• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boehner abandons goal of $4 trillion debt-reduction package

When Republicans are in charge, Democrats oppose debt ceiling increases and Republicans say it's necessary.

When Democrats are in charge, Republicans oppose debt ceiling increases and Democrats say it's necessary.

Obama isn't substantially different from any other president we've seen in the last 30 years.

Then isn't it up to the American people to properly vet the Candidates according to the important issues of the day? If the American people, with the possible exception of the Tea party, are not going to demand responsibility from their politicians then the American people are going to get what they deserve. How can you possibly explain away Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank or Charles Rangel?

This path America is on now was not unforeseen. Everything in Barrack Obama's background told you who and what he was yet they elected him anyway, unrealistically expecting that his campaign words would mean more than his previous words and actions.
 
Boehner abandons goal of $4 trillion debt-reduction package - The Boston Globe

Isn't it odd that the GOP is willing to walk away from 4 trillion in cuts? This should be a dream come true for them. But since they're unwilling to agree to any tax hikes whatsoever, they're walking away from the deal of the century. I believe this will come back to bite them in the ass.
 
Latest:

James Pethokoukis | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters.com

Will House Speaker John Boehner commit Republicans to raising $1 trillion in taxes as part of President Obama’s last-minute push for as much as a $4 trillion debt reduction deal? Obama and the GOP meet Sunday evening, but things continue to develop quickly:

1) Various news accounts Saturday morning made it sound as if Boehner was flirting with some convoluted deal where some taxes would be raised – including the high-end Bush tax cuts – but lowered later as part of major tax reform, with maybe some of the savings from fewer deduction going to reduce debt.

2) Then on Larry Kudlow’s radio show this afternoon, the WSJ’s Steve Moore said his paper’s reporting was accurate and the GOP were being “tempted” by this offer.
 
Just read about this. I don't see how it is a good thing though that the GOP is prepared to abandon ambitious deficit reduction in order to save the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and special interests.

That's because you haven't been bought by said wealthiest Americans and special interests. If they were funding your campaign, you'd see how it's a good thing!
 

I believe that was from yesterday. Interestingly enough, the blog piece refers to "entitlement tweaks" in the package that would have included tax hikes. "Tweaks" fall far short of fundamental reform/commitment to fundamental reform. A really tempting offer might have included an initial downpayment on entitlement reform (i.e., changing the cost of living adjustment for SS or raising the eligibility age to be phased in over a period of years) + a commitment to fundamental reform afterward. Such an offer might have made it difficult to sustain a no tax hikes whatsoever approach.
 
I believe that was from yesterday. Interestingly enough, the blog piece refers to "entitlement tweaks" in the package that would have included tax hikes. "Tweaks" fall far short of fundamental reform/commitment to fundamental reform. A really tempting offer might have included an initial downpayment on entitlement reform (i.e., changing the cost of living adjustment for SS or raising the eligibility age to be phased in over a period of years) + a commitment to fundamental reform afterward. Such an offer might have made it difficult to sustain a no tax hikes whatsoever approach.

Yeah, I should have checked the date. And I agree with the rest. I just don't know what it's going to take to get everybody's feet back out of the cement.

As of an hour ago:

Major deficit reduction deal still possible, White House insists - latimes.com

Should support for a large deal collapse, the two sides could still coalesce behind a less ambitious package that would cut the deficit and have enough Republican support to raise the debt ceiling. In his announcement, Boehner said he would prefer that approach.

No matter what happens, Geithner said, leaders on both sides must raise the debt ceiling by Aug. 2. If the U.S. misses that deadline, America’s credit rating could be downgraded, he said, “and if that happens you’re going to see catastrophic damage across the American economy and across the global economy."

Even Republican opponents of the White House seem to have absorbed that message.

“Nobody is talking about not raising the debt ceiling. I haven’t heard that discussed by anybody," McConnell said.
 
Last edited:
All I can say .. after reading all these post .. . I can now fully understand why the symbol of the democratic party/ liberals is a jack ass .

Since obama has been in office he has added 800 billion dollars a to the budget ..now in this grand gesture .. He's willing to trim 400 billion from it .. and one here says it's the deal of a lifetime
yeah I can seen the sense in that . . instead of adding 8 trillion to our already bloated debt he's only going to add 4 trillion .. .. yep a deal just to good to pass up .. I can only hope we don't have too many more of these “great” deals to pass up ..

in turn 100 billion a year of that “cut” is a net tax increase .. but .. hold on .. it's not a tax increase .. the article presented to prove this clearly stated this … The net effect of that tax reform plan would be an increase in tax revenue. Now I don't know what part of la la land he lives in … but an increase in tax revenue .. caused by tax reform isn't a tax increase ???

Then in turn we have a couple here .. that insist the the Republicans are trying to Sabotage. Our economy ….. hmmm wonder if they felt the same way when they controlled the house and the senate for nearly two years before the recession started and sat on their asses and did nothing .. they must have been trying to Sabotage the economy to win the white house right ….. and they did a bang up job of it . . didn't they ..

yep I can see the libs her living up to their symbol very well
 
I think the biggest news here is going sort of unnoticed: Obama favored a debt reduction package bigger than what Boehner wants. Where is the tea party outrage at the guy they just put in charge?

Again.....if the day comes where Democrats--A Party that has never made a significant spending cut in US History..........actually put their names on legislation that cuts more spending than what the Republicans proposed.......expect to see unicorns flying out of monkey's butts.

Should the day come where Obama--The Most Expensive President in History........proposes or signs something similar......look for Bigfoot on the back of the Unicorn.
.
.
.
.
 
That doesn't suggest no entitlement reform at all, as you had said.

Fair enough. But, I would make the argument that whatever reform was still remaining on the table wasnt serious enough to keep Boehner negotiating. So, he walked.
 
What we have is Obama (and the Dems) exploding spending since 2007. Now he wants to ride in as a knight in shining armor to claim credit for cutting half the projected deficits over the next 10 years that his budgets have created.

So, let me get this straight...

Budget negotiations are the responsibility of Congress. GOP leadership insist that the President should get involved since talks were getting anywhere. So, the President delegates the VP to host negotiations on behalf of the Executive. When talks fall through because Cantor and Kyl walk out of negotiations, the GOP again insists that the President needs to get involved. Now that he has AND the GOP leadership gets deficit reduction figures well above where they said they wanted them - at least $1 TRILLION dollars per their Pledge to America (see top of page 3) NOT to mention the +$1 BILLION in spending cuts they already attained during negotiations for both the FY2010 AND FY2011 budgets (see first paragraph, page 11) - suddenly that figures aren't good enough -- or rather it's not "workable" because it contains the elimination of tax subsidies!! :shock:

Boehner and the Reps need to make this as painful as possible for the president. Especially given the fact that Obama has ignored his own deficit comittee recommendations. This is kubaki theater at its finest.

For once, I hope the GOP gets its way. I hope the debt ceiling isn't raised so that the American people can see just how cowardly, just how dangerous and just how unpatriotic they are. The GOP claims "they're listening to the American people." Well, the People are demanding that Congress work together to find common sense solutions to our nation's debt and deficit problems. And when prominent economist say that not raising the debt ceiling could have catostrophic effects not just on our national economy but the global economy as well and the GOP had the opportunity to put the economy on a more stable footing yet (so far) they balk!!!....


UN-FREAKIN-REAL!!! :2mad:
 
Boehner: Selfish, Partisan and Just Plain Bullheaded (per Ronald Reagan) - Leonard Burman - The Impertinent Economist - Forbes

John Boehner says that the debt is a terrible problem, but he’s willing to add $2 trillion to the debt to avoid tax increases. The Dems reportedly offered $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of new taxes, but the GOP apparently can’t abide any new revenues.

Republicans claim that new taxes would hurt the economy. Possibly, although raising taxes on the rich and closing loopholes is probably the least damaging way to raise revenues. And the GOP has no problem slashing spending right now, even though that’s sure to slow down the recovery. A short-term economic stimulus as part of long-term debt reduction would be the best course. (I laid out one option to accomplish this on this blog.) And, of course, Republicans in Congress are apparently willing to let the government hit the debt ceiling in early August, even though the consequences of a sudden stop in government spending could be disastrous. So maybe the economy is not their prime concern.

<sarcasm> Gee. Ya THINK?!? </sarcasm>
 
Here's an opinion piece from WashingtonPost.com that outlines the 5 Myths about the Debt Ceiling and puts the issue in perspective. Of significant importance are myths 1, 3 and 4:

1. The debt limit is an effective way to control spending and deficits.

Not at all. In 2003, Brian Roseboro, assistant secretary of the Treasury for financial markets, explained it best: “The plain truth is that the debt limit does not affect the deficits or surpluses. The critical revenue and spending decisions are made during the congressional budget process.”

The debt ceiling is a cap on the amount of securities the Treasury can issue, something it does to raise money to pay for government expenses. These expenses, and the deficit they’ve wrought, are a result of past actions by Congress to create entitlement programs, make appropriations and cut taxes. In that sense, raising the debt limit is about paying for past expenses, not controlling future ones. For Congress to refuse to let Treasury raise the cash to pay the bills that Congress itself has run up simply makes no sense.

Some supporters of the debt limit respond that there is virtue in forcing Congress to debate the national debt from time to time. This may have been true in the past, but the Budget Act of 1974 created a process that requires Congress to vote on aggregate levels of spending, revenue and deficits every year, thus making the debt limit redundant.

3. Financial markets won’t care much if interest payments are just a few days late — a “technical default.”

Some Republicans believe that bondholders know they will get their money eventually and will understand that a brief default — just a few days — might be necessary to reduce future deficits. “If a bondholder misses a payment for a day or two or three or four,” Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told CNBC in May, “what is more important [is] that you’re putting the government in a materially better position to be able to pay their bonds later on.”

This is nothing but wishful thinking. The bond-rating agencies have repeatedly warned that any failure to pay interest or principal on a Treasury security exactly when due could cause the U.S. credit rating to be downgraded, which would push interest rates up as investors demand higher rates to compensate for the increased risk.

J.P. Morgan recently surveyed its clients and asked how much rates would rise if there was a delay in payments, even a very brief one. Domestic investors thought they would go up by 0.37 percentage points, but foreign buyers — who own close to half the publicly held debt — predicted an increase of more than half a percentage point. Any increase in this range would raise Treasury’s borrowing costs by tens of billions of dollars per year.

THIS IS THE PRIMARY STICKING POINT TO THE DEBT CEILING DEBATE!!! Remember: Foreign investors (China) owns a large portion of our national debt. Furthermore, I'm willing to bet that much of our recent private investments via the Dows, NASDAQ and NYSE are majority foreign investments. Think of how those private investments along with interest rates on the U.S. bond market would have on our national economy?

4. It’s worth risking default on the debt to prevent a tax increase, given the weak economy.

While Republicans’ concerns about higher taxes are not unreasonable, most economists believe that any fiscal contraction at this time would be dangerous. They note that a large cut in spending back in 1937 brought on a sharp recession, which undermined the recovery the country was making after the Great Depression.

Republicans respond that tax increases are especially harmful to growth. However, they made the same argument in 1982, when Ronald Reagan requested the largest peacetime tax increase in American history, and again in 1993, when Bill Clinton also asked for a large tax boost for deficit reduction. In both cases, conservative economists’ predictions of economic disaster were completely wrong, and strong economic growth followed.

The way I see it Republicans would be walking away from the best deal they've had in a long time where spending cuts AND debt/deficit reduction measures are concerned. But their stern partisanship is getting in the way of making significant progress.
 
Last edited:
4. ... However, they made the same argument in 1982, when Ronald Reagan requested the largest peacetime tax increase in American history, and again in 1993, when Bill Clinton also asked for a large tax boost for deficit reduction. In both cases, conservative economists’ predictions of economic disaster were completely wrong, and strong economic growth followed..

Reagan did not pass a tax increase, he passed a tax cut in 82. But Paul Volker, fed chairman at the time, who was appointed fed chairman by Jimmy Carter in 1978 (and retained by Reagan), was raising interest rates in order to kill high inflation which was running at 6 - 10% a year. High interest rates killed the economy and produced a severe recession, which was the correct prescription for such high inflation. Can anyone envision a fed chairman intentionally causing a recession these days? Not on your life. Now some attribute all the good things that happened to the economy in the late 80's to Reagan's tax cuts, but I do not. An economy is a complex system, driven by many factors. The death of inflation (shepherded by Volker, a Carter appointee), oil prices falling from 35 a barrel in the late 70's to 10 a barrel by the late 80's (due to increased drilling and fleetwide mandated fuel efficiency standards), and the adoption of the personal computer by industry in 1981 at the intro of the IBM Personal Computer (along with Visicalc, Lotus123, and WordPerfect which revolutionized industry and productivity).
 
Color me crazy *Yeah, I know* but I think Tuesday we should all go vote for which debt package we want. Whatever we decide, they have to accept.
 
Reagan did not pass a tax increase, he passed a tax cut in 82. But Paul Volker, fed chairman at the time, who was appointed fed chairman by Jimmy Carter in 1978 (and retained by Reagan), was raising interest rates in order to kill high inflation which was running at 6 - 10% a year. High interest rates killed the economy and produced a severe recession, which was the correct prescription for such high inflation. Can anyone envision a fed chairman intentionally causing a recession these days? Not on your life. Now some attribute all the good things that happened to the economy in the late 80's to Reagan's tax cuts, but I do not. An economy is a complex system, driven by many factors. The death of inflation (shepherded by Volker, a Carter appointee), oil prices falling from 35 a barrel in the late 70's to 10 a barrel by the late 80's (due to increased drilling and fleetwide mandated fuel efficiency standards), and the adoption of the personal computer by industry in 1981 at the intro of the IBM Personal Computer (along with Visicalc, Lotus123, and WordPerfect which revolutionized industry and productivity).

Maybe you should review this thread, as well as this exerpt from the book, "Making Economic Sense - Chapter 12 - Keynesianism Redux":

The triumph of Keynesianism within the Reagan Administration stems from the rapid demise of the monetarists, the main competitors to the Keynesians within respectable academia. Having made a series of disastrously bad predictions, they who kept trumpeting that "science is prediction," the monetarists have retreated in confusion, trying desperately to figure out what went wrong and which of the many "M"s they should fasten on as being the money supply. The collapse of monetarism was symbolized by Keynesian James Baker's takeover as Secretary of the Treasury from monetarist-sympathizer Donald Regan. With Keynesians dominant during the second Reagan term, the transition to a Keynesian Bush team--Bush having always had strong Keynesian leanings--was so smooth as to be almost invisible.

Care to rethink your position?
 
Badmutha - is there any way we can advocate to get you wider exposure? A spot on a national radio show - or even better your own show on TV would be excellent. I would very much love to see you get that opportunity to espouse these opinions to the widest possible audience.
 
You already voted........and elected The Most Expensive President in history.....who as sitting Kenyan Tyrant will make all decisions for you.....

Ryan Budget Gets 40 Votes in Senate, Obama Budget Gets 0 | The Weekly Standard

Ryan Budget Gets 40 Votes in Senate, Obama Budget Gets 0.
.
.
.
.

People are still pushing this "Obama budget got zero votes" thing?

You need to stay away from crappy news sources, all the real news organizations reported the rest of that story. Obama's budget was voted down because a different deal had already been pushed by the time the vote came up, a stronger attempt at cutting the deficit.
 
Here's an opinion piece from WashingtonPost.com that outlines the 5 Myths about the Debt Ceiling and puts the issue in perspective. Of significant importance are myths 1, 3 and 4:



THIS IS THE PRIMARY STICKING POINT TO THE DEBT CEILING DEBATE!!! Remember: Foreign investors (China) owns a large portion of our national debt. Furthermore, I'm willing to bet that much of our recent private investments via the Dows, NASDAQ and NYSE are majority foreign investments. Think of how those private investments along with interest rates on the U.S. bond market would have on our national economy?



The way I see it Republicans would be walking away from the best deal they've had in a long time where spending cuts AND debt/deficit reduction measures are concerned. But their stern partisanship is getting in the way of making significant progress.

saupload_to_whom_does_the_us_government_owe_money.jpg
 
American,

Per your post #70, that still adds up to 30.2% foreign investors...12% less than all investments by U.S. Individuals and Institutions. I'd call that significant. Wouldn't you?
 
Isn't it odd that the GOP is willing to walk away from 4 trillion in cuts? This should be a dream come true for them. But since they're unwilling to agree to any tax hikes whatsoever, they're walking away from the deal of the century. I believe this will come back to bite them in the ass.

If the American people continue to believe that spending money they don't have is the key to prosperity than they deserve what's obviously in store.. I doubt the American people are that foolish, or naive.
 
Last edited:
People are still pushing this "Obama budget got zero votes" thing?

You need to stay away from crappy news sources, all the real news organizations reported the rest of that story. Obama's budget was voted down because a different deal had already been pushed by the time the vote came up, a stronger attempt at cutting the deficit.

There is no such thing as "Obama's budget".

Despite having a majority in the House and Senate for two years he did not pass a budget. He has not passed a budget yet in his third year and it appears unlikely he will. This is a man who, it seems, has never passed a budget of any sort in his life, and appears entirely unfamiliar with the concept.
 
Last edited:
Care to rethink your position?

No, you should seek more than one source.

Historical context
Oil prices 1968–2006; peak is 1980, with steep decline over 1980s.

Prior to the Reagan administration, the United States economy experienced a decade of rising unemployment and inflation, known as stagflation. Political pressure favored stimulus resulting in an expansion of the money supply. President Richard Nixon's wage and price controls were abandoned.[5] The federal oil reserves were created to ease any future short term shocks. President Jimmy Carter started phasing out price controls on petroleum, while he created the Department of Energy. Much of the credit for the resolution of the stagflation is given to two causes: a three year contraction of the money supply by the Federal Reserve Board under Paul Volcker, initiated in the last year of Carter's presidency,[5] and long term easing of supply and pricing in oil during the 1980s oil glut.

Taxes

President Reagan lifted remaining domestic petroleum price and allocation controls on January 28, 1981[6] and lowered the oil windfall profits tax in August 1981, helping to end the 1979 energy crisis. He ended the oil windfall profits tax in 1988 during the 1980s oil glut.[citation needed]

With the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Reagan and Congress sought to broaden the tax base, eliminate many deductions, and reduce rates. In 1983, Democrats Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt had offered a proposal to clean up/broaden the tax base; in 1984 Reagan had the Treasury Department produce its own plan. The eventual bipartisan 1986 act aimed to be revenue-neutral: while it reduced the top marginal rate, it also partially "cleaned up" the tax base by curbing tax loopholes, preferences, and exceptions, thus raising the effective tax on activities previously specially favored by the code.

<snip>

Economic record

Reagan's policies are widely recognized as bringing about the second longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history, surpassed in duration only by the 1990s expansion that began under George H. W. Bush in 1991.[10][11] During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 (in constant 2005 dollars),[12] which reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988, but with peaks of around 9.5% in 1982 and 1983.[13] A net job increase of about 21 million also occurred through mid-1990. Reagan’s administration is the only one not to have raised the minimum wage.[14] The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988, which was achieved by applying high interest rates by the Federal Reserve (peaked at 20% in June 1981).[15] The latter caused a brief recession in 1982: unemployment rose to 9.7% and GDP fell by 1.9%.

Reagan significantly increased public expenditure, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this number in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973.[16] In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.[17] The federal deficit fell from 6% of GDP in 1983 to 3.2% of GDP in 1987.[3] The Federal deficit in Reagan's final budget fell to 2.9% of GDP.[2] The rate of growth in Federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan.[2] As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.[18] This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[19] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[20]

The number of Americans below the poverty level increased from 29.272 million in 1980 to 31.745 million in 1988, which means that, as a percentage of the total population, it remained almost stationary, from 12.95% in 1980 to 13% in 1988.[21] The poverty level for people under the age of 18 increased from 11.543 million in 1980 (18.3% of all child population) to 12.455 (19.5%) in 1988.[22] The share of total income going to the 5% highest-income households grew from 16.5% in 1980 to 18.3% in 1988 and the share of the highest fifth increased from 44.1% to 46.3% in same years. In contrast, the share of total income of the lowest fifth fell from 4.2% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1988 and the second poorest fifth from 10.2% to 9.6%.[23] And during Reagan's first term, homelessness became a visible problem in America's urban centers, leading many to blame Reaganomics.[24] In the closing weeks of his presidency, Reagan told the New York Times that the homeless "make it their own choice for staying out there." [25] Political opponents chided his policies as "Trickle-down economics", due to the significant cuts in the upper tax brackets.[26]

Tax receipts

During the Reagan administration, federal receipts grew at an average rate of 8.2% (2.5% attributed to higher Social Security receipts), and federal outlays grew at an annual rate of 7.1%.[27][28] According to a 1996 report of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress, during Reagan's two terms, and through 1993, the top 10% of taxpayers paid an increased share of tax revenue to the Federal government, while the lowest 50% of taxpayers paid a reduced share of the tax revenue.[29]

According to a United States Department of the Treasury economic study,[30] the major tax bills enacted under Reagan, in the short term, increased total tax revenue and reduced the tax burden on the economy (~-1% of GDP). The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 resulted in a reduced tax burden on the economy (~-3% of GDP) but a decrease in total tax revenues (the largest tax cuts ever enacted).[31] while other tax bills had neutral or, in the case of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, a (~+1% of GDP) increase in revenue as a share of GDP. It should be however noted that the study did not examine the longer-term impact of Reagan tax policy, including sunset clauses and "the long-run, fully-phased-in effect of the tax bills".[30] The fact that tax receipts as a percentage of GDP fell following the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 shows a decrease in tax burden as share of GDP. Total tax revenue from income tax receipts increased during this time. The economic growth and increase in GDP outpaced the increase in tax receipt revenue, resulting in a slightly reduced tax burden as a percentage of GDP for the economy.
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, I do not care to re-think my position. The overall effect of Reagan was to reduce the impact of taxes on the economy, although SOME people (primarily rich people) paid more taxes while at a lower tax rate, since deductions were also eliminated. I think the article you cited is unbalanced. Do you care to re-think your position?
 
Back
Top Bottom