Front Office Football Central - The Obama Presidency

With 10 days left until an automatic trigger for debt reduction, the Super Committee tasked with finding a plan to get rid of $1.2 trillion in impending debt over the next 10 years may have to punt.

Six Democrats and six Republicans appointed to the panel -- itself a source of contention among colleagues and transparency advocates -- have until Nov. 23 to find the balance that will get past Congress by Dec. 23 and onto President Obama's desk. Without a deal by Thanksgiving, automatic across-the-board cuts divided between defense and domestic programs, also known as "sequestration," kick in.

"I am not giving up on getting something done. I think we still can and I am going to do everything to achieve that," said Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., one of the Super Committee members.

"In the very unfortunate event that we don't, I think it is very likely Congress will reconsider configuration of that sequestration and consider if this is the best way to do it. I think it will be a lively debate that will occur and the nature of those cuts. If the cuts have to occur they might occur in a different fashion."

Toomey, a tax hawk who formerly ran the fiscally conservative Club for Growth, acknowledged that "the clock is running out."

"But it hasn't run out yet. We still have time, but we have no time to waste," Toomey told "Fox News Sunday."

Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., also a member of the panel, said while he was hopeful for a deal, "I am not as certain as I was 10 days ago, but I think that we can."

panerd

11-14-2011 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2566196)

T-10.

No one is sounding confident. I can hear the tea party saying I told you so.

As Deadline Nears, Debt Reduction Panel Weighs Undoing Its Own Rules | Fox News

Of course not in 9 days they will claim its impossible and that if we don't reach some sort of "debt extension" and cancel the automatic across the board cuts then the world economy will collapse.

miked

11-14-2011 07:22 AM

I thought Obama was on record as saying he'll veto any attempted extension.

panerd

11-14-2011 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMax58 (Post 2565736)

I think the Repubs are making a gigantic mistake by attacking Obama's foreign policy. 2 reasons for that really...

1) There is no practical improvement with regards to Iran that isn't already being done or tried. ..whether that be covertly (i.e. virus in the nuclear labs cooperating with Israel) or in the public (i.e. economic sanctions & isolation). Perhaps some small technocratic improvements in existing sanctions but certainly none of the Repubs can possibly sell us on uniting a coalition better than Obama to do that...can they?

You can ratchet up the rhetoric if that makes you feel better about the situation but that will only serve to fuel escalation to a point where neither side can back down gracefully when it comes to actual combat.

2) Following on (1)...the American public (imho) is not even remotely interested in combat with Iran. They are much more interested in hearing about how they (and their neighbors) will get back to work. So do what you must as President...but don't try to sell the public on a new war, or the same old rhetoric. It's just not that critical to most people. And of course, how do you answer the question of "funding a new liberation war" without raising taxes on the wealthy. No good can come of this political strategy at all, imo.

Not to mention...I think you can make a much better argument that Iran will eventually succumb to the same Arab spring movements we've seen elsewhere. Certainly there was an initial wave crushed already, but that doesn't mean we won't see people rise up again. It will need a stable & democratic Iraq, same in Libya, same in Egypt...but there is at least a chance it can happen gracefully with influence rather than force. You couldn't say the same thing 10+ years ago with any sort of confidence, but I think you can now.

They did give Ron Paul a whole 90 seconds during the first hour of the debate to present an alternate viewpoint. At least Obama can now be the hero and oppose these crazy republicans and their war mongering!

Obama criticizes GOP over Iran, torture

If only a Republican candidate had these viewpoints!

panerd

11-14-2011 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 2566276)

I thought Obama was on record as saying he'll veto any attempted extension.

Obama is on the record saying a lot of things but what if the world economy is on the brink of collapse!!! (Sarcasm intended)

Edward64

11-14-2011 09:15 AM

Woo hoo. Lets get this thing out of the way or tossed once and for all (I hope).

Supreme Court will hear health care case this term - Yahoo!

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says it will hear arguments over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, setting up an election-year showdown over the White House's main domestic policy achievement.

The justices on Monday revealed they would take the case. That means arguments could come in March, allowing plenty of time for a decision in late June, just over four months before Election Day.

The health care case could be the high court's most significant and political undertaking since the 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore nearly 11 years ago. That ruling effectively sealed George W. Bush's 2000 presidential election victory.

Republicans have called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional since before Obama signed it into law in March 2010. But federal appeals courts have been split on their assessment.

PurdueBrad

11-14-2011 10:21 AM

From a PR standpoint, I think the Supreme Court decision could be a nightmare either way for Obama.

Assuming they follow tradition, the decision would be announced a couple months prior to the election.

IF health care is upheld then I think Republicans flock to the polls trying to get someone in there to change/undo things.

IF health care is found unConstitutional then I think Republicans are buoyed by this and Obama ends up undermined.

The timing of this, at least in my opinion, couldn't be worse for Obama.

larrymcg421

11-14-2011 10:32 AM

I disagree. If the law is upheld by the majority conservative Supreme Court, that'll be a great talking point for him. The conservatives that are motivated by that would mostly be motivated anyways.

lcjjdnh

11-14-2011 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad (Post 2566385)

I really doubt the Obama administration is worried about that. The Justice Department pushed for SCOTUS to hear the case before the election.

Edward64

11-14-2011 04:25 PM

Interesting polls if valid.

Obama Administration Eager for Supreme Court to Weigh in on Health Care Law - Fox News

Quote:

The Obama White House is confident its sweeping, controversial health care law will pass the highest legal test in the United States, officials said Monday.

"We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement after the Supreme Court announced it would consider challenges to President Obama's ‘Affordable Care Act.'

The White House, Congressional leaders and the ACA's opponents have engaged in political and legal battles over the law from the outset of its passage.

One of the main sticking points has been the individual coverage mandate, which states that every American must have health insurance. Ohio voters recently rejected the idea, passing a ballot measure by a vote of 66% to 34%, which amends the state's Constitution to bar laws requiring a person to purchase health insurance.

Monday, administration officials cited a CNN poll showing Americans are coming around on the idea of a mandate.

"According to the poll, 52% of Americans favor mandatory health insurance, up from 44% in June," White House Spokesman Nick Papas, said. "The survey indicates that 47% oppose the health insurance mandate, down from 54%in early summer."

The president and his staff have repeatedly expressed confidence that the law will pass the necessary legal tests, allowing it to be fully implemented. There have been many challenges, with mixed results.

The administration is now looking to the Supreme Court for the final word.

"Earlier this year, the Obama Administration asked the Supreme Court to consider legal challenges to the health reform law and we are pleased the Court has agreed to hear this case," Pfeiffer said. "Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, one million more young Americans have health insurance, women are getting mammograms and preventive services without paying an extra penny out of their own pocket and insurance companies have to spend more of your premiums on health care instead of advertising and bonuses."

sterlingice

11-14-2011 04:39 PM

I can't see where those poll numbers come from. Sounds more like statistical noise

SI

flounder

11-15-2011 04:13 PM

Senator Coburn's report on federal subsidies given to millionaires just came out. I haven't read it all the way through, but here's the key paragraph from the summary.

Quote:

These billions of dollars for millionaires include $74 million of unemployment checks, $316 million in farm subsidies, $89 million for preservation of ranches and estates, $9 billion of retirement checks, $75.6 million in residential energy tax credits, and $7.5 million to compensate for damages caused by emergencies to property that should have been insured. All and all, over $9.5 billion in government benefits have been paid to millionaires since 2003. Millionaires also borrowed $16 million in government backed education loans to attend college.

On average, each year, this report found that millionaires enjoy benefits from tax giveaways and federal grant programs totaling $30 billion. As a result, almost 1,500 millionaires paid no federal income tax in 2009

panerd

11-15-2011 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flounder (Post 2567405)

Senator Coburn's report on federal subsidies given to millionaires just came out. I haven't read it all the way through, but here's the key paragraph from the summary.

I read that as a reason for less big government bureaucracy but I am sure somehow Sen Coburn sees it as a reason for more.

sterlingice

11-15-2011 07:13 PM

Of course you do, panerd

Wait? Is that crazy Tom Coburn? Not the first Senator I had pictured making something like this. That's interesting

SI

DaddyTorgo

11-15-2011 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2567423)

I read that as a reason for less big government bureaucracy but I am sure somehow Sen Coburn sees it as a reason for more.

So because a small number of people who don't need to benefit from a program (note I'm not judging whether or not they should be able to benefit from it, just saying that they don't NEED to) do benefit, we should abolish the programs that benefit millions who actually need them instead of addressing the problems?

That's just lazy panerd.

lcjjdnh

11-15-2011 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2567423)

I read that as a reason for less big government bureaucracy but I am sure somehow Sen Coburn sees it as a reason for more.

Given it's Tom Coburn, I'm guessing he doesn't.

Also, that's an awesome photoshop on the first page. And who are the 18 people that made $10M+ in 2009 yet still decided to collect unemployment benefits?

lungs

11-15-2011 07:21 PM

What is considered a millionaire.... net worth? income? or something else?

sterlingice

11-15-2011 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh (Post 2567495)

And who are the 18 people that made $10M+ in 2009 yet still decided to collect unemployment benefits?

I guess it's possible we have some sort of "I was unemployed to start the year and then created a $10M company overnight" story but I'm a bit skeptical. If not, can we just improve society by shooting them into the sun?

SI

lcjjdnh

11-15-2011 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lungs (Post 2567496)

What is considered a millionaire.... net worth? income? or something else?

In this particular report it it looks as though it's defined as income throughout. In some cases it says that explicitly, in others it doesn't, but because they got the data from the IRS, it's safe to assume that's the case.

panerd

11-15-2011 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2567494)

More oversight and more government regulators will solve this problem!

Lazy is not realizing these monsterous programs lead to widespread fraud.

lcjjdnh

11-15-2011 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2567538)

More oversight and more government regulators will solve this problem!

Lazy is not realizing these monsterous programs lead to widespread fraud.

Should the government not build roads because people might drink and drive?

panerd

11-15-2011 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh (Post 2567548)

Should the government not build roads because people might drink and drive?

Not the roads thing... how about a comparison to the Nazi's also?

lcjjdnh

11-15-2011 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2567553)

Not the roads thing... how about a comparison to the Nazi's also?

If you had a more nuanced argument, perhaps I could engage in a more substantive debate. But since your argument against government programs seems to lack any real analysis aside from the fact that if you increase government welfare programs fraud will go up, I'm not sure what other arguments to present beyond the most basic ones. Is your argument that fraud exponentially once the size of government programs increase? Is your argument merely that you accept only a certain absolute level of fraud regardless of what additional benefit it might add?

I'm also curious why government "fraud" is so offensive to you. Sure, some of your tax dollars might be wasted. But additional roads also encourage more driving--imposing the costs of accidents and pollution. Are those not equally offensive? Or are you willing to admit we need to consider the cost and benefits of any government action. And if that's the case, what's the cost-benefit analysis you're proposing for limiting government benefits programs?

Edward64

11-15-2011 09:26 PM

Somemore interesting polls. The race angle shouldn't be a surprise I guess.

CNN Poll: Obama ranks low among recent incumbents – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Quote:

President Barack Obama's overall approval rating remains in the mid-40s, where it has been since July, and he continues to receive much higher marks for foreign policy than for domestic issues, according to a new national survey out one year before he is up for re-election.

A CNN/ORC International Poll released Tuesday indicates that 52% of all Americans approve of how the president is handling the situation in Iraq, an indication that Americans tend to favor Obama's decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from that country by year's end. Forty-eight percent of those questioned approve of how he is handling the war in Afghanistan. By contrast, only 35% have a positive view of his economic track record, and just 38% approve of how he is handling health care policy.

It all adds up to an overall 46% approval rating for the president, with 52% saying they disapprove of how Obama is handling his job in the White House.
:
:
The poll indicates that the standard partisan divide over the president remains, with three-quarters of Democrats giving Obama a thumbs up but only 15% of Republicans approving of the job he's doing in office. By a 54%-42% margin, independent voters disapprove of how the president's handling his duties.

Women are divided on how Obama's performing, but men disapprove by a 55%-43% margin. White Americans give Obama a thumbs down by a 61%-36% margin, with non-white Americans give the president a thumbs up by a more than 2-1 margin

molson

11-15-2011 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh (Post 2567559)

If you had a more nuanced argument, perhaps I could engage in a more substantive debate.

Your argument is that if you're in favor of roads, it's inconsistent to be against anything else government does. You can't get any less nuanced than that.

Edit: I'm going to go out there and proclaim that I am PRO-road. In fact, in some states especially, government needs to be way, way, more involved in infrastructure maintenance and improvements.

lcjjdnh

11-15-2011 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2567565)

Your argument is that if you're in favor of roads, it's inconsistent to be against anything else government does. You can't get any less nuanced than that.

Did you read the rest of my post? That's clearly not my position. My point was merely that an argument that states only the most obvious point--if you increase a government program, you will increase some other bad thing--tells us absolutely nothing about why that's unacceptable.

molson

11-15-2011 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh (Post 2567566)

Can't one believe that some government actions have a greater risk of harm than others?

lcjjdnh

11-15-2011 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2567568)

Can't one believe that some government actions have a greater risk of harm than others?

Sure, you can--that's exactly what I said my post. If that's his point, he can can explain why he believes that's the case in this particular instance and perhaps lead to a discussion about whether that's true.

You're a lawyer, so presumably, drawing analogies and making distinctions is basic piece of your analytical toolkit. I'm not demanding he can't hold these two positions, I'm just asking him to articulate why he distinguishes some government programs from others. And to the extent he believes any government benefits programs are OK, what principles should we use in deciding which ones to allow. Logically, the more government benefits are going to create more fraud, but I don't know if his problem if the absolute level of fraud (which seems sort of silly if it's providing a requisite benefit) or an increase in rate of fraud per dollar spent or something else.

RainMaker

11-15-2011 11:44 PM

I think this was a great piece by Mark Cuban. Also thought he was fantastic on CNBC the other day shredding the "tax us more and we won't hire" crowd and how stupid that argument is.

My Views on Corporations & Taxes « blog maverick

Edward64

11-18-2011 03:43 PM

T-5

Debt committee: 11th-hour cheat sheet - Nov. 18, 2011

Quote:

At T-minus five days to Wednesday's deadline, the chance that the committee will reach a "grand bargain" appears to be on life support, and the priest is on his way to deliver last rites.

Instead, the parties, if they can strike a deal at all, are more likely to produce a plan that cuts deficits by $1.2 trillion or less. The plan would likely include a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases.

If they manage to seal a deal on $1.2 trillion, that would stave off what some call "devastating" automatic spending cuts to defense and nondefense spending in 2013.

But if all they do is $1.2 trillion, that means U.S. debt would continue to grow faster than the economy. And lawmakers will get to have this painful debate over and over until they get it right.

JPhillips

11-18-2011 06:27 PM

What's the best budegt plan? Do nothing.

Edward64

11-20-2011 02:56 PM

T-3.

I wonder if its too harsh to say these folks did not have the courage to come to a compromise. What a waste of an opportunity.
Aides: 'Super Committee' likely to announce failure to reach debt deal - CNN.com

Quote:

Members of the "super committee" charged with coming up with $1.2 trillion in budget cuts are focused on how to announce failure to reach a deal, Democratic and Republican aides confirmed to CNN Sunday.

While aides said no final decision had been made, they acknowledged that -- barring an unforeseen development -- an announcement of an end to negotiations is the most likely scenario.

Talks on trying to reach a deficit reduction agreement are essentially over and discussions are focused on a Monday announcement, a senior Democratic aide said.

Mizzou B-ball fan

11-20-2011 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2570167)

It's more of the same. Most would have been surprised if a deal was actually reached. That's why the cuts were put in there if they didn't do anything.

JPhillips

11-20-2011 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2570167)

Doing anything the super committee could complete is a waste. Just let the spending cuts trigger and allow the Bush tax cuts to expire and we'll be in far better shape than any compromise.

miked

11-20-2011 08:29 PM

I don't understand...the dems still control the senate, so what's preventing them from just letting the Bush tax cuts expire. You would think they would have some leverage as the tax cuts can't increase without their votes...

panerd

11-21-2011 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2570167)

Why come to a compromise though when you can do nothing? I am sure this will end up being a D vs R reason or because they want to avoid "economic collapse". At least more people seem to see through this bullshit this time around. (I also credit Obama if he follows through and doesn't allow them to play this game)

Congress may try blocking cuts if debt panel fails - Yahoo! News

flounder

11-21-2011 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2569231)

What's the best budegt plan? Do nothing.

It looks like those projections are based on the CBO's extended baseline scenario where revenues increase to 23% of GDP. Since revenues have ranged from 15% to 20% over the last 40 years (with an average of 18%), I think that scenario is unrealistic. Letting the tax cuts expire will certainly help, but it's unlikely that we will be able to balance the budget without further cuts in spending.

I think it's also unreasonable to believe that Congress will get rid of the AMT relief and the Medicare Doc fix. That's $1 trillion of revenue gone from the $7 trillion.

JPhillips

11-21-2011 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flounder (Post 2570742)

Sure, but it's all the things they'll do that will increase the deficit. There's no reason to panic if they do nothing.

gstelmack

11-21-2011 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flounder (Post 2570742)

Are there spending measures that would expire as well? If the answer is "do nothing", then wouldn't the extra war spending go away, the extensions to unemployment, and the like? No COLA increases for federal wages or social security? No pay raises for Congress? Etc?

flounder

11-21-2011 01:28 PM

I'm pretty sure all of that is included in the CBO numbers that graph is based on. Note that even with the sequestration cuts, total federal spending will still increase, just not by as large an amount. I assume that "doing nothing" means leaving already budgeted increases in place.

ISiddiqui

11-21-2011 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2570203)

That's why the cuts were put in there if they didn't do anything.

One of the smart things in the previous deal - if we can't decide on anything, we'll just have an automatic trigger.

DaddyTorgo

11-21-2011 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 2570802)

One of the smart things in the previous deal - if we can't decide on anything, we'll just have an automatic trigger.

The triggers will get rolled back though. They're toothless.

JPhillips

11-21-2011 04:02 PM

Because lowering the defense budget by less than 10% will mean the end of America!

panerd

11-21-2011 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2570855)

Because lowering the defense budget by less than 10% will mean the end of America!

I'm with you on even bigger defense budget cuts but couldn't your above statement be said about any federal program? Private, municipal, and state employees are all suffering cutbacks here in Missouri what makes working for the federal government immune from salary freeze or god forbid a 10% salary reduction? (Besides spineless politicians that are worried about re-election I should add)

EDIT: I'm not going to say it's as easy as the movie "Dave" but something tells me they could cut 10% of pork and bureaucracy from any program and still not affect its recipients.

Edward64

11-21-2011 04:53 PM

T-2 ... it's official now. The post mortem analysis should be fun.

'Super committee' fails to reach agreement - CNN.com

Quote:

Facing harsh reaction from financial markets and a frustrated public, the congressional "super committee" negotiating a possible deficit reduction agreement announced Monday it has failed to reach a deal.

A statement from the panel's co-chairs said that "after months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee's deadline."

Despite their failure, the committee's co-chairs said "we remain hopeful that Congress can build on this committee's work and can find a way to tackle this issue in a way that works for the American people and our economy."

President Barack Obama scheduled a 5:45 p.m. statement. Other reaction arrived swiftly.

Markets dropped as news spread of the panel's expected failure. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 248 points Monday, with a minor recovery after being down more than 300 points earlier in the afternoon.

Initial reaction had Democrats and Republicans blaming each other for the inability of the bipartisan committee to negotiate at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction measures.

JediKooter

11-21-2011 05:16 PM

Screw it. Lock them all in a room and slug it out with their fists. Last one standing, gets their budget agreement plan approved.

Dutch

11-21-2011 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2570868)

I'm with you on even bigger defense budget cuts but couldn't your above statement be said about any federal program?

What a great question, actually.

sterlingice

11-21-2011 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediKooter (Post 2570890)

Screw it. Lock them all in a room and slug it out with their fists. Last one standing, gets their budget agreement plan approved.

"Wait? Higher taxes on everyone but professional wrestlers? Who let Ric Flair in the room?"

SI

JPhillips

11-21-2011 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2570868)

I don't like a flat 10% cut. There are areas, say food inspectors for one, that are already severely understaffed.

Of course a 10% cut to discretionary spending won't do much anyway. Defense and healthcare are the problems going forward. Without plans to deal with those anything else is purely window dressing.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:08 AM.

Page 325 of 527