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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
It takes one to swerve; it takes one to be the chicken.
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.
:dubious:
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. 
On this forth of July let us all toast what started it: wealthy white men deciding to stop paying their taxes.
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.
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.
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?
There’s no point replying to Sam. He comes into threads, throws his bombs and then runs away when presented with facts and evidence.
Wait, who’s playing games again?
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.
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.
…and borrowing a quarter of a billion dollars (what’s that in 2011 dollars?) to finance their revolution.
There are no such things as a “tax loopholes”. Those are simply provisions of the code, most likely features rather than bugs.
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.