOP gets a trillion in cuts now and if they don't negotiate later they get more than a trillion including cuts in SS and Medicare. The Dems get... an ass whipping in 2012. All this before President Bachmann takes office.

This deal will make Obama the worst Democratic president of the 20th century. No wonder McConnell wanted to negotiate with him.

The only disaster is that anyone ever thought that a compromise wouldn't get done that would fall well short of real reform.

Why does this whole process feel like buying a Car? Most knew where they would end up settling, or pretty close to it, so was it really necessary to keep doing that "Let me run this by my finance Manager real quick"

Wait

"OK, we can't give this, but here's what we can do"

Me: "No, I want....."

"OK, let me check with my finance Manager real quick...."

And so on, and so on, and hours pass by......

Just get to the deal

Look I totally get what you are saying here, and I agree with the idea of it. When the two sides stare down one another and neither side blinks the larger portion of the fault is going to fall to Obama.

He represents 1/3 of the govt all by himself. There is no individual in the House or Senate, that even comes close. That is the ultimate lose situation. The fallout would not end until the election and McConnell and Boner literally have nothing to fear from this.

Eh, I wouldn't go quite that far, at least not with Bonehead.

He's already lost a significant portion of his legitimacy as a supposed "leader", this is certainly a better deal than the one he was willing to cave in to get. If he's content to be a figurehead for a while longer then I don't think he's going to lose an election over his weakness earlier in the process or anything (ultimately he didn't do too badly I don't think) but his relevance as anything more than one man/one vote has been certainly been tarnished in the past couple of weeks.

I'll be back in a bit, I suddenly feel the need for a cigarette ... and maybe a nap too :D

Yep.


Goes along with my controversal belief that liberalism has no place in leadership (i.e., not a way to run a government or business) BUT instead, we need to increase liberalism among the private citizens in doing more for others. Faith in man's (corrupt) governments and institutions is not a good thing compared to what we can do ourselves. Someday you will understand this cyncism and not to keep hoping for a savior in American politics. See sig...

Bucc, I agree we should do more for others, but simply put that others will not do so unless it is in their best interest, financial or otherwise. You can't just say, "everyone do more for others" and boom it happens. Just like no matter how hard you try. In competitive environment (business/government) the takers continue to take. I didn't hear Steinbrenner stand up and offer to give the Pirates millions of dollars for the betterment of the game. And you could hardly argue that the Yankees franchise has been decimated with all this Socialist sharing that the luxury tax has foisted on them.

That whole ideas is as much of a fantasy as a Socialist Utopia. No, there is a balance here that can be achieved, but it is going to take a different approach to achieve it.

Businesses have been cutting pay and shrinking sizes during the recession, and now they are flush with cash, and ready to rebound. How did they do this? Did they suddenly sell more in a down economy? No! They took if from the people who built it. They essentially raised taxes on employees by cutting salaries and jobs.

This compromise deal is pretty much the Boehner/Obama plan from 2 weeks ago. The big difference is that they moved around about $1T. It used to be $1T in tax hikes and loophole closures but now it's $500B in defense cuts and $500B less in deficit reduction. So, yeah, the GOP traded tax hikes for defense cuts and less fiscal responsibility- the parties of defense and fiscal responsibility indeed. Well played, GOP :rolleyes:

SI