How long will republicans play chicken with the economy?

[JimH52]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43516656...toward-crisis/

Let's see...
-tax breaks for oil companies are off limits
-pre-W tax rates for the wealthy are off limts

But let's cut programs for the poor! That will balance the budget!

[foolsguinea]

I think there is a small faction that will go until the USA's credit rating is downgraded and interest on US Savings Bonds goes up. Since it's clear that they aren't really committed to lowering the debt, I assume some of them are trying to increase its profitability to private investors. (Cantor may be in this faction.)

I think there is another faction that doesn't want it to go that far, but wants to use the threat of it to force massive cuts in "the welfare state" (that is, pensions). (Sounds like Gingrich.)

I don't know where Boehner is on this.

At this point, the President should just add to his Independence Day speech that Congress's obstruction of sane budgeting is a danger to the nation's future, it is present and it is clear; and assume emergency powers to tax by executive order until we get some responsible grown-ass persons in the chamber. It's probably what George Washington would do.

[JimH52]

Ain't gonna happen. But if we do default, the interest rate on a 30 year mortgage will be double digits within weeks. This country is no different in meeting its debt that you and I. If we don't meet the debt, which was created by both Democratic and Republicans over the years, our rating will fall, As a result, all interest rates will rise. The economy goes back into the tank...and the GOP takes back the WH in 2012. I expect that is their plan.

If that happens, the poor in this country will become the super poor. It has become painfully obvious over the years that I have watched the political area that the GOP is only interested in the rich and the super rich. The middle class exist to serve those two categories. As far as the GOP is concerned, the poor should not even be allowed to vote anyway.

[Sam Stone]

Couldn't you just as easily ask how long Democrats are going to play chicken with the economy? It takes two to play chicken.

The way I see it, the Democrats want to spend more and raise taxes (or perhaps raise taxes and spend a little less), and the Republicans want to cut spending and not raise taxes. The two sides cannot agree and are at an impasse. So aren't both sides equally to blame? Tell me what I'm missing here.

[JimH52]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Couldn't you just as easily ask how long Democrats are going to play chicken with the economy? It takes two to play chicken.

The way I see it, the Democrats want to spend more and raise taxes (or perhaps raise taxes and spend a little less), and the Republicans want to cut spending and not raise taxes. The two sides cannot agree and are at an impasse. So aren't both sides equally to blame? Tell me what I'm missing here.

What you are missing here is the Dems have agreed to a Trillion dollars in cuts, cuts to programs that serve the poor. The GOP has pushed those cuts, while at the same time they have resisted any correction in tax loopholes for the wealthy. Now explain to me again how this is fair?

[Eonwe]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Couldn't you just as easily ask how long Democrats are going to play chicken with the economy? It takes two to play chicken.

The way I see it, the Democrats want to spend more and raise taxes (or perhaps raise taxes and spend a little less), and the Republicans want to cut spending and not raise taxes. The two sides cannot agree and are at an impasse. So aren't both sides equally to blame? Tell me what I'm missing here.

If the solution requires raising the debt ceiling, then refusing to do so unless other related but non-vital legislation is also passed is playing chicken.

Is there a legitimate plan from the Republicans that doesn't raise the debt ceiling? If not, then they're clearly on the wrong and more sinister end of this argument.

[waterj2]

Yeah, the Democrats are willing to raise the debt ceiling without tax increases included. They aren't willing to sign off on Republican spending cuts without revenue increases included. But they could still raise the debt ceiling to prevent default without coming to a deal on other matters, as Congress typically does.

In any event, the deal the Democrats were willing to agree to was an 85%/15% or so spending cuts to tax increases split, which was what the Republicans were touting as an ideal ratio a few months ago.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

It takes two to play chicken.

It takes one to swerve; it takes one to be the chicken.

[foolsguinea]

Republicans have plenty of ways to push a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

One option contains hard spending caps and a two-thirds supermajority vote for any tax increases. This version is embraced by the right but has little chance of passing.

Another option would drop those provisions, have roughly a dozen Democratic co-sponsors and stick to a straight majority rule for tax increases. This one actually would have a shot at getting the two-thirds vote needed to clear the House.

But nothing in this Congress comes easily, and Republicans have decided to go with the version that’s almost certain to fail but is beloved by the conservative base.
...
In addition to the spending cap and tax provision, the House version is filled with tough requirements: Spending outlays can’t outpace revenue receipts, raising the debt ceiling needs a three-fifths vote, and the president’s budget must be balanced. It makes an exception for times of war.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1RCoTuO4v

Raise taxes? Need a 67% supermajority.
Raise the debt ceiling? Need a 60% supermajority.
Want to waive all of that? Find some Asians to kill.



Doesn't look like it wants a balanced budget. Looks like it wants to sell more bonds & bomb more Orientals.

Balanced budget amendments are a bad deal anyway. We have one in Missouri, & it worked the opposite of well. When we ran a surplus in a growing economy, our GOP legislature refunded taxes rather than sock it in a rainy day fund. So, when the market collapsed, did they raise taxes? Of course not! They insisted on, and I quote, "holding the line on taxes."

These people are hardline uncompromising anti-tax ideologues. They don't want balanced budgets as such; they want slashed tax bases.

I don't know what the future holds, but I expect police forces will have to rely on fees and fines for funding for a while. And police forces that work on commission are going to be corrupt; and given the xenophobia dominant in the political culture of the central US, brutal.

Funding our government with income and wealth taxation can protect us from arbitrary asset forfeiture, inflated court costs, heavy "tolls" (really tariffs) for interstate shipping. But we'll have all of those things, & the massive prison system for the corrupt police state required to maintain a "tax-free paradise."

Can't let historically "liberal" groups win at the polls, so felonize them & deny them franchise. This is the real face of "conservative" America. Surprised? That's exactly what Jim Crow was, that's what Florida's law preventing ex-cons from voting is as well.

If this succeeds, and it won't this term thank Og, welcome to the second American Redemption, people.

Either way, we are looking at the pathetic end of the Washington constitutional model as a credible governing philosophy.

When the dust settles and we have a god-emperor, I wonder whether he'll use equitable taxation, Roman-style extortion, or a right-wing "fees and fines" model. Maybe he'll just confiscate land at will. I'll probably be too old to put on my jackboots and stomp commoners in the face, but I hope the storm troopers will be stomping and dispossessing old TaxedEnoughAlready Partiers, & not darkies. The latter is more likely I guess.

[Sitnam]

On this forth of July let us all toast what started it: wealthy white men deciding to stop paying their taxes.

[Hellestal]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Couldn't you just as easily ask how long Democrats are going to play chicken with the economy? It takes two to play chicken.

The way I see it, the Democrats want to spend more and raise taxes (or perhaps raise taxes and spend a little less), and the Republicans want to cut spending and not raise taxes. The two sides cannot agree and are at an impasse. So aren't both sides equally to blame? Tell me what I'm missing here.

The giant killer robot, the US-DEBT-DEFAULT-2011, is warming up its systems. If it becomes fully activated and unleashed, there will be wailing and the gnashing of teeth.

There is no equivalence here.

One side is threatening to use the imminent destruction of the economic world as a bloody bargaining chip, to get what they want. The other side is not. The other side would be perfectly happy to push the DON'T DESTROY WORLD button, right now, today, no further negotiations about it. They're happy to stop the killer robot, and then continue long-term negotiations without the stress of looming worldwide destruction distracting from our other real concerns. The only reason we're having any fucking negotiations at all about the world blowing up is that one side sees a potential profit in the fact that they're the only ones who can push the button. What's worse is that this button needs to be pressed every two years or so. It's a snooze, not an off-switch. This game can potentially be played and replayed again.

You would not have any problems seeing the moral catastrophe here if, let's say, I were personally the only one with the power to push the button. If I demanded a billion dollars and a lifetime supply of Mountain Dew Code Red, in exchange for the wondrous gift of not allowing the world to blow up for two more years, I would hope that you'd be perfectly appalled -- not only at my poor taste, but also at the moral vacuum in the heart of my soul. If my demands are so self-serving this year, who knows what might happen when the button needs to be pushed again. I might ask for ten billion and a lifetime supply of Red Bull. The world can't support such onerous burdens. If the US balked at establishing a precedent of giving in to ludicrous demands from me, you would not look at this negotiation and trot out the both-sides-are-equally-culpable canard. You'd place the blame squarely where it belongs.

You are of course right that this isn't a game of chicken. It is a shake down, a hostage negotiation. "It's a nice economy you've got here", they're saying. "It would be a shame if something... happened to it."

There's a reason why sensible people don't negotiate with terrorists. When the bad guys see that there are real benefits to be gained from threatening the innocent, then they have even more incentive to threaten the innocent. One side started the negotiations, with the deliberate knowledge that the clock was ticking in the background. The other side is playing along with the negotiations a bit, but they're refusing to fold their principles, and rightly so, because it would just mean another, even worse, situation in the future.

There is no equivalence here.

Of course, we don't yet know for certain that this is a genuine hostage negotiation, acted out by genuine terrorists. When the Democrats used to vote against raising the debt ceiling, that was just empty kabuki, a way to get a sound-byte and a photo-op in the newspaper. They weren't serious about it. This time appears so far to be a genuinely serious incident, but we still have a couple weeks or so. It could still be merely an empty gesture taken too far, intended to see if the other side would blink. I'm inclined to believe that this time is, again, mere political theater, perhaps because I naively hold out some hope that the Congressional Republicans aren't actually the howling pack of grisly, blood-sucking demons that they so happily present themselves as.

But if we have another TARP moment, where the world markets crash because they're more happy playing blackmailing thugs than doing the right thing, then let's have no more questions about where the blame truly lies. The blame is not with the people who would press the snooze button on that killer machine today, right now, this very instant, if they had the power to do so. The blame is, as it will always be, with those who use death and misery as a bargaining chip.

[BobLibDem]

Excellent analysis, Hellestal. The Republican Party is a terrorist organization, plan and simple. They had no qualms about holding unemployment benefits hostage in order to get a continuation of the Bush tax cuts, they will happily steer the ship of state squarely into the reef if it means they will wrest control of the wreckage when it is all over. Boehner may be at heart a decent guy, but he's been hijacked by the batshit crazy terrorist wing of the party.

[tim314]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Couldn't you just as easily ask how long Democrats are going to play chicken with the economy? It takes two to play chicken.

The way I see it, the Democrats want to spend more and raise taxes (or perhaps raise taxes and spend a little less), and the Republicans want to cut spending and not raise taxes. The two sides cannot agree and are at an impasse. So aren't both sides equally to blame? Tell me what I'm missing here.

As I understand, the Democrats would be fine with just raising the debt limit, no strings attached. The Republicans are saying "No way unless you make massive spending cuts". They're the only ones "playing chicken" here.

The bit about raising taxes is just part of the Democrats counter proposal to the Republicans extreme demands. Is it your position that it's "Playing chicken with the debt limit" if you're not willing to give the other party anything and everything they ask for in exchange for their agreement to raise the limit? No matter how extreme those demands may be?

[Dick Dastardly]

There's no point replying to Sam. He comes into threads, throws his bombs and then runs away when presented with facts and evidence.

[marshmallow]

Originally Posted by Hellestal

When the Democrats used to vote against raising the debt ceiling, that was just empty kabuki, a way to get a sound-byte and a photo-op in the newspaper. They weren't serious about it.

Wait, who's playing games again?

[foolsguinea]

I thought I could support default if in fact the deal were total default. If the government were going to just tell the bondholders to shove off. If we were to tell the banks to stuff it, & tell them that we are sovereign and no one dictates terms to us.

But the truth is, any government that had the stones to do that both could raise taxes already and would be smarter to do so.

There's no way that defaulting is a good idea. And raising our interest rates is not helpful either.

Our debt, not our annual deficit, our debt, is ~69% of GDP. We could raise taxes by ~15% of GDP and pay the whole thing off in ~5 years. Easy. But the ruling class would rather keep the bonds-not-taxes racket going all the way to full Ponzi.

I don't think I will see the debt tackled in my lifetime.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Couldn't you just as easily ask how long Democrats are going to play chicken with the economy? It takes two to play chicken.

The way I see it, the Democrats want to spend more and raise taxes (or perhaps raise taxes and spend a little less), and the Republicans want to cut spending and not raise taxes. The two sides cannot agree and are at an impasse. So aren't both sides equally to blame? Tell me what I'm missing here.

Republicans can talk the talk but they don't walk the walk. They say they want to cut spending but they raise it when they're in office. So the choices we have are "tax and spend" or "borrow and spend". And of the two, the Democratic plan of tax and spend is more responsible.

[Elmer J. Fudd]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

On this forth of July let us all toast what started it: wealthy white men deciding to stop paying their taxes.

...and borrowing a quarter of a billion dollars (what's that in 2011 dollars?) to finance their revolution.

[Bone]

Originally Posted by JimH52

What you are missing here is the Dems have agreed to a Trillion dollars in cuts, cuts to programs that serve the poor. The GOP has pushed those cuts, while at the same time they have resisted any correction in tax loopholes for the wealthy. Now explain to me again how this is fair?

There are no such things as a "tax loopholes". Those are simply provisions of the code, most likely features rather than bugs.

[tim314]

Originally Posted by marshmallow

Wait, who's playing games again?

Everyone in politics plays the "lets say things just to score political points" game. Not everyone plays the "lets risk F-ing over the economy just to score polical points" game.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Couldn't you just as easily ask how long Democrats are going to play chicken with the economy? It takes two to play chicken.

The way I see it, the Democrats want to spend more and raise taxes (or perhaps raise taxes and spend a little less), and the Republicans want to cut spending and not raise taxes. The two sides cannot agree and are at an impasse. So aren't both sides equally to blame? Tell me what I'm missing here.

Care to cite to the Democrats that want to increase spending while increasing taxes?

Republicans aren't playing chicken with the Democrats, they are playing chicken with a cliff.

[tim314]

Originally Posted by Hellestal

There's a reason why sensible people don't negotiate with terrorists.

Which raises the question: Why the hell is Obama negotiating with these terrorists?

It certainly seems like this is headed towards a deal massively weighted in the Republicans favor, just because they're the only ones who apparently don't give a damn if they sink the economy to get what they want. And as you rightly mention, they can play this card again and again.

So what gives? Do the Democrats have some kind of actual strategy here?

[gonzomax]

They know Obama can not let the economy sink farther. The Repubs think if they let it go to hell, Obama will get the blame. There are a few idiots on this board who can not understand who created the financial mess. The Repubs figure if they hold back a recovery, they can steal the presidency. There are a lot of voters who will just throw the Dems out and reinstate the thieves who stole our country blind. It would be stupid, but it is possible.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

There are a few idiots on this board who can not understand who created the financial mess.

Or a fortiori when it started. (I'll give them a hint: not last year)

[waterj2]

Originally Posted by tim314

So what gives? Do the Democrats have some kind of actual strategy here?

I think they're planning on caving, and hoping they get credit for being bipartisan. Just because that's never worked out for them before doesn't mean it won't this time.

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Couldn't you just as easily ask how long Democrats are going to play chicken with the economy? It takes two to play chicken.

The way I see it, the Democrats want to spend more and raise taxes (or perhaps raise taxes and spend a little less), and the Republicans want to cut spending and not raise taxes. The two sides cannot agree and are at an impasse. So aren't both sides equally to blame? Tell me what I'm missing here.

Nothing. Except that given our current financial position, cutting spending and not raising taxes is really the only way to go. It's the irresponsible spending policies that got us where we are, and the vast majority of those are liberal social engineering programs.

So saying that Republicans are playing chicken is somewhat....disingenuous, shall we say?

[gonzomax]

NO. Cutting spending and not raising taxes is exactly the wrong way to go. Not disingenuous at all.
You can not fix the deficit by just cutting. We have been doing that over and over. Revenue is required. Lots of revenue. The deficit is equal to the tax cuts plus the unfunded wars.
Those are the policies that put us in the hole. They have to be reversed just to start off. Then tax loopholes for individuals and businesses have to be ended. We need to close the offshore banking loopholes. We have a lot to catch up with since Bush believed in the stupid trickle down. It actually trickles up. Making the rich vastly richer and creating the huge wealth gap that is harming America so badly now.

[tim-n-va]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Nothing. Except that given our current financial position, cutting spending and not raising taxes is really the only way to go. It's the irresponsible spending policies that got us where we are, and the vast majority of those are liberal social engineering programs.

So saying that Republicans are playing chicken is somewhat....disingenuous, shall we say?

What is disingenuous is the idea that balancing the budget has anything to do with the debt ceiling. They are separate issues. The debt ceiling needs to be raised to prevent a default by the US. Without any new action, the default will happen completely because of the net effect of the revenue and spending bills passed in the past. It is just beyond my understanding how any member of congress could have voted for the FY2011 budget bills and now not be willing to vote to increase the debt ceiling to cover what they voted for a few months ago.

The idea that cutting spending and not raising taxes is really the only way to go is an opinion. Anyone could easily find reputable economist that support it as well as those who say that there is no way to cut spending enough and revenue has to be increased. That last part generally has some idea that things like disbanding the military, etc. aren't viable options.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by tim314

As I understand, the Democrats would be fine with just raising the debt limit, no strings attached. The Republicans are saying "No way unless you make massive spending cuts". They're the only ones "playing chicken" here.

Actually, it's just that they're demanding more. It really doesn't matter what it is, they just want more.

Which, really, is the definition of being a Republican nowadays.

-Joe

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Nothing.

And when is it, in fact, permissible to raise taxes?

-Joe

[Happy Lendervedder]

Originally Posted by Merijeek

And when is it, in fact, permissible to raise taxes?

-Joe

When a Republican says it is, silly.

[Prelude to Fascination]

Originally Posted by JimH52

[snip] If we don't meet the debt, which was created by both Democratic and Republicans over the years, our rating will fall, As a result, all interest rates will rise. The economy goes back into the tank...and the GOP takes back the WH in 2012. I expect that is their plan.

While I agree with you, and agree that's their plan, it can't possibly work (in my mind, but that doesn't mean squat when it comes to millions of other people, as they don't necessarily agree with me). It seems to me that while the repubs logic in causing the economy to tank, and therefore winning the WH in 2012 is "Look! It happened on Obama's watch! It's his fault! Burn him! He's a witch!"

In my opinion, it's the republican's fault, because at some point, we have to raise taxes. It's simply inevitable to have more money coming in. Sure, cut spending, but let the bush tax cuts expire, end oil company subsidies, cut defense spending (by bringing troops home from Afghanistan), and raise tax rates reasonably.

Again, IMO, boehner, cantor, et al have not acted in any sort of reasonable manner.

[Bloodless Turnip]

You can not fix the deficit by just cutting. We have been doing that over and over.

We have? When I cut my own personal budget I must have something vastly different going on that when our government claims to cut a budget.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

You can not fix the deficit by just cutting.

Of course we can - don't be ridiculous.

We have been doing that over and over.

Let's see a cite where we have cut spending overall.

The deficit is equal to the tax cuts plus the unfunded wars.

No it isn't.

Regards,
Shodan

[tim-n-va]

You can balance the budget by cutting spending. The question is what do we want the government to do. Every program is important to someone.

If we cut all discretionary spending we would eliminate the deficit. We wouldn't have a defense department, transportation department, justice department, state department, etc.

A balance approach is needed and that means raising revenue and cutting spending. Raising revenue is some combination of tax rates, tax breaks and overall economic growth.

[New Deal Democrat]

Republicans have President Obama where they want him. In November 2012 Obama and the Democrat Party will be evaluated by the unemployment rate and the deficit. Republicans are threatening to shut down the government unless Obama agrees to policies that are likely to increase both.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder

When a Republican says it is, silly.

But it's not. Not even then.

So, when is it OK? When the rate is 10% and needs to go to 12% to pay for a war? To stop an asteroid from hitting the Earth?

If it's down to 1% is it functionally equivalent to child murder if someone DOUBLES THE TAX RATE?

To keep the world economy (note to Teabaggers, the USA is in fact part of the world, like it or not) from a meltdown?

-Joe

[foolsguinea]

Ah, screw it, new thread.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

I thought I could support default if in fact the deal were total default. If the government were going to just tell the bondholders to shove off. If we were to tell the banks to stuff it, & tell them that we are sovereign and no one dictates terms to us.

But the truth is, any government that had the stones to do that both could raise taxes already and would be smarter to do so.

There's no way that defaulting is a good idea. And raising our interest rates is not helpful either.

Our debt, not our annual deficit, our debt, is ~69% of GDP. We could raise taxes by ~15% of GDP and pay the whole thing off in ~5 years. Easy. But the ruling class would rather keep the bonds-not-taxes racket going all the way to full Ponzi.

I don't think I will see the debt tackled in my lifetime.

increasing the tax revenue by 15% of gdp would require doubling everyone's tax burden, rich and poor alike.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...centage_of_GDP

We are presently taxed about 10% of GDP below the rest of the OECD nations (we are at about 24% (for state, local and federal combined)) while the OECD nations average about 35%.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=205

The recession itself accounts for about a 4% reduction in tax revenue (the Bush tax cuts by comparison reduced our tax revenue by 2% of GDP).

Tack on increased expenditures for stimulus, the wars in the middle east and extra social safety net payments (food stamps etc.). We achieve a balanced budget if we can pull out of the recession in the next few years, reverse the Bush tax cuts and stop spending $100 billion a year to bomb a country with a GDP of $15 billion/year.

We can solve social security by removing the cap. PERIOD. Heck we can reduce the employer side contribution if we entirely removed the cap and if we included stuff like carried interest income, deferred compensation, stock options and others income that is clearly compensation but manages to somehow escape the definition of wages, we could probably maintain the lower FICA rate we enjoy right now.

Of course we still have the long term problems associated with health care costs but once we fix that, we are pretty much set.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Bone

There are no such things as a "tax loopholes". Those are simply provisions of the code, most likely features rather than bugs.

Are you under the impression that there are no unintended consequences in the tax code?

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Elmer J. Fudd

...and borrowing a quarter of a billion dollars (what's that in 2011 dollars?) to finance their revolution.

I read that it was $66 million which would be worth almost $1 Trillion today.

Although they did float 242 million in debt to pay soldiers and stuff (which promptly became worthless)

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

On this forth of July let us all toast what started it: wealthy white men deciding to stop paying their taxes.

Most wealthy white colonists wanted nothing to do with the revolution. It was a group of enlightened educated men not merely wealthy white men.

And it wasn't about not wanting to pay taxes. It was about taxation without representation. See the difference?

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Bloodless Turnip

We have? When I cut my own personal budget I must have something vastly different going on that when our government claims to cut a budget.

OMFG are you just now realizing that your personal finances are different than the finances of the largest economy in the world?

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Shodan

No it isn't.

Regards,
Shodan

Well that plus the effects of the recession. So if you back out the tax cuts the war and the effects of the recession you are pretty damn close to a balanced budget.

[foolsguinea]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

On this forth of July let us all toast what started it: wealthy white men deciding to stop paying their taxes.

Actually, it was probably more that they were paying taxes to defray the cost of the French and Indian War, but the Crown didn't give them access to the former New France. The War for Independence was more land-grab than tax protest, if General Washington is to be believed.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

In November 2012 Obama and the Democrat Party

[ TRELAINE ] Really, you must try harder to tuck the elephant ears behind the donkey mask![ /TRELAINE ]

[gonzomax]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_892177.html

Many Repubs will go all the way. the poor just don't cover enough of the wealth's costs. It must be fixed. Hatch is clear that the rich are being screwed over.
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/20...o-u-s-economy/ Demint doesn't care if they blow up the economy to get their way.

[gonzomax]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_890766.html And Jeffy singing for his supper.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Of course we can - don't be ridiculous.
Let's see a cite where we have cut spending overall.
No it isn't.

Regards,
Shodan

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_864812.html
As usual you are wrong.

[XT]

Well, I have to admit I didn't think it would go this far...and it looks like both sides are actually becoming more entrenched and are less likely to compromise. I have no idea what effect it will have if no compromise is reached, but I'm starting to think that we are going to find out.

Meanwhile, coalitions within both parties are trying to keep their leaders from giving up too much in the talks. Democrats, especially the party's Progressive Caucus, are demanding that tax loopholes and certain credits for business be eliminated from the tax code, and want a tax increase on those earning more than $250,000. On Thursday, caucus leaders again voiced their opposition to any deal that touches Social Security or Medicare and sent a letter to the president urging him reject any Republican efforts to reform the programs.

"[A]ny cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid should be taken off the table," the letter read. "The individuals depending on these three programs deserve well-conceived improvements, not deep, ideologically driven cuts with harmful consequences."

The leaders of the caucus have requested a special meeting with Obama to air their concerns.

Liberal activists, too, have vowed to punish Democrats if they go along with a deal that cuts Social Security. The liberal group MoveOn.org unveiled a poll of its members this week that showed that 76 percent of them said they would be "less likely" to volunteer for the president in 2012 if cuts are made to Social Security.

For Republicans, the conservative wing of the party has put forth a plan to cut trillions from the federal budget on top of a promise of a constitutional amendment that forces the federal government to balance its budget every year. Republican leaders have not said whether a Balanced Budget Amendment is included in the talks with the president, but 28 GOP House members and 12 Senators have said they won't support a deal without the amendment.

Any final arrangement between congressional leaders and the president will require support from both parties to pass. But with liberals and conservatives pulling hard in both directions, any deal the leaders agree to could be a tough pill to swallow for both parties.

-XT