The Debt Crisis Thread

[Gangster_Octopus]

@jtgain

Are there enough votes in the House to pass this deal?

Nothing is a given when Tea Partiers are involved.

[elucidator]

Let me get this straight. The President kept revenues on the table, did not touch the sunset provisions in the Bush tax cuts, ensured that military cuts keep the GOP honest, protected Medicare by adding in only provider cuts in the trigger, made the reduction apparently enough to stave off a debt downgrade, got the debt ceiling raised, wounded Boehner by demonstrating to the world that he is controlled by the Tea Party caucus, took out the requirement that a BBA be passed and sent to the states and got the extension through 2012? What exactly is wrong with this deal?

A reader comment at Talking Points Memo

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

[Ravenman]

@Mr_Smashy

You understand, I’m sure, that the concept of a unified budget, which we’ve had since '69, makes your statement somewhat meaningless. Or did Al get his lockbox passed when I wasn’t looking?

The debt you are referring to is what the left hand of the Federal Government owes the right hand; what JT suggested is that, after the washout, the numbers would balance, ‘unifiedly’

No, you are mixing up debt with outlays. They are not a one-for-one swap.

For as long as there are surpluses in Social Security, new intragovernmental debt will have to be issued, even if no new debt is issued to the public. For example, between 1998 and 2001, the debt held by the public went from $3.7 trillion to $3.3 trillion, but intragovernmental debt went up from $1.7 trillion to $2.4 trillion; meaning that debt went up by $300-something billion while the budget was in surplus.

Why? Because Social Security surpluses are invested in government debt. The inability to issue debt to cover Social Security surpluses would reverse the very concept of a trust fund, because no deposits could ever be made. This is especially true because virtually any reform of Social Security, whether it is benefit cuts, tax increases, means testing, or deferral of eligibility, will prolong the period in which the trust fund would run surpluses, meaning the problem would be magnified.

[UltraVires]

@Gangster_Octopus

Nothing is a given when Tea Partiers are involved.

I’ll bet all of the TP members vote against. I’m just wondering if there can be a coalition of moderate Dems and Republicans to reach 217…

[Whack-a-Mole]

@elucidator

A reader comment at Talking Points Memo

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

Let me get this straight. The President kept revenues on the table, did not touch the sunset provisions in the Bush tax cuts, ensured that military cuts keep the GOP honest, protected Medicare by adding in only provider cuts in the trigger, made the reduction apparently enough to stave off a debt downgrade, got the debt ceiling raised, wounded Boehner by demonstrating to the world that he is controlled by the Tea Party caucus, took out the requirement that a BBA be passed and sent to the states and got the extension through 2012? What exactly is wrong with this deal?

Here’s what Robert Reich (former Labor Secretary) has to say about that:

Anyone Who Thinks The Debt Deal Is A Victory For America Understands Neither Economics Nor Politics

<snip>

The deal does not raise taxes on America’s wealthy and most fortunate — who are now taking home a larger share of total income and wealth, and whose tax rates are already lower than they have been in eighty years. Yet it puts the nation’s most important safety nets and public investments on the chopping block.

It also hobbles the capacity of the government to respond to the jobs and growth crisis. Added to the cuts already underway by state and local governments, the deal’s spending cuts increase the odds of a double-dip recession. And the deal strengthens the political hand of the radical right.

SOURCE: Anyone Who Thinks the Debt Deal Is a Victory for America Understands Neither Economics nor Politics - Business Insider

[Mr_Smashy]

@Ravenman

Why? Because Social Security surpluses are invested in government debt. The inability to issue debt to cover Social Security surpluses would reverse the very concept of a trust fund, because no deposits could ever be made. This is especially true because virtually any reform of Social Security, whether it is benefit cuts, tax increases, means testing, or deferral of eligibility, will prolong the period in which the trust fund would run surpluses, meaning the problem would be magnified.

That’s where the confusion is coming. There is no reason why that has to be the case (invested in government debt). Even Bubba McChubbyChaser suggested, in a state of the union address, that the US should get into the market and invest broadly.

[Ravenman]

@Mr_Smashy

That’s where the confusion is coming. There is no reason why that has to be the case (invested in government debt).

You mean, setting aside the reasons that the law requires surpluses to be invested in debt; and that every effort to change it has failed miserably?

So, once again, it seems my accusation is right on the mark. Supporters of the balanced budget constitutional amendment, as currently drafted, will destroy the Social Security Trust Fund, either through malice or ignorance. I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with me about.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Whack-a-Mole

Here’s what Robert Reich (former Labor Secretary) has to say about that:

It seems that guy neither understands politics nor economics.

Edit: And he only tells half the story.

[Fear_Itself]

@jtgain

Are there enough votes in the House to pass this deal?

Doesn’t matter, the Republicans lose either way. The way I see it, there are two possible outcomes:

1. The bill fails, and Republicans own the disaster that follows. It will be no problem to paint them as the responsible party; they control the House, and the House defeated the last chance to avoid economic Armageddon. The voters overwhelmingly defeat many Republican candidates in 2012, and The GOP is relegated to the dustbin of history.

2. The bill passes without the support of the Tea Party. They go ballistic, bolt the party and primary more moderate Republicans with TP candidates, perhaps even a Tea Party presidential candidate. The voters overwhelmingly defeat many TP candidates in 2012, because they have exposed themselves as unable to govern, and the Republicans are relegated to the dustbin of history.

Any other outcomes are just wishful thinking. When Democrats retain the White House and take both houses of Congress in 2012 by wide margins, there will be retribution; elimination of the debt limit altogether, and changing the Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster. Remaining Republicans will be figuratively bound and gagged, reduced to watching from the sidelines as Democrats remake the country.

We will drink your milkshake.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

That post is parody, yes?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

It seems that guy neither understands politics nor economics.

Edit: And he only tells half the story.

Hmm…well, Robert Reich graduated summa cum laude from Dartmouth. Won a Rhodes scholarship to study philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford and then earned a J.D. from Yale Law School.

He taught at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and worked on Bill Clinton’s economic transition team and then served as Secretary of Labor.

But what would he know? Doubtless you know more cuz that guy’s bona fides are crap. :rolleyes:

[Fear_Itself]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

It seems that guy neither understands politics nor economics.

Do you?

“That guy” has pretty good credentials:

Reich is currently Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley. He was formerly a professor at Harvard University’s School of Government and professor of “Social and Economic Policy” at Brandeis University.

…

He attended Dartmouth College, graduating summa cum laude with a bachelor’s degree in 1968 and winning a Rhodes Scholarship to study Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at Oxford.[6] Reich subsequently earned a J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was an editor of the Yale Law Journal.

From 1973 to 1974 he served as law clerk to Judge Frank M. Coffin, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and from 1974 to 1976 was Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, Robert Bork. In 1977, President Carter appointed him Director of the Policy Planning Staff at the Federal Trade Commission.

From 1980 until 1992, Reich taught at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government…

So what is your background in poltics and economics?

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

While interesting, that has nothing to do with my actual post. If that’s the route you want to go then, from now on, I’m going to start quoting some highly qualified/educated individual and treat his or her words as the truth since, apparently, being highly qualified/educated makes one’s words the truth (especially as it relates to economics/politics!)

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

While interesting, that has nothing to do with my actual post. If that’s the route you want to go then, from now on, I’m going to start quoting some highly qualified/educated individual and treat his or her words as the truth since, apparently, being highly qualified/educated makes one’s words the truth (especially as it relates to economics/politics!)

You said: “It seems that guy neither understands politics nor economics.”

That is attacking the person and not what they were saying.

We showed that this guy does know a thing or two about economics and politics.

Now, he may be wrong or you may disagree with him but you chose to attack his credibility instead.

[Mr_Smashy]

@Ravenman

You mean, setting aside the reasons that the law requires surpluses to be invested in debt; and that every effort to change it has failed miserably?

So, once again, it seems my accusation is right on the mark. Supporters of the balanced budget constitutional amendment, as currently drafted, will destroy the Social Security Trust Fund, either through malice or ignorance. I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with me about.

If they can get this law passed in record time, surely they can pass a law changing that requirement of SS. Or is it, once a law, it’s always a law and can never be changed or amended?

[UltraVires]

Is there a time set yet when either house will vote on this today?

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Whack-a-Mole

You said: “It seems that guy neither understands politics nor economics.”

That is attacking the person and not what they were saying.

We showed that this guy does know a thing or two about economics and politics.

Now, he may be wrong or you may disagree with him but you chose to attack his credibility instead.

Now that’s funny.

(1) Read the title of the article then read my initial response. Notice any similarities? Yeah, you should. If you’re going to go on some kind of “attacking his credibility” tirade, whatever that means, then I guess he was attacking everyone’s credibility who disagrees with him.

(But oh, that’s okay, 'cuz he’s super qualified, right?)

(2) Appeals to authority suck, and all that crap you and that other guy posted about his accolades do nothing for your argument.

[Fear_Itself]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

(2) Appeals to authority suck, and all that crap you and that other guy posted about his accolades do nothing for your argument.

You don’t know what Appeal to Authority fallacy is, do you?

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

In fact, I dol

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Now that’s funny.

(1) Read the title of the article then read my initial response. Notice any similarities? Yeah, you should. If you’re going to go on some kind of “attacking his credibility” tirade, whatever that means, then I guess he was attacking everyone’s credibility who disagrees with him.

I got it.

It remains you engaged in an ad hominem attack.