AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
senator obama on the floor explaining his then (march, 06) vote AGAINST raising the ceiling:
Obama 2006 vs. Obama January 2011 vs. Obama April 2011 on the Debt Ceiling - Political Punch“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
this january, robert gibbs rationalized the president's conspicuous reversal by observing that obama's assent back then was not required for passage, the ceiling was lifted without him
making a point, huh?Gibbs said it was OK for then-Senator Obama to have cast that vote, since the outcome was guaranteed.
“Based on the outcome of that vote…the full faith and credit was not in doubt,” Gibbs said. Then-Sen. Obama used the vote “to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline….His vote was not necessarily needed on that.”
about the need to get serious about fiscal disclipline?
about shifting burdens on to backs of grandkids?
and bucks stopping where?
leadership failure, anyone?
no, the wisdom of mom and pop america is more rightly heard and acted upon today by leaders such as andrew cuomo in new york, jerry brown in california and rahm emanuel in chicago
cuomo's got his finger on the pulse in the EMPIRE STATE, he's bold and big, he's confident and sure, his polls are thru the roof
we're gonna get more, we're gonna get a lot moreThe way I see it Republicans would be walking away from the best deal they've had in a long time
after 2 years (in times like these) without a budget, the party in power finally put something on paper and published it in february
it was the exact opposite prescription, it brazenly RAISED borrowing 20%
it depended on impossible outyear projections of hi gdp immediately and low interest rates forever
within days ryan came out with his radically different plan and, for whatever reason, the white house and senate almost immediately DUMPED the president's OWN budget
the only blueprint he's put out in going on 3 years
and yes, the RHETORIC he's been living off since the collapse (97 to 0) of his WRITTEN PLAN does indeed reverse course---violently---killing keynes across the board
and that's kinda the point---every two weeks that go by, the movement towards AUSTERITY becomes more obvious and irresistable
ask cuomo, moonbeam, the ram, the massachusetts state house, trenton NJ and springfield IL, bing and bobb in detroit...
ask dan malloy of connecticut, the dem gub who just two weeks ago reenacted his very own air traffic controllers moment, firing the afscme's who refused to follow along
ask governor dayton in minnesota---he campaigned on a tax-the-rich plank which he's now forced to back off, he tried for an alcohol tax, he's now relegated to cigarettes
the momentum is all one way
ask people like claire mccaskill in missouri, joe manchin in west virginia, jon tester in montana...
they CAN'T go home without offering SOMETHING in the way of FIX for our big 3 entitlements, which will simply disappear if something significant isn't done NOW
and it aint gonna help em much in their reelects to be tagged by folks like me as TAX RAISERS
it's just a matter of time
GOP end debt negotiations to protect tax breaks for people making $500,000+ Republicans 1'st, Economy 2'nd? - Yahoo! AnswersDemocrats want to close tax loopholes that benefit oil companies, and eliminate a tax preference that gives corporate aircraft a friendlier depreciation schedule than commercial aircraft. Additionally, Van Hollen said, Democrats were proposing to phase out tax deductions and certain credits for people making more than $500,000 a year. These would be paired with a reduction in the tax burden on lower earners, by eliminating existing limitations on their deductions.
Maybe you'd like to explain why we should borrow money, increase the debt of the nation, and devalue the dollar to give the money to the oil companies that are making billions in profit every quarter. I don't know of ONE oil company that is losing money. They don't need a tax break, period.
Last edited by finebead; 07-11-11 at 06:45 AM.
Obama Challenges Republicans for Debt-Plan Details - BloombergRepublicans reject Democrats’ call for more tax revenue and instead are pressing to cut entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Democrats insist even the Republicans’ proposal for a smaller deficit-cutting plan must include more taxes from higher-income Americans.
Both parties have limits that they are unlikely to cross, meaning even if their leaders were to agree to such terms, their rank and file would not support those terms. A smaller deal, which would be focused largely on discretionary spending and would avoid tax hikes was supposed to be a position to which the parties could retreat in time to raise the debt ceiling if the large deal could not be achieved (IMO, always a small probability of success). Speaker Boehner pushed in that direction.
However, now it appears that the Democrats are insisting that tax hikes be part of even a small package. If that is a firm position, then the scale of a possible deal will grow even smaller. Under such a scenario, were the deal to fall below a dollar-for-dollar match with the debt ceiling hike, Republican support could evaporate. Were tax hikes to be preserved in a smaller deal, Republican support would be limited, and it is plausible that the House might not pick up even 50 Republican votes under such a scenario. Hence, prospects for a failure to reach agreement could increase.
Right now, I still expect a smaller deal in the $1 to $2 trillion range to be agreed. The markets also expect an agreement.
One sign of a shift in market sentiment would be if both the equities futures/equities and Treasury prices both fell, meaning lower equities prices and higher yields. The development and then persistence of such co-movements would be a disturbing sign of a break in market sentiment.
This morning's trading had sharply lower equities futures prices, but also a strong rise in Treasury prices, with the 10-year yield down more than 10 basis points as of 8 a.m., in a kind of flight-to-safety move driven by continuing concerns about European debt challenges. Across all maturities, yields were lower.
The Democrats don't really want spending cuts. The purpose of proposing tax hikes is to kill this deal. Obama probably has given up on creating an environment where job creation can occur, so he's going to find another way to blame the Republicans for this. Even the Democrats know that entitlements have to be cut. They've had their way on entitlement for 70 years, it's time they stop using them to buy votes. The problem is, the Democrat Party wouldn't have a soul in office if it weren't for entitlements and unions. They built their entire party on the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce clauses.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
You have got to be kidding me, American!!!
The GOP leadership has been attempting to change the perameters of debt (ceiling) negotiations since they issued their Pledge to America during the 2010 midterms. When was the last time you read it?
First, the GOP calls for $1 trillion in spending cuts before raising the debt limit. Then they insist on offsetting whatever the debt ceiling limit is raised to with matching spending cuts. Then they insist on "deep" spending cuts, but insist on no tax increases. Whose trying to kill the deal again?
Here's a clue: EVERY TIME the Democrats have met the Republican's demands on raising the debt ceiling, the Republicans have changed the conditions of negotiations!! Go back and re-read your party's own Pledge then read both the NYTimes and the Economist articles I linked to in post #76, then come back here and dare make the claim that Democrats aren't trying to negotiate in good faith. If you still can't acknowledge that it is your own party who has "moved the goal post" on these debt ceiling negotiations at every turn, then.......we've got nothing else to discuss.
Last edited by Objective Voice; 07-11-11 at 09:30 AM.