Back to Slate again. Although this is a lefty writer in a lefty mag, it’s not a bad summary of the situation.
Here’s the bumper sticker:
I would suggest that the problem is, for those who can do simple maths, that there is no way to “cut the spending” in such a fashion. At least that much is clear to rational observers including conservative ones who are rational. I find it extraordinary that for an inane slogan a so-called conservative party is ready to ruin the credit of its nation and raise the costs of millions of borrowers, over a bloody simple minded slogan. This is insane radicalism, and given the size of your economy, dangerous to the entire world. I dearly hope there remains rational conservatives in the USA who are making phone calls to the ignoramus radicals who are behind this.
The credit of the nation is ruined by too much debt from trillion dollar deficits.
The credit problem is caused by too much spending and too much borrowing.
There would be no “credit problem” if we were running budget surpluses.
I think everyone can agree that those who want to spend and borrow are the ones to blame for ruin.
No, it is not. I know you have a most tenuous relationship with facts, but in fact to date the USA enjoys a sterling credit rating and reputation (as evidenced by actual credit ratings and the price USA pays on its debt), something your found Fathers worked very hard to construct from the earliest days of the Republic. Those are actual facts.
You’re not running surpluses and as the linked article shows, only by raising taxes could you hope to - unless you are quite willing to strand your troops overseas of course.
That’s what doing the maths tells you. Bit harder than sloganeering.
No rational observers see one party ranting via simple-minded slogans and irrational ideology, trumping old-fashioned hard headed, pragmatic fiscal conservatism. Apparently irrational sloganeering finds audiences.
These are budget issues. They should be debated as a part of a budget bill. There is no reason they should be linked to raising the debt ceiling. This is extortion by the Tea Party, pure and simple.
Yes, they are the ones to blame for the problem. But cutting our budget by 1/3 in a single year is just not a good solution for this problem. In fact, it’s probably the worst solution. You see, gov’t spending has such a large effect on the overall economy that any drastic reduction in spending would make the economic collapse of 2008 look good in comparison. A better way to get the budget in line is to slowly decrease spending while slowly increasing revenue as not to disturb this fragile economic recovery.
OKay the link worked. yeah, perception is everything. As the public is convinced that NOT raising it would only make things worse we see a shift. It seems to me from GOP language that they are concerned about a possible serious negative impact that will reflect badly on them. That shift in perception coupled with the GOP language is exactly why I think it would work. First let’s prevent things from getting worse, and then we’ll work to make things better and deal with deficit spending and the debt.
I also think that a general perception of riders and combining issues as a negative would help as well. I think the public would see “Let’s deal with this issue, and then we’ll move on to the next”, as a positive step and real leadership. Obama spoke to it less directly yesterday when he said he was up for McConnell’s plan. “If you don’t want to do it, get out of the way and I’ll do it and take the responsibility” IMO, that’s the kind of leadership people have seen as lacking.
You are getting mixed up. You are confusing the Senate with the Presidency.
The Senate is obligated to do more than give a pass/fail grade to legislation written in the House. The Senate is not the branch that has the Veto function. YOu are thinking of the Presidency, which only gives pass/fail (sign it or veto it) grades.
The Senate has the responsibility to either pass the House legislation, or else pass a modified version of the House bill, and then the Senate has to meet in a joint session to work out any differences between the House bill and the Senate modified version, if there are any differences.
We are stuck right now with a passed House bill, but we are waiting on the Senate to pass or modify the House bill. We will never get this passed if the Senate continues to refuse to pass their own version. There is nothing the House can do if the Senate refuses to work on this legislation. The House can not do it by itself.
Ding ding ding That’s how I perceive it as well. The slash and burn and screw who it hurts attitude doesn’t sit well.
There’s a presentation of “Oh we know if we don’t take drastic measures now it won’t get done” which IMO, is smoke and mirrors.
Again, how does that help the Democrats? Offer it up as a single-issue vote; the GOP votes “no”, the Dems vote “yes”; more folks (49% over 46%) think the GOP got it right and the Dems got it wrong; and then Congress moves on to a different vote for Stage Two – except the Democrats just finished voting for something less popular and the GOP just voted for something more popular.
So why do that? Isn’t it more in the Democrats’ interest to skip straight to Stage Two instead of going through a punishing Stage One first?
Which was the false perception the GOP was attempting to create. We passed a bill. not it’s now out responsibility. They passed a bill they knew would be rejected. It’s still their responsibility. Playing games of political posturing rather than actually doing the work doesn’t free them of responsibility.
They’re not worried about solving the problem as much as how the credit for doing it is perceived by the public. That’s what people are so sick of.
That way has not worked. Those shenanigans are what is causing the collapse of the country. I am tired of hearing years and years and years of your same old argument.
The economic problems that would come from balancing the budget now are far far less than the problems that will come with the entire collapse of the US dollar and the world wide depression caused by the complete collapse of the United States.
The only 2 choices we currently have is:
-
to actually fix it now and suffer some temporary economic re-locations, or else
-
continue to run deficits and inevitably go into the biggest world wide economic depression in history.
This is my version of fun. This, and golf. This, golf, and having a nice adult beverage. All I need to be happy are drinks, skiing, golf, and debates with people who do not understand the issues. And a million dollars, that would make me happy, too. Especially if the government steals the money from the wealthy and gives it to me.
Read the Constitution. The Senate is entitled to vote down bad legislation. It is a pretty fundamental aspect of the separation of powers. And now that has been done, the ball is back into the House’s court – that’s what the Constitution says.
What the Senate did in voting down the laughable House bill is say, “The House leadership is acting like a little child. We all know that whatever is going to pass has to come from negotiation and compromise from all parties. Cramming partisan bills through the House that will never be made into law is not a constructive use of time. Let’s get back to the negotiating table and find a compromise that can then be put into a bill and passed by Congress and signed by the White House.”
It’s a much more adult approach to controversial issues, rather than Republicans’ current strategy of cramming party line votes down people’s throats and then running and hiding, like cowards, from real negotiations that might fix the issues at hand.
I swear, fiscal conservatives in Washington are running scared. They are more scared of Grover Norquist, the Tea Party, and their re-election chances, than they are of the economic chaos that would happen if there were a default. It’s just so telling that Republican leaders are less afraid of ruining the economy and our fiscal situation than they are of crossing people like Susanann – the type of people who are so extreme in their opinions that they are actually rooting for a default.
Because I think the GOP has admitted that they are also concerned about not raising it will hurt more. Having done that they would be very unlikely to vote No if boxed in and pushed to do so.
If there were serious negative impact those that voted not to raise it would have that on their shoulders going in to an election.
In your own words, “It was voted down. Get over it.” The Constitution doesn’t say the Senate has to pass anything. The bill is dead. Get used to it. The process starts over.
The only thing that may cause the collapse of your country is the childish antics of what was once a genuine conservative party, that has since become the captive of a bunch of lunatic ideologues.
Precisely why the current idiocy and antics must be avoided - one does not magically balance a budget, one does it by actual proper planning and a mixture of tax increases and spending decrease. Not a young child’s immature and idiotic tantrums.
None of this supports the antics.
I think that the Senate Dems need to put a proposal on the table. The GOP already put forth the Cut, Cap, and Balance. That was obviously a no-go from the start, but it’s a negotiating position. Now it’s time to counter. You can’t expect the GOP to keep putting forward proposals and negotiate against themselves.
The problem is that Obama and the Dems will not agree to anything like the cuts to social programs that they are hinting about.
For the first time, I’m starting to think that the this game of chicken might continue until the car crash.
According the the Constitution, all revenue legislation must originate in the House of Representatives. So, yeah, I do expect the House to keep passing legislation until they get one that can pass the Senate. It’s their job.
This is so deeply absurd. Republicans decide to hold the debt limit hostage to negotiation over deficits. Then, when the Democratic President agrees to massive spending cuts and to persuade his party to go along, the GOP backs out because they speculate that the Dems won’t make the cuts.
It’s like taking a hostage in a bank robbery, and when the police offer you the helicopter to Cuba, you shoot the hostage because you don’t believe their offer. What the fuck kind of strategy is that?
So let the House Dems propose a bill then. I want to see something in writing that they will agree to. I haven’t seen anything yet. Just vague promises of cuts sometime in the future.
They have said that they will NOT make the cuts without tax increases. So what is the proposal? Let’s see it.