Obama got Pwned. Again.

[mhaze]

The idea that spending is not the problem, when spending is 1.5T per year and we only get 60% of what we spend, is delusionals.

 

[RandFan]

The idea that spending is not the problem, when spending is 1.5T per year and we only get 60% of what we spend, is delusionals.

Taxes are at, or near, historic lows. Perhaps we should raise taxes. So maybe spending is part of the problem. We did so much better under Reagan and he raised taxes. We did so much better under Clinton and he raised taxes. Maybe there is a pattern there.

David Stockman, Reagan's budget director, no liberal, a guy who hates all the spending readily admits that a big part of the problem is taxes.

David Stockman: We Need To Raise Taxes. Like Reagan Did.


FREELAND: You worked for Ronald Reagan. Do you think the American economy — so you’re, like, a red-blooded capitalist — could it sustain higher taxes than it has now?

STOCKMAN: Absolutely. In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s. We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much. We came back with a big deficit reduction plan in 1982. Unemployment’s at 10 percent, the economy is in dire shape, and we raise taxes by 1.2 percent of GDP, which would be $150 billion a year right now — not 10 years down the road — but right now

 

[RandFan]

But I would love to go back to Clinton's spending. Do you disagree? Would you like to have Clinton's tax rates but Bush's spending? Would you like to have Clinton's tax rate and Obama's spending?

Never said otherwise.

But he increased spending. And like I said before, the spending is ultimately the problem, because we pay for that one way or another. I'm not fixated on specific tax rates, because if spending isn't controlled, it won't matter what the tax rate is.

I'm angry at the Republicans because they took taxes off the table and refused to compromise. A move David Stockman, Regan's budget director has called ludicrous.

Um... have you looked around lately? Two and a half years into Obama's presidency, and how are we doing? A year after the Summer of Recovery, and how's that recovery coming along?

Ummmmm.....

Did you bother to read my post? Look, this isn't going to work if you just ignore me. How were we doing when Obama took office? How much financial commitment did we rack up for the wars? How much did deregulating the banks **** us beyond all recognition.

I'm happy to give Obama a good deal of responsibility but then don't turn around and tell me that I can't declare that lowering taxes didn't work. Look around, how is THAT working out?

That doesn't mean increasing spending will succeed.

This was all about my anger with the Republicans to refuse to compromise on taxes.

If Bush's massive spending increases have devastated the economy, then isn't it rather normal to conclude that further, more massive increases will do even more damage? You're not really making a case for Obama at all. All you're doing is blaming Bush. Which, if it makes you feel better, go ahead. I'm not trying to defend Bush. I already said I didn't think he did a good job, so I don't know why you continue to argue as if I was defending him. But you are trying to defend Obama, but without defending what he's actually done. Which, BTW, doesn't include raising taxes. So even from the liberal perspective that Bush's tax cuts were the problem, Obama is still a failure. What's the metric by which he isn't?

It could be. It's hard to separate the massive problems Bush left. I've never said I give Obama a pass. This was all about my anger with the Republicans. And the OP, Obama got Pawned. The Republicans took him to the woodshed good but he wasn't the only one that got spanked.

And the money is due whether it was justified or not. So your attempts to focus on an old fight about its justifications is irrelevant to the economic questions we now face. It's off topic.

NO. The Republicans don't want to take responsibility. You can't simply lay this #@$% storm at Obama's feet. Hell, blame him for his mistakes but change of president doesn't get the Republicans off the hook. They ********** our country. They ********** it real good. I'm not about to forget that and give the republicans a pass just because Obama is in charge now. Besides, it was those a-hole Republicans, my party, that refused to raise taxes for the debt ceiling deal.

Sorry, but that ain't about to fly. NO way no how.

You want to bitch at Obama. Hell I'll join you. Will have a party. Just don't think for one moment I'm going to shake my head and say, too bad we got bent over the couch by the republicans but Obama is in charge so I have to forget their malfeasance.

No. Not going to happen. Got it?

 

[Upchurch]

The idea that spending is not the problem, when spending is 1.5T per year and we only get 60% of what we spend, is delusionals.

The idea that spending and low taxes are not the problem, for the exact same reason, is delusional.

 

[Ziggurat]

But I would love to go back to Clinton's spending. Do you disagree? Would you like to have Clinton's tax rates but Bush's spending? Would you like to have Clinton's tax rate and Obama's spending?

Never said otherwise.

Never said otherwise to which option? If you mean the first option, well, when I previously mentioned doing exactly that, this was your response:

Tell you what: we'll go back to Clinton's tax rates if we can also go back to Clinton's spending.

Clinton: Dramatically lower spending.
Bush: Dramatically higher spending.
Solution: Hold the economy hostage as soon as a Democrat takes office. Nice.

Govt: Spend more money.
Solution: Reduce taxes because it's responsible to not pay for what you spend. Nice.

What am I to make of this? Is this an agreement with my proposal? I can't even tell. The only thing that really comes through is your anger.

Did you bother to read my post? Look, this isn't going to work if you just ignore me.

Yes, I did. I think I remember your posts better than you did.

How were we doing when Obama took office? How much financial commitment did we rack up for the wars?

Do you actually want to know? Or is this just a rhetorical question?

How much did deregulating the banks **** us beyond all recognition.

Thank you, Barney Frank.

I'm happy to give Obama a good deal of responsibility

Really? Then why did you challenge me when I said that Obama was doing terribly?

but then don't turn around and tell me that I can't declare that lowering taxes didn't work.

I never did.

This was all about my anger with the Republicans to refuse to compromise on taxes.

And the democrat's refusal to compromise on spending? What are we to make of that? In fact, given how opaque the whole process was, and the fact that the president never even put his own plan on the table, I'm not sure why you even trust anyone's characterization of how negotiations proceeded. Were they really unwilling to compromise on taxes? Was that primarily just an accusation leveled against them by their opponents? Was it just a negotiating gambit, a bluff to try and get deeper spending cuts? Who the hell even knows? There are no reliable sources on this.

All we know for sure is that the final deal doesn't have tax increases OR significant cuts. And if you want to blame Republicans for the first half, I don't see how you can avoid blaming democrats for the second half. And the fact of the matter is that spending is a bigger problem than taxes right now. Our spending has not only exploded, but it's going to get WORSE over time because of looming entitlement liabilities. In contrast, I believe our revenues (which matter far more than marginal tax rates) are still near historic averages.

You can blame Republicans all you want to, but that attitude isn't logical. It is, however, quite human: your anger (and that's what this is, by your own admission: an emotional response) is directed at at Republicans not because they actually acted worse, but because you feel personally betrayed by them.

Obama got Pawned.

<pedantic>
pwned, not pawned.
</pedantic>

You want to bitch at Obama. Hell I'll join you. Will have a party.

Really? Because previously, you seeded rather... reluctant.

 

[H'ethetheth]

The idea that spending is not the problem, when spending is 1.5T per year and we only get 60% of what we spend, is delusionals.

Actually, I think it's the implied 40% that are the problem. Spending is just one of the levers you can pull to solve the problem; the one that makes government redistribute less of your money. If that's your thing, that's fine, but that's the only reason to prefer it over raising taxes.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And spending was dramatically lower.

Tell you what: we'll go back to Clinton's tax rates if we can also go back to Clinton's spending.

Sure! Let's stop Medicare Part D, and the wars started by Bush. That'll do it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sure! Let's stop Medicare Part D, and the wars started by Bush. That'll do it.

No, actually, it won't do it. We would need to cut a lot more than that.

Including Obamacare.

 

[thaiboxerken]

No, actually, it won't do it. We would need to cut a lot more than that.

Including Obamacare.

Obamacare, which actually will help to lower the deficit?! How's that work?

 

[thaiboxerken]

This "deal" is going to trigger another recession.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Obamacare, which actually will help to lower the deficit?! How's that work?

You do realize it cuts the deficit by adding spending and then adding slightly more fake cuts that aren't even real anymore, right?

 

[Ziggurat]

Obamacare, which actually will help to lower the deficit?!

1) It's not going to lower the deficit, if you believe those projections then I've got a bridge to sell you.
2) We were just talking about what would be required to reduce spending to Clinton's level. Spending and the deficit aren't the same thing, though there's certainly a relationship.

 

[Ziggurat]

This "deal" is going to trigger another recession.

Quite possibly: it makes no serious progress in reigning in our out-of-control spending, and thus signals to the market that we still don't have our act together.

 

[RandFan]

What am I to make of this? Is this an agreement with my proposal? I can't even tell. The only thing that really comes through is your anger.

Because that is all you want to hear. I've been quite clear. I am angry. This partisanship on behalf of the Republicans is unproductive (I don't claim the Dems are innocent). I don't care about your silly "options". I really don't. I would be happy to have back whatever Clinton did (assuming he had anything to do with anything.

Yes, I did. I think I remember your posts better than you did.

Uh NO!

Do you actually want to know? Or is this just a rhetorical question?

I want you to step up to the plate and be honest. The spending under Bush was an unmitigated disaster. What made it MUCH WORSE was the low taxes. You DON'T fight a war if you don't have the revenue to pay for it.

And the democrat's refusal to compromise on spending?

Are you SERIOUS? No, I take that back. Are you being honest?

From day one the Dems conceded to reduce spending.

1. How much did the Republicans agree to compromise and raising taxes.
2. How much were taxes raised.

What are we to make of that?

That the Republicans REFUSED to raise taxes by even 1% and the Dems gave Bohner, by his own admission, 98% of what he wanted. Is THAT what you call compromise?

All we know for sure is that the final deal doesn't have tax increases

THANK YOU!

OR significant cuts. And if you want to blame Republicans for the first half, I don't see how you can avoid blaming democrats for the second half.

IT HAD SPENDING CUTS!

What is it like to live in a world where side A gives nothing and brags about getting 98% and the other side gives something and you claim it's equal? Honestly. If you can't be honest with me then I've no desire to continue this. You don't have to agree with me but at least be honest.

I'll take you back to Bohener's admission, he got 98% of what he wanted.

And the fact of the matter is that spending is a bigger problem than taxes right now.

No. Not even close. Spending moves money through the economy. Money in the hands of the rich just sits there doing nothing. Right now the wealth at the top 1% is higher than any other time in history. There is plenty of money it's just not doing anything at the moment (per David Stockman).

You can blame Republicans all you want to, but that attitude isn't logical.

David Stockman says that not only is it logical it's the only attitude to have. We really got to knock this crap off. Stop the partisan BS (dems and Repubs) and admit that we have to raise taxes. I'm find with cutting spending but the poor you want to take money from didn't wage wars that but us into so much red ink. They didn't give money away to banks who didn't help people save their homes but instead kept the money and took the homes.They didn't give money away to insurance companies who paid money to attys and accts to figure out how to keep the money. Thanks Mr. Bush. Oh I forgot, he's not president. Blame Obama for that too. The wars, the long term commitment to feed the military industrial complex and the only thing on your mind is entitlements to people out of work or who have paid into an insurance policy that Bush raided for his spending.

Thanks Mr. Obama for the mess.

 

[BenBurch]

This "deal" is going to trigger another recession.

Looks that way from here.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because that is all you want to hear. I've been quite clear. I am angry.

That's the only thing you've been clear on from the start. You have since clarified aspects of your anger, but you didn't start that way.

From day one the Dems conceded to reduce spending.

How much?

Small cuts will not suffice. We need huge cuts. And the democrats still haven't accepted this. They continue to fight it tooth and nail.

IT HAD SPENDING CUTS!

No, it doesn't. It's got growth which is less than the CBO "baseline". That isn't a cut.

What is it like to live in a world where side A gives nothing and brags about getting 98%

The fact that he says he got 98% of what he wanted doesn't mean it's true. And if it IS true, then that's even worse: it means that he was never serious about cutting spending, which is what the so-called obstructionists wanted first and foremost.

No. Not even close. Spending moves money through the economy. Money in the hands of the rich just sits there doing nothing.

Why would rich people sit on their money instead of investing it? There's a reason, but it isn't because they're the villains here. And it isn't the normal state of affairs either. Interested in just how abnormal it is? This abnormal.

Right now the wealth at the top 1% is higher than any other time in history.

And that concentration of capital, in addition to a stagnating economy, is not the hallmark of free markets: it's the hallmark of crony capitalism. Which happens when government is too big and plays too much of a role in the economy, so that the return on investment is higher for regulatory capture than for productive investments, and resource misallocation becomes the normal state of affairs.

There is plenty of money it's just not doing anything at the moment (per David Stockman).

Indeed. So let's do something that will actually get that money flowing. Like removing the regulatory uncertainty that's strangling businesses and preventing new hiring.

But government spending isn't the solution. It crowds out private spending, it doesn't encourage it.

I'm find with cutting spending but the poor you want to take money from didn't wage wars that but us into so much red ink.

Cutting spending isn't "taking money from the poor", it's giving them less. And yes, the difference absolutely matters. We've create unhealthy dependencies, and the expansion of government will only deepen that dysfunction. Yes, unwinding those dependencies will be painful. It sucks, and Bush played a part in expanding those dependencies which will make that unwinding more painful. But it's got to be done, because the alternative is worse in the long run. And after it's done, that WILL help the economy considerably, and a healthy economy will do more for the poor than all the stimulus spending in the world.

The wars, the long term commitment to feed the military industrial complex and the only thing on your mind is entitlements to people out of work or who have paid into an insurance policy that Bush raided for his spending.

Entitlement spending will dwarf the costs of the wars. Which you could have figured out if you actually followed the link I gave, and were interested in the actual numbers.

 

[RandFan]

How much?

Small cuts will not suffice. We need huge cuts. And the democrats still haven't accepted this. They continue to fight it tooth and nail.

I'm sorry but I find that disingenuous.

No, it doesn't. It's got growth which is less than the CBO "baseline". That isn't a cut.

And how much in tax increases?

The fact that he says he got 98% of what he wanted doesn't mean it's true. And if it IS true, then that's even worse: it means that he was never serious about cutting spending, which is what the so-called obstructionists wanted first and foremost.

And how much in tax increases?

There's a reason, but it isn't because they're the villains here.

I never said they were villains. You really have the wrong idea about me.

Indeed. So let's do something that will actually get that money flowing. Like removing the regulatory uncertainty that's strangling businesses and preventing new hiring.

We had deregulation. We got the money flowing. The bankers figured out how to maximize returns with little risk because if their gambling didn't pay off Uncle Sam would bail them out. And it did. Please don't start that tired old nonsense. Seriously.

But government spending isn't the solution. It crowds out private spending, it doesn't encourage it.

It's very simple. If there is a market (demand) business will meet it. Govt doesn't crowd out anything. Again, tired rhetoric

We've create unhealthy dependencies, and the expansion of government will only deepen that dysfunction.

Nonsense. That propaganda was debunked decades ago in Europe. People want IPhones, computers, cars, TV's and to go on vacations. The safety net doesn't supply that. You want that you got to work.

Entitlement spending will dwarf the costs of the wars. Which you could have figured out if you actually followed the link I gave, and were interested in the actual numbers.

Let's be careful about what it is we are talking about. Medicaid and Social Security are funded plans. If we don't have the money to pay them it's because we spent it. Hardly the fault of the beneficiary. Don't balance the cost of malfeasance on the backs of the poor.

 

[Neally]

Cutting spending isn't "taking money from the poor", it's giving them less. And yes, the difference absolutely matters. We've create unhealthy dependencies, and the expansion of government will only deepen that dysfunction. Yes, unwinding those dependencies will be painful. It sucks, and Bush played a part in expanding those dependencies which will make that unwinding more painful. But it's got to be done, because the alternative is worse in the long run.



Entitlement spending will dwarf the costs of the wars. Which you could have figured out if you actually followed the link I gave, and were interested in the actual numbers.

Quite correct, and to put it in perspective, income tax would have to double for all Americans just to cover the increasing burden of social security and medicare.

Conservatives have indeed dominated the debate over the liberal welfare state in recent years because the facts are on their side. According to the program's 2011 annual report, Social Security added $46 billion to this year's deficit and will add $9.1 trillion to the national debt over the long term. Medicare was also in the red by $66 billion this year and will add $24.6 trillion to the debt over the same period. Income tax rates for all Americans would have to double to cover this level of spending. No wonder Americans are turning against the welfare state.

- http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/08/america-comes-grips-liberal-welfare-state

 

[leftysergeant]

Quite correct, and to put it in perspective, income tax would have to double for all Americans just to cover the increasing burden of social security and medicare.

- http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/08/america-comes-grips-liberal-welfare-state

Bull flops. Social Security is funded by an utterly separate revenue stream. That stream can be enhanced by removing the cap on taxable wages. Those on the higher end may not get all of it back, but the working pepople they use up and cast aside can still have something with which to buy the products that the well-to-do need to be able to sell them in their declining years.

The well-to-do will probably not miss the extra money so badly because they will probably want to keep on working making huge sums of money in their financial sector jobs, all the while calling factory workers wimps and freeloaders for wanting to retire and spend some time with their grandkids after their arthritis or carpal tunnels syndrome or chemical sensitivity problems get to be too much too take any more.

 

[Neally]

Bull flops. Social Security is funded by an utterly separate revenue stream. That stream can be enhanced by removing the cap on taxable wages.

You could make up the shortfall in SS and medicare with dozens of income generating schemes. We could also end up just like Greece with every increasing entitlements and ever shrinking ability to pay for them.


+1 for not mentioning drongo