There will be one this afternoon. They say that these are things to look for.
I'll be looking at legal documents myself. I count on you to tell me what's what.
Make a new
The Rep will offer mini amounts to the existing ceiling just to make sure the government meets the deadline but these mini will be conditional with only a two or three week period in order to get negotiations of what they want for the final agreed debt ceiling. So they will continue to issue mini amounts increase for short periods until they get what they want. Obama has no choice but to go along with the mini increases since if he veto's them it would initiate the default process and no one wants that.
This way Obama is shielded from having to veto anything.
The Senate will agree to the mini increases just so the default process does not get initiated.
All Obama has to do is tell Reid not to bring it up.
If 41 Dems Senators state they will not vote for it, then it will not pass the Senate....
You have no choice but to raise it or default.
A simpler solution is just make the payments and stop issuing debt. The US is sovereign in its own currency and has no need to borrow to fund federal spending anyway.
This whole fight over the debt ceiling is irrational and absurd. Therefore I expect it to be the main political issue of the next few news cycles.
It could be a worldwide catastrophe if the US had, oh, 100 percent or higher inflation.
Secondly, the idea that the government borrows in order to offset the inflationary effects of spending is also a myth. All it does when it borrows is swap one financial asset, cash, with another, a bond. The real purpose of issuing government debt is to manage interest rates.
I've been in Brazil and Argentina during hyperinflation, so it concerns me.
I love LOVE Poland.
Sounding general Democratic themes so far.
Still can't tell where he is going...
But federal dollars traditionally fund transportation costs (public and interstate), education (although apparently some think that ignorance should be the fate of those who can't afford private school), research into new technologies (space program) and hundreds of other things that make our society a better place to live. Or used to.
Anyone who thinks that the federal government shouldn't invest in the infrastructure of the nation is too silly for words. Or for further consideration.
Having a government job is not a sin in my book. Most of it is honest pay for honest work. The sin is in being elected to a position and then selling out the electorate.
It's hard to listen to the pretty words when you know the facts of what's already happened.
Am I the only one who think this sounds exactly like a SOTU speech?
Index Social Security yearly increases to a lower inflation rate, which will generally mean lower cost of living increases and less money per average recipient.
Ryan's plan, on the other hand, promises the half of the baby boom, those born between 1946 and 1956, and their elders in the Silent Generation, that they will continue to receive full, lifetime benefits -- while asking younger workers to continue paying payroll taxes to provide those benefits; benefits they will never receive themselves. It is completely cynical pandering to his own party's base.
He overreached on that one, big time.
Top 1% income going up over the last ten years; everyone else going down.
No more tax breaks for wealthy. Not going to happen while I'm President. First applause of speech.
David Stockman said there was "nothing courageous about" Ryan plan.
But what is really "on the table?"
Okay, when is the pivot coming?
For 3o years of my working life I've paid to guarantee SS for Baby Boomers.
What's the payback?
Landon Jones, who coined the term "baby boomer" in his book Great Expectations: America and the Baby Boom Generation, defined the span of the baby-boom generation as extending from 1946 to 1964, when annual births declined below 4,000,000. They have since returned to higher levels in the "echo boom."
Generation Jones is a term coined by Jonathan Pontell to describe the generation of people born between 1954 and 1965 (although some sources include 1966 and 1967).
Defense of why he extended Bush cuts--"I will not do it again."
Tax breaks for millioniares....Limiting itemized deductions for millioniares including interest deductions....
Wow...That is good, progressive.
My truncated syntax was confusing above....
Now if they taxed interest income that would be a different story.
I have a decent income right now and I make about $1.50 (a dollar fifty) a year on interest income. I say tax away.
I assume the deduction for mortgage interest and other itemized deductions would remain for those under 250k. This plays off of Ryan's attempt to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction entirely--what a moron.
No worries, the mortgage interest deduction has a million fans here in California--no one will touch it.
In general, the limiting of itemized deductions for high income earners (and such a limitation already exists) would represent a significant tax increase on the wealthy....
And the deduction has a million fans in probably every state. I'm definitely one of them myself. But were I you, I would still watch carefully and take nothing at face value.
In fact, that's what I will be doing.
But sure, just a speech....
personally I dont think raising the age a little over an extended period is not an unreasonable thing
I think it's a terrible thing. Not for me, I'm a desk jocky. But my Dad worked construction. My grandmother waitressed. It makes my legs hurt to think of them having to work longer than they did.
There really are two Americas.
"Bipartisanship = Patriotism."
Pretty generalized stuff except for Defense cuts and taxing the wealthy....which is still pretty vague.
The "Commission" dodge here on Medicare. An oldy but a goody for DC politicians.....This has Daley written all over it.
Calling on congress for tax reform, blah blah blah.
Two housewives of Wall Street CEOs get $220 million in free money, and he can't even mention it.
He sounds disconnected. Words without feeling.
Even going after the wealthy, he's so harmless and meek, it just will not work. No one is watching this speech, they're either at work, scrounging for sandwich meat, or sedated. Now he's saying most of the wealthy WANT to pay more taxes, want to give something back, blah blah blah. No, they don't. Not the tiny fraction of the population so wealthy they are controlling just about everything. They are out to rob as much as they can.
Now he's got a few strawmen. Gotta change SS, he buys into the Repub stuff here. The only thing you have to change is tax the wealthy appropriately. He just said the word "progressive," holy sh*t.
He still thinks people with a proven track record of doing the wrong thing really want to do the right thing. He just knows it.
And he already signals he's ready to back down. Did we know that no one gets everything they want?
Especially when you fight for nothing when it really gets down to it. Whatever works for you, Obama, whatever works for you.
TAKE A FRIKKIN STAND! Even if it's wrong, DO SOMETHING.
Bipartisanship = Patriotism!!!
That's a "vision"??? Either he believes in what he said for the first 20 minutes of the speeech, or he doesn't.
Could have predicted exactly how this would end.
Who DOESN'T think everyone getting along wouldn't be grand, you dope?
We've heard this act before. And before and before and before.
I'm glad for that...
He didn't give away anything to the Republicans in this speech.
Also, he doesn't actually have to sign anything for taxes to increase. He just has to not sign a tax cut.
The "deal" happened in december, after the election. Whatever happens in 2012 would be after the election too unless they decide to push it up, which frankly, why would they do that.
Besides, they don't control the senate just yet. Couldn't Reid etc... just let it die?
So no excuses.
It doesn't require him to sign any thing because if no bill is passed, taxes will automatically go up.
Those are the parameters for the tax increases. "We'll see" meant "we'll see" what Obama ends up doing. I don't pretend to have a chrystal ball. My hunch is this time he will let them expire since he seems to be putting it on the line. I'm willing to bet you disagree with that. But that has nothing to do with how it would or would not happen.
as 'speech' goes this one was way dud compared to some of his earlier rhetorical flourishes ...he looked bored and did not really seem to believe in what he was saying.. there was a 'whatever' ,'get it over with' kind of tone.
I was hoping to avoid a demolition of the New Deal. That did not happen. So, I think it was a good speech for that reason alone.
The details of the real budget to be worked out later.....
Census over. So, that was not really a cut....Some sleight of hand. But then Obama selling it as the biggest cut in the budget ever.
My hope for Obama has always been that he could sound bipartisan--because Indies like that--but govern progressively. He's got the first part down but is a little weak on the governing part.
Aside from that a lot of vagueness about deficit reduction--which I'll take, as specifics in cuts to Medicare would have been no good, really bad, a terrible tune.
He is - as most of those whipping deficit/debt hysteria are - wrong about that whole issue; he's a smart guy, and should understand that the only constraints we have on spending are self-imposed. He's wrong about the wisdom of cutting spending at such a fragile economic time: austerity may work on a micro/household budget basis, but it just does not work on a macro basis. And we're going to find out why that's so, I'm afraid.
For those who weren't alarmed by the speech, I do think it's important to consider the implication of his embrace of the Deficit Commission; as much as he says he intends to protect - but strengthen - Social Security, for example, I believe the Commission report discussed income-indexing, which, if implemented, could seriously and negatively affect people's ability to live out their days in anything approaching comfort.
I think there's a lot - a lot - of wiggle room in that speech; I know that it sounds so reasonable to call for "coming together" and getting everyone's "good ideas," but we've seen this movie before and it didn't end happily ever after.
It was a speech; we'll see how well the actions live up to it.
Sounds like it was OK. I like the part about 'won't do it again' - re: extending bush tax cuts. That's for sure.
"I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society," Obama said in his speech. "I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs."
Reform the tax code for itemizing, he actually said middle class Americans don't itemize.
Reform Corporate tax code, but nothing more. What does that even mean ? If it like his past deals, it probably means a lower rate.
He won't sign off on cutting the protection for the elderly, but Medicare & Social Security need to be looked at.
The only solid bit of information is cutting some military and increasing the taxes on the wealthy, or rather he won't extend their tax cuts. Yeah, never heard that one.
Not a bad speech if his goal was to make big and bold claims without much substance. No mention of Afghanistan/Iraq is a 'serious budget speech'.
IMO this speech was anything but serious. He tossed the left a bone, or rather talked about tossing the bone. A bunch of political talk that committed him to cutting $400 Billion from the military and not letting tax cuts expire for the rich. Everything else is up for grabs.
Like the character in "Darkness at Noon," I now understand that I have not embraced the Party or The Leader, and my intellectual ramblings have been politically incorrect and counterrevolutionary.
I'm so sorry Mr. President, I do plead guilty.
Substance: Much better than many of us feared. Hardly any Bowles-Simpson -- yay!
. . .
Overall, way better than the rumors and trial balloons. I can live with this. And whatever the pundits may say, it was much, much more serious than the Ryan "plan"."
OH MY GOSH KRUGMAN IS A REPUBLICAN OBAMABOT FAT CAT THAT HATES THE RICH AND DOESN'T UNDERSTAND POLITICS!!!
Texas has been yelling about secession for quite a while now. Maybe the Mexican Army will come and reclaim the state for Mexico.
You know, the War of Northern Agression should not be forgotten.
Having lived in the south most of my life I'm past trying to understand why people here care so much about that war. I guess they're constantly trying to rewrite it to make the south the winner instead of the loser.
There is tendency to romanticize lost causes....
I think he will probably come out more strongly on defending Medicare, Medicaid, and SS than has been explicitly indicated. I don't know what the Simpson-Bowles head-fake was about yesterday.
Good general defense of government spending....
Okay, now some specifics....
He is talking about tax increases of Bush I and Clinton.....that is how we balanced the budget.
This sounds good so far....
Citicizing tax cuts aS increasing the deficit.
Cross your fingers, this is good so far.
Talking about Baby Boomer strain on deficit. Uh-oh.
But that's just griping, not criticism.
This is good....but I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.
We used to have cooks and bakers, and we used to have military logistics, among other things. These have been 'outsourced.'
Ohhh... I hope I don't wind up kicking in the television out of sheer frustration from this fluff.
Change the way we pay for healtcare...Indepedent commission of doctors to find savings....
Save $500 billion by 2023.
No vouchers with shrinking benefits.
Full disclosure - I'm not watching or listening; I hate the disconnect I get when I hear him revise history or point fingers at others for things he's been doing himself.
Honestly, listening to an Obama speech is like listening to the weather report...there's some percentage chance that anything you hear will actually come to pass, but that's about it.
I'll read it and see what I think.
The gist of this speech is no tax cuts for wealthy and increasing taxes on wealthy and limiting itemized deductions for wealthy.....
Good dogded a bullet....
It's a speech by a democrat trying to get things done.
That's what I voted for.
Now he has to implement his statements. Let's be clear, he's not going to get everything that he listed. But I expect him to get a lot of it. Maybe 70%.
Vision, vision. Everyone makes sacrifices, no none bears all the burden.
December 2010 made all this a joke.
Seriously, this is Through the Looking Glass stuff.
And says the millionaires will agree that they should take a tax hit! Funny stuff, there.
I'm not a fan of Obama speeches, but I thought this one was the best I've heard him give as president by a long shot. First time he's given a full-throated defense of the bedrock principles of liberal government (not that he used the term "liberal," of course).
We've learned that what he says means nothing, unfortunately, about what he will ultimately do. But I was expecting something a good deal vaguer and more wishy-washy, so I'm slightly less terrified than I was as of this morning.
I may not be happy with Obama, and I am starting to think that experience does count for something...and in that light I will not stand for Republicans defining him as VINTAGE! I will not stand for it :)