home

What "Winning" On The Debt Ceiling Looks Like Now

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:08:28 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Jed Lewison:

Washington Post:

"A bipartisan effort in the Senate to allow President Obama to raise the federal debt ceiling in exchange for about $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years gained momentum Sunday, as leaders agreed they would have to act in the next two weeks to avert a potential default by the U.S. government.[...] The plan would also create a new congressional panel that would, by the end of the year, seek to come up with a way of reducing the deficit potentially by trillions more through cuts in entitlements and other new tax revenue."

Jed writes "[T]hat's not a balanced deal. In fact, like Ezra Klein, I can't imagine Republicans getting a better outcome. [. . .] Using the debt limit as a hostage to force sharp spending cuts without raising revenue is exactly what Republicans have been fighting for. And if this is the plan, they may well be close to getting it." Yes, but this was predictable it seems to me, because well, I predicted it. And yes, this goes back to The Deal in December.

Speaking for me only

< Sunday Night Open Thread | Some Things Are True >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What "Winning" On The Debt Ceiling Looks Like Now | 61 comments (61 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    "Using the debt limit as a hostage to force s (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:44:15 AM EST
    harp spending cuts without raising revenue is exactly what Republicans have been fighting for."

    should be changed to

    "Using the debt limit as a hostage to force sharp spending cuts without raising revenue is exactly what Obama has been fighting for."

    Now I get it (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:03:08 PM EST
    When Obama hinted how to get him to push for policies that were politically difficult, using the famous FDR quote, "make me do it," I never realized he was talking to the Republicans, not to us.

    "Raise taxes" (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:04:37 PM EST
    This messaging totally plays into the GOP's framing game. And the citizens lose every time. In truth, closing loopholes and allowing tax cuts and subsidies to expire is not "raising taxes." Will Democrats never learn how to play the game?

    The Manchurian Candidate (none / 0) (#46)
    by klassicheart on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 05:48:14 PM EST
    Dems have a TV network...It's NBC now owned by Comcast.  Haven't you seen what they've donated to Obama?  Plus they were on board with Obama from the beginning.  They dutifully trashed Hillary and always spin the Obama narrative.  OK  Maybe they didn't know what an idiot Obama really was...He's really not that impressive without a teleprompter...and he never accomplished much in his life...not a particularly amazing community organizer or state senator.  He was a face....a commodity to be marketed.  And he made his deal with the devil. The fact that he is narcissistic and believes the hype is all the more concerning.  Who is this man really?  No one ever asked...they were content with the image.

    Parent
    Many of us (none / 0) (#57)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 11:03:07 PM EST
    asked and after a bit of research answered.

    The answer was ZERO and worse.

    Parent

    The worst part of this deal - (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:09:25 PM EST
    the real poison pill and the way Obama is going to get all the austerity he's been lusting after - is the resurrection of the deficit commission.  Yes, spending cuts are going to hurt, not help, but a congressionally-empowered deficit commission is going to bring all the pain to a new level.

    Obama can't lead, so he has no choice but to bully his way to what he wants using no-recourse tactics.

    All we're missing now is a grandstand along the route of the impending train wreck, and some wagering on where the collision/derailment will occur, and what the body count will be.  Oh, and popcorn.

    At some point, I do not believe it's going to be possible to maintain a framework of "it's all the GOP's fault," when the biggest cheerleader for austerity in the name of compromise resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

    I agree with you more often than not (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:18:39 PM EST
    yet, in this case I disagree. Obama is IMO doing a great job in leading where he wants to go.

    Obama is not playing games with his public support for a $4 trillion package which includes cuts to entitlement programs. He supports most, if not all of the Cat Food Commission recommendations. This is what he really wants to do and he is more than willing to trade almost anything to get it to happen.

    Parent

    Well, there's "leadership" and then (none / 0) (#22)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:38:19 PM EST
    there's something more authoritarian, and because Obama wasn't able to close the sale when his own Deficit Commission failed to report recommendations to Congress to be voted on, he's now using the debt ceiling issue to getting it packaged into this deal so that he gets what he wants.

    It's "okay, I couldn't convince you to do it the way I wanted, so now I just have to make you do it my way."

    Is that leadership?  Or bullying, conducted in meansured tones and all wrapped in a very passive-aggressive package?


    Parent

    the bankers broke the economy (none / 0) (#23)
    by dandelion on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:40:22 PM EST
    so the poor and the old must pay.  $23 trillion to Wall Street.  The rest of us must eat our peas.  If liberals or progressives continue to support a president with these priorities, then liberals and progressives are validating them.  

    Frankly, I think Avedon Carol has it right.  It's time for progressives to make common cause with the Tea Party -- not the funded Koch nutjobs -- but the rank and file who are angry, confused, losing jobs and small business, and not getting anything but right wing propaganda as answers -- the people Chris Bowers "creative class" disdains.

    It's not left/right anymore:  it's the Too Big To Fail vs. the Too Small to Matter.  

    Parent

    It's always been about economic class (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:52:01 PM EST
    But you're not going to get common cause until people genuinely start thinking critically.  Almost the entirety of the Tea Party movement are deluded and fighting a comically misguided battle against windmills, a battle designed for a half century ago against a different opponent.  And they lack the critical thinking capacity to look at themselves and say "Good Lord, have we been full of sh*t or what?"  Liberals and progressives, if anything, do this too much.  And what the TP are full of it about is the financial terrorist class, who they cower before and whose ace they kiss like it's the Pope's ring.  IOW, they are Stockholm Syndrome types, in essence.

    Parent
    Could be explained.... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 01:23:16 PM EST
    by "kick the dog" syndrome as well.

    Media in the pocket of the financial terrorists always pushing the stories to get us mad at the immigrants, the teachers, the unions, sh*t even celebutards and Casey Anthony.  

    Meanwhile, they done stole the store while we kick the dog.

    Parent

    Hence the need... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 03:39:25 PM EST
    ...for critical thinking skills.

    I appreciate that many people in the Tea Party movement have genuine grievances against the government, which must nickel and dime small business because the can one and two hundred billion the big players who get away with murder.  But I don't respect that they are, largely, fat and happy Caucasians who don't seem to have missed a meal in decades.  IOW, they have little excuse for their ignorance, especially in the internet era, when there is INFINITELY more and unfiltered access to info if you want it.  

    You recover from your festival high, dog?  Hope not. ;-)

    Parent

    gross generalization (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by dandelion on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 04:22:55 PM EST
    Have you talked to any people who support the Tea Party?  I have.  They're not fat and happy by any means.  They're people who have been left behind by the switch to a financialized and information-based economy.  Progressives do a huge disservice to themselves for criticizing these people for lacking critical thinking skills when, because of class issues, for the most part these people were locked out of a decent education.  

    If we can't sell our message to them, whose fault is that?  Marx called it false consciousness. I don't think he ever called it ignorance or stupidity.

    The progressives' refusal to begin dialogue with the "bubbas and the bunkers" of this country, starting with where they are and moving from there -- has hugely hurt the liberal cause.  

    70% of the populace don't have college degrees - are you seriously going to write them off?  

    The Tea Party came into existence out of outrage over the TARP bailouts.  Is there no common cause there?  Sure, Koch et al glommed onto the movement and created an astroturf protest and organization for the cameras, but below that astroturf there is real sod, and the angers felt are exactly the angers of class.  So why can't the left speak to that, instead of snarking and sneering?

    Parent

    should read "because THEY CAN'T... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 03:41:37 PM EST
    "...one and two billion the big players who thieve..."

    Parent
    unfiltered acesss to a near (none / 0) (#37)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 03:59:06 PM EST
    infinite quantity of unadulterated, social Darwinist, kiss-up-and-kick-down b.s, as well..

    And unfortnunately, 99% of the populace gravitates to the same tried-and-true formulas that've worked well enough for them to the present..

    People have to REALLY go through some suffering before they start questioning thier long-cherished paradigms. The average tea bagger isn't there yet.

    Parent

    No argument there... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 03:59:28 PM EST
    and they get the government shaft their ignorance deserves, same as we get the government our acceptance of the status quo voting for .05% less evil arses deserve.  

    As John Mellencamp said "This is our country":)

    PS...No plan to recover, siply onto the next...Gathering of the Vibes Friday!  Plus a two-day work week!  When you're hot you're hot:)

    Parent

    another good idea (none / 0) (#49)
    by klassicheart on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 06:05:35 PM EST
    But liberals and progressives, those great 11 dimensional chess players....could never figure out how to do this...and anyway, it would ruin their real agenda.  This was the Obama plan.  

    Parent
    Ah...are we now into (strike up scary music) (none / 0) (#61)
    by christinep on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 02:47:48 PM EST
    The Great Conspiracy? Yoiks? With all the issues we confront in this country & at home, don't tell me that those on the ends of each side of the continuum are about to traverse the historical halls of not-longgone-enough European conspiracy theory? But...that would allow adherents of all manner of conspiracy beliefs to deny any responsibility for participating in resolving issues in our democratic society. Convenient.

    Parent
    Leading (none / 0) (#58)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 11:04:24 PM EST
    in the wrong direction.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 07:34:48 AM EST
    He is leading in the wrong direction. Whether it is using his bully pulpit or the public "faux hands off" approach all the while he is making back room deals and twisting Dem arms, he has forced legislation in the direction that he wanted it to go. The legislation that was passed was the legislation that he wanted passed. The whole "I am powerless" or "the Republicans made me do it" is just smoke and mirrors IMO.  

    Parent
    summary of the "grand deal" (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:35:38 PM EST
    The Obama-Biden deal now in development to cut spending by $1 trillion to $2 trillion in exchange for Republicans not opposing the debt ceiling increase conclusively disproves the O'Donnell and Obama apologists' "spin" last week that Obama's $4 trillion "grand deal" proposal--including $3 trillion spending cuts including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid--was only tactical, a maneuver, and that he really never meant to propose to cut Social Security and Medicare. But, yes, he did mean it. Yes, he did propose it. And, yes, he will propose it again. And once it's back on the table, that means it was never a mere maneuver, that it was fully intended.

    The next act in the cut-the-deficit follies will begin the day after the debt ceiling is passed. The new deadline will be the deadline for passing the federal budget for 2012, which begins October 1.

    [ . . . ]

    This shift to classic Republican policy positions is similar to what another Democrat president undertook when facing an earlier economic crisis. I'm talking about Jimmy Carter in 1978. And we know what happened to him.
    What does the Pres. mean when he says (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 01:29:42 PM EST
    "Don't call me bluff."  Does he want 4 trillion cuts, including to Medicare etc. or does he not?  

    A particular disgrace in (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 02:44:25 PM EST
    these "austerity" measures is the willingness of Obama to cut federal contributions to Medicaid by $100 billion over ten years to help reduce the deficit. To use Medicaid as a bargaining chip at a time that the program is under assault by those governors who are cutting their contributions with either the reality or the excuse of "being strapped".  

    This seems at odds with what was ballyhooed as a great step forward in health care reform--expanding Medicaid. Of course, we now know why we could not expand Medicare, since it was apparently scheduled for its own shrinkage.  And, denying poor people access to Medicaid involves even less political risk than "changing" Medicare, although mean-testing of Medicare will do the job as well, it will just take a little longer, but the pathway will have been set.

    And, anyone still swallowing the health care reform's inadequacies with hopes for it being a" foot in the door" so as to get more over time may have to take a gulp and recognize we may get less, not more,  over time.

    Coburn proposes $9 trillion deficit cut measure (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 05:40:46 PM EST
    Wonder if Obama will raise the bet to $12 trillion.

    The plan by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is laced with politically perilous proposals like raising to 70 the age at which people can claim their full Social Security benefits. It would cut farm subsidies, Medicare, student aid, housing subsidies for the poor, and funding for community development grants. Coburn even takes on the powerful veterans' lobby by proposing that some veterans pay more for medical care and prescription drugs.

    Coburn would also eliminate $1 trillion in tax breaks over the coming decade, earning him an immediate rebuke from Americans for Tax Reform, an anti-tax organization with which Coburn has had a running feud. He would block taxpayers from claiming the mortgage interest deduction on second homes and limit it to homes worth $500,000. He would also ease taxpayers into higher tax brackets more quickly by using a smaller measure of inflation to adjust the brackets link

    BTW, the raising taxes through adjusting the measure of inflation is a regressive tax and would break Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class. But then again, what is one pledge among many.

    Parent

    Obama's simple equation: (none / 0) (#35)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 03:44:05 PM EST
    Medicare = Registered, likely voters

    Medicaid = The great unwashed

    Parent

    Helping "The great unwashed" (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 03:57:28 PM EST
    is the only reason many both in and out of Congress supported Obama's health insurance legislation.

    Won't surprise me at all if they actually wind up with less health care and the rest of the population is forced into buying junk insurance. Much of the emphasis for reducing cost are not cost reductions but shifting costs away from the insurance company and onto the insured. Driving the actuarial values down for everyone (expect for those doing the legislating) has been built into the current legislation and more drastic cost shifts are being discussed.    

    Parent

    Yes, and even more (none / 0) (#42)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 04:40:56 PM EST
    insidious is by paying doctors so  poorly for Medicaid services, more and more doctors will refuse to treat the patients yielding no care or care by the least qualified doctors.  Of course, unifying the components of federal health care (subsidies, Exchanges, Medicaid and Medicare) and linking participation by providers is not a part of any plan.

    Parent
    My opinion has been that this (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 05:05:06 PM EST
    health insurance legislation will cause more harm than good. Seems it is driver for all health related issues going more in the direction of less care for more money.

    Parent
    And you are correct (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 05:13:11 PM EST
    in calling it "health insurance legislation."  It is not, and never has been an Affordable "Care" Act.  If we wanted actual affordable health care, we would have some form of single payer (call it "Medicare for All," if you wish).

    Parent
    the poor are the guinea pigs (none / 0) (#47)
    by klassicheart on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 05:58:05 PM EST
    As it is, the big hospitals treat the poor and uninsured with their residents...as does the V.A. The experienced, full fledged doctors are not taking Medicaid.  But I'm told Kaiser does a pretty good job of care generally...not for tough cases...those they dump on the  big university centers....and back to the residents.  And the new trend is to have non doctors as first line treaters...Nurse practioners, physicians assistants now do what doctors did....Nurse anesthetists do what anesthesiologists used to do...and in Kentucky and Oklahoma, optometrists, with no medial school and a fraction of the training, do laser surgery.  The real doctors, who spend 8-15 years in medical school and residency, won't be working for peanuts while Wall St. and Big Business pays it's people in gold.

    Parent
    Bingo! (none / 0) (#50)
    by suzieg on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 12:18:26 AM EST
    That's exactly what's happening with my husband who's on Medicare - will only be seen by interns, never by a GP!

    Parent
    As per diby, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 04:07:04 PM EST
    Robert Kutner is very shrill:

    As the debt doomsday of August 2 draws closer, what sort of end-game can we imagine?

    The worst scenario would be for an outbreak of common sense and self-interest to overtake the extremism of the House Republican caucus. If the Republicans were to accept Obama's proffered deal, they would weaken Social Security and Medicare -- and put the Democrats' fingerprints on the deed -- depriving Democrats of their traditional defense of America's best loved social programs. They would also get a ten-year deficit-reduction agreement that is mostly program cuts. And they would get an austerity package that guarantees high unemployment as Obama heads into a difficult re-election. And a Democratic president is offering this deal!

    The Republicans would also get to savor the spectacle of a badly divided Democratic Party, as the White House twists arms of unwilling House and Senate Democrats to vote for a right-wing package.
    ...
    Obama and his advisers, weirdly, believe that his stance as "the only grownup in the room" who forces his own party to abandon its core principles for the sake of an austerity program will somehow win the gratitude of voters struggling with declining incomes and rising joblessness. link

    I think Kutner has it wrong about why Obama can get away with selling out the core principles of the Democratic Party.  A majority of Democratic voters are also willing to  give up the core principles of the party to keep a so called Democrat in the WH and in Congress.

    skin in the game (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by dandelion on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 04:28:13 PM EST
    It's also true, unfortunately, that a solid core of Democratic voters won't be seriously hurt by these cuts.  The former Rockefeller Republicans who became Democrats, and the limousine liberals who vote for legalistic social justice but only give lip service, if that, to economic justice.

    Parent
    So good it should be said twice (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by sj on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 01:07:04 AM EST
    A majority of Democratic voters are also willing to  give up the core principles of the party to keep a so called Democrat in the WH and in Congress.

    That's how we ended up here.  And for years I helped!  I know that no one person at my level is personally responsible, but we certainly contributed.  The feeling of betrayal is so, so deep.

    Parent

    In 2006, (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by beefeater on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 05:58:55 PM EST
    When Sen. Obama voted against a debt ceiling increase under Bush he blamed a lack of leadership from the White House.

    Now what?

    First of all (none / 0) (#1)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:26:35 AM EST
    Obama wants those spending cuts too. Poor negotiator that he may be, he is getting what he wants out these negotiations in addition to raising the debt ceiling. It only looks like he's getting nothing to people who realize that spending cuts are a bad idea. To paraphrase Kevin Drum, Obama's actions make perfect sense when you realize it's his goals that are stupid.

    Secondly, raising revenue does not balance out spending cuts. Both push the economy in the same direction.

    Are you sure about this? (none / 0) (#2)
    by observed on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:30:12 AM EST
    The wealthy and the major corporations are sitting on huge reserves of cash right now---trillions.
    If some of that money is taken out in the form of taxes, then spent as stimulus of some sort, isn't that better for the economy?
    I know, the second part of my hypothesis doesn't describe the current situation, but still...

    Parent
    It's the spending part (none / 0) (#3)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:33:53 AM EST
    of that equation that's good for the economy, not the taxation part.

    But that's not what Obama is proposing. I've never heard him say we need to tax more in order to spend more. His position is we need to tax more and spend less at the same time.

    Parent

    Sure. The combination is bad, but (none / 0) (#4)
    by observed on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:40:26 AM EST
    raising taxes doesn't have to be bad for the economy, per se.

    Parent
    It's never good (none / 0) (#8)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:48:24 AM EST
    to raise taxes in a recession.

    If we were experiencing a major boom right now and inflation was becoming a problem then an argument could be made that it's time to raise taxes.

    Raising taxes in order to spend more right now isn't being proposed by either party, so it's really a moot point. However, raising taxes is never necessary for the federal government to spend more because the federal government is no longer on the gold standard.

    My view is that Obama should go for a big middle class and lower class tax cut. No one making under about $65k a year should have to pay federal income taxes right now. I'd like to see the GOP say no to that.

    Parent

    Did FDR raise taxes or just print more $$? (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:55:48 AM EST


    Parent
    FDR raised taxes (none / 0) (#27)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 02:04:28 PM EST


    Parent
    FDR (none / 0) (#32)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 03:22:50 PM EST
    caused the recession of 1937.

    Parent
    Cuts in spending (none / 0) (#52)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 10:43:38 PM EST
    and Fed raised interest rates.

    Parent
    The cut in spending (none / 0) (#53)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 10:47:14 PM EST
    was probably the biggest hurt.

    Parent
    Spending cuts (none / 0) (#55)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 10:53:10 PM EST
    If the revenue increases had been spent the economy would have grown.

    Parent
    What on earth (none / 0) (#31)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 03:04:52 PM EST
    are you talking about?

    Parent
    Taxes (none / 0) (#54)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 10:51:38 PM EST
    We could go round and round again on this.

    Raising taxes (very significant increases) on wealthy would help the economy and have the bonus of decreasing the power of that class.  

    Spending must at least match the amount of the increase in taxes.

    The key is spending the increased revenue directly into the economy.

    Parent

    Think it through (none / 0) (#60)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 12:02:39 PM EST
    It's the total net spending that matters, i.e. the difference between gross spending and taxation. You seem to realize this when you say 'spending must at least match the amount of the increase in taxes.' I think you are saying that spending must increase in an amount equal to the increase in taxes. That is correct.

    But that being the case, why does revenue have to increase? Why not just leave revenue where it is and increase the spending? Better yet, decrease revenue at the same time (but in favor of the poor for a change, not the rich). It's the net spending that matters.

    Parent

    Think it through? (none / 0) (#62)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 07:19:03 AM EST
    I have thought it through as have others.

    Spending will never be adequate with unrealistically low tax rates on the very wealthy.

    This is something you should think through:

    The nation's dividends, interest, capital gains, profits, etc. go to the wealthiest people in the nation.  Our wealth ends up in the hands of a disproportionately small number of hands.

    Left untaxed or taxed at very low rates the nation does not get the proportion of wealth it needs to invest in public goods.  This is basically a breach of the social compact.  The overall economy suffers because not enough money goes back into demand.  The wealthy do not spend all of their money.  The money is either saved or invested overseas seeking the highest return.

    If John Crook has an income of $100 million in a given year he'd have a helluva lot of trouble actually spending that $100 million.  His money gets worked but the nation loses a hell of a lot of that loot.  That John Crook has surplus cash way above and beyond what would be needed to support even a ridiculously lavish life style is a danger to our nation because in addition to creaming too much off the top, John also has money to wield in inordinate amount of power, especially political power.  Over the years John Crook has bankrolled think tanks, his company has hired lobbyists to promote his interests and part of that interest is to keep his obligations as a citizen as meager as possible.  John's interests run contrary to the public good.  He's promoted himself and his class.  He's helped diminish union membership among other things and is running the middle class into poverty and eliminating opportunity for the working poor.

    The nation's greatest progress on all fronts came about when tax rates on John Crook were much, much higher than now.

    Rethink your position on light taxation for the rich, you're way off base.  The imbalance in our society is killing us.  Taxation can restore some semblance of balance and make the investment in public goods the nation desperately needs.  Light taxes on John Crook weaken our communities.

    Parent

    Correlation (none / 0) (#63)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 03:07:16 PM EST
    isn't proof of causation. You need to prove that higher tax rates on the rich in the past caused a better economy. I've seen no data that proves such a thing. Arguably it was the other way around, i.e. a booming economy requires higher levels of taxation in order to control inflation.

    Parent
    Obama wants cuts too (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:42:39 AM EST


    Yes, if you consider that Obama (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:12:06 PM EST
    really wants $4 trillion in cuts then this is a big win for Obama. He made sure that no clean bill to raise the debt limit was passed. The old Cat Food Commission recommendations will be the basis for the new recommendations and with an up or down vote have a good chance of passing the "fixes" to the entitlement programs. This may require Obama taking out "silly" things like raising taxes and replacing them with the more draconian cuts to SS and Medicare that he put on the table.
     

    Parent
    He is going to great lengths to avoid (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:45:08 AM EST
    being a "tax and spend" Democrat.  

    Parent
    He's a slash and burn Democrat. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by observed on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:53:26 AM EST
    Just call him "chainsaw Barry".

    Parent
    Yet another similarity to George Bush. (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:54:46 AM EST


    Parent
    He'll (none / 0) (#56)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 10:54:55 PM EST
    probably outdo "Chainsaw" Al Dunlop in job losses.

    Parent
    Another story I read this morning (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:03:55 PM EST
    on this says that the McConnell deal will be used but that Democrats were trying to attach the 1.5 cuts.  They were trying to figure out if they should do that in the Senate and then have the House shove up their arses with a big fat NO.  Or "allow" the House to do it so that it would seem like it was their idea...........as if Obama could trust the House to cut.  The Republicans don't want cuts in this debt ceiling passage, it is Obama doing it.  Here's the first story I read on it.

    Parent
    If the DOW starts a race to the bottom over (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:06:55 PM EST
    this, we will see who blinks first.  We will see if Obama gets his cuts as HE TOO plays Russian Roulette with the economy to get his cuts, or if the Republicans get the debt ceiling raised while trying to not wear any responsibility for it.

    Parent
    This particular struggle would have happened (none / 0) (#19)
    by Buckeye on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:24:52 PM EST
    even without The Deal.  Unless we were going to let all the tax cuts sunset (the preferred approach of you and I) Obama would have gotten only the top 2% (which is $70B per year).  The debt ceiling would have still needed to be raised, just perhaps delayed a few weeks.

    Nevermind, you are talking about getting (none / 0) (#20)
    by Buckeye on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:29:12 PM EST
    the debt ceiling resolved as part of The Deal not the incremental revenue.

    Parent
    What "Winning" On The Debt Ceiling Looks Like Now | 61 comments (61 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment