the Debt Deal

[brinstar]

hated it. here's 10 reasons why:

1. giving a subcommittee (the word being thrown around is "supercongress") that kind of budgetary power is ridiculous
2. no tax increases? during a recession? fucking idiots
3. obama and the dems rolled over and gave in to the congressional terrorists instead of just invoking the 14th amendment and giving them the finger
4. the teatards will now be even further emboldened because they helped concoct a deal which cut spending without raising taxes
5. shit, even boehner was willing to play ball until those asswipes strapped on their debt ceiling suicide bombs
6. the rich see a return on their congressional investment
7. meanwhile everyone else gets less for their tax dollars
8. vast majority of americans will continue to give no fucks as long as their supply of american idol and saturated fats goes uninterrupted
9. malcontent nations who wish us harm will think "oh look they're cannibalizing their own government and defense spending, how innnnnnteresting"
10. it'll only get worse

[Spazz]

Word

[Reynaldo]

The funny thing (not really) was that it was supposed to ease economic fears, yet the market tanked worse than it has all year after the news.

[Arlos]

It's a bad deal, but honestly, the alternatives were far, far worse.

1) We default. Interest rates for everything shoot up, even further tanking the housing market. The deficit shoots up, as we now have to pay way more for servicing our existing debt. Basically, very close to a complete global financial meltdown.

2) Invoke 14th amendment, giving us a huge constitutional crisis. Supreme court gets involved, good chance of impeachment proceedings, and probably just about as large a global financial meltdown, as the world sees definitive proof that our government is COMPLETELY dysfunctional, leading to a huge loss of trust, etc.

So yeah, we come out of it looking only MOSTLY dysfunctional, and with a fairly bad bill. Much as I hate it, it's still the best outcome we had available to us, given the complete disconnect from reality and utter intransigence by the tea party fuckwads.

I mean, I disliked Reagan and Bush 1, and the GOP of the time, but fuck, at least they were willing to put at least SOME consideration towards actually governing and running the country. The GOP in the senate didn't automatically filibuster any and all bills, no matter what the source, and both sides were willing to, *gasp* compromise. Hell, "Obamacare" is basically a direct copy of the REPUBLICAN plan from Bob Dole in 93 in response to Clinton's plan. Then came 1994 and New Gengrich, and the first real wave of fanatical zealots on the right. I mean, hell, remember how they deliberately caused a government Shutdown to try and get at Clinton? Backfired, of course, but the sheer fact that they were willing to do it....

Honestly, if you look at the parties these days, the label of conservative has been reversed. Democrats are the one trying to conserve things: Keep social programs alive, keep the government working, etc. Meanwhile, the GOP (especially the tea party wing) are the fanatical bomb-throwing radicals.

Hell, Barry Goldwater called it back in the 80s. In 89, as Newt was getting named Minority Whip, Goldwater said that the GOP was getting taken over by "a bunch of kooks." (Boy, was he right). By 1994, he lamented the growing takeover of the GOP by the radical right, noting that if that takeover ever got completed, that we could "kiss politics goodbye." *Ding* Right again. Hell, in 1996, he told Bob Dole, "We're the new liberals of the Republican party. Can you imagine that?" Now, you know if a party has gone so radically to the right that BARRY fucking GOLDWATER is part of its liberal wing, they have gone COMPLETELY off the deep end. Now, there's a lot that Goldwater stood for that I disagree with, obviously, but I can guarantee you he never once put politics ahead of the good of the nation. Big big difference than the Tea Party, don't you think?

-Arlos

[Lyion]

It's funny that lowering the 'growth' is considered cuts.. and only way down the line...We're still borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend which is the crux of the problem and the big issue the 'Tea Party' has that most seem to ignore. How long can we do that without causing massive inflation or running out of borrowing power?

Anyways, my responses:

1. It was a quick and easy politically expedient compromise. I dislike it, but less than other options.
2. Most economists say tax increases hurt economic growth. I'd personally love a flat tax or changes so corporations and billionaires have some sort of AMT.
3. /shrug. The other side says the same thing, I think.
4. The 'Tea Party' helped the GOP win the 2010 election. We'll see what happens in 2012.
5. The problem was not hardball, it was the fact they should have started this debate last year, especially with the huge spending and lack of a real budget.
6. Most of Wall Street are bipartisan. Even if they had soaked the rich with new taxes, without changing the code they still would be paying next to nothing.
7. Almost 1/2 of America does not pay taxes, so it's tough to say our whole country is invested in the tax debate, isn't it?
8. word.
9. See 8.
10. I remember 1978. Today is nothing compared to then. The cycle will turn back provided we do not bankrupt our country with entitlements and wars.

[Arlos]

As for half of americans not paying taxes...

First, I don't know that I believe that statistic. Seen it thrown around a lot, never seen one shred of proof.
Second, even if it IS close to true, how much of that is because so many people are living on unemployment or working shit part-time McJobs just to have an income? I guarantee you, if the economy were better, you'd have a much higher percentage of people paying taxes. It's not like that 50% figure is some permanent condition, no matter the economic situation. (again, even if true) What percentage of people payed taxes in 1998, for example, using the same criteria to get the current only-50% figure?

-Arlos

[Lyion]

A bigger problem is neither side will take on outsourcing. Especially not Democrats who are firmly in bed with most tech companies, and get a lot of cash from them. They keep wanting to tax these companies more, but that does nothing for jobs.

If you want more jobs, the simplest way to do it is to charge a hefty penalty for any outsourcing.

Another figure I saw that was a bit appalling <to me> was that the US Federal Government sends out 100 million checks every month. Around 50% of our bloated federal budget is going to entitlements and debt. We are spending hundreds of billions each month on entitlements. It's not sustainable unless you want a VAT and welfare state.

[brinstar]

It's funny that lowering the 'growth' is considered cuts.. and only way down the line...We're still borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend which is the crux of the problem and the big issue the 'Tea Party' has that most seem to ignore. How long can we do that without causing massive inflation or running out of borrowing power?

Anyways, my responses:

1. It was a quick and easy politically expedient compromise. I dislike it, but less than other options.
2. Most economists say tax increases hurt economic growth. I'd personally love a flat tax or changes so corporations and billionaires have some sort of AMT.
3. /shrug. The other side says the same thing, I think.
4. The 'Tea Party' helped the GOP win the 2010 election. We'll see what happens in 2012.
5. The problem was not hardball, it was the fact they should have started this debate last year, especially with the huge spending and lack of a real budget.
6. Most of Wall Street are bipartisan. Even if they had soaked the rich with new taxes, without changing the code they still would be paying next to nothing.
7. Almost 1/2 of America does not pay taxes, so it's tough to say our whole country is invested in the tax debate, isn't it?
8. word.
9. See 8.
10. I remember 1978. Today is nothing compared to then. The cycle will turn back provided we do not bankrupt our country with entitlements and wars.

my counter-responses:

1. agreed, it could have been worse
a. but is it even constitutional?
b. the automatic triggers put in place as motivation for bipartisan supercongress compromise is supposedly split 50/50 between defense and domestic spending, which just so happens to be the exact ration of dems to reps on the supercongress. i don't really envision them producing a reasonable compromise too far off from 50/50 defense/domestic, do you? seems a bit honorific
c. wouldn't the members of said supercongress be at great political risk? in the current climate of mudslinging, whichever unlucky 12 saps get singled out to sit on this thing will have HUUUUGE targets on their backs
2. fair enough, but we were mere days away from seeing what happens when a govt doesn't have ENOUGH tax revenue
3. what i see coming from the other side is "hooray, we stood tough and succeeded in accomplishing major spending cuts without raising taxes"
4. i am afraid. i generally think of the GOP as a thieving cabalistic old boy network of rich white oppressors, but jesus christ the TP makes them look like humanitarians in comparison. i foresee more TP zealotards in 2012, regardless of what happens in the POTUS election
5. no it wasn't exactly hardball, you're right - but the aforementioned pack of rabid TP mad(wo)men handily prevented him from agreeing to any compromise that seemed even remotely centrist, especially anything that did not at least allow for the advancement of a discussion on a balanced-budget constitutional amendment (which is FUCKING LOONY)
6. i addressed this complaint to both parties, though i can see how you inferred otherwise - politicians on both sides cater less and less to their constituency and more and more to their campaign contributors
7. even if it's true that only half of americans pay taxes, ALL americans are affected by how those taxes are spent. you are correct - it IS tough to say our whole country is invested in the tax debate - but because we're a country of ignorant morons, not because not everyone actually pays taxes
8. it makes me :facepalm:
9. imo we should cut defense spending by closing military bases around the world. we can't afford to be the world's cops anymore, and the jury's out as to whether we should've been in the first place
10. things are generally cyclical, yes - but i still think starving our govt pushes us in the wrong direction

[Lyion]

I'm curious why you feel a balanced budget constitutional amendment is such a horrid idea?

Is it really that bad to make our government spend what it takes in, and no more? Our government takes in an incredible amount and is hugely wasteful and inefficient. I actually liked the Paygo idea the Dems had when they took over all of congress in 2006. It's just too bad they never actually followed through with it.

[Arlos]

Because it completely hamstrings the government in case it needs to take actions, especially in case of emergency. Could we have fought WW2 without deficit spending, just as one sizable example? What if a terrorist gets a couple nukes and takes out New York and Boston? Think that might cause a dip in revenues? Why should we be forced to compound the damage done by such an attack by immediately forcing ourselves to drop spending by enough to guarantee we won't overspend?

Ultimately, we don't know what crises we may face in the future, and potentially crippling the government's ability to act in response to ongoing issues seems to be a very very bad idea.

I mean, is there some constitutional clause that PREVENTS congress from having a balanced budget without there being an amendment mandating it? If it's REALLY that important to them, they can certainly pass a balanced budget without the need for a straitjacket forcing them to.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

Well, the constitution can be ignored in times of crisis. There also can provisions in case of war or disaster.

Anyways, your reply does not really answer my question on why a balanced budget amendment is such a bad deal. What's really bad to me is when one party gets control and rolls out a trillion dollar 'stimulus' orgy of spending without actually passing a real budget and showing any responsible behavior.

The reason a balanced budget amendment is needed is politicians have proven time and again they are all irresponsible with our taxpayer money and need as many roadblocks to expenditure as possible. Most states have this, and it forces them to act responsibly. The Fed in my opinion also needs this and to be forced to live within their tax provided means.

[Arlos]

Actually, the constitution CANNOT be ignored in time of crisis. Allowing random shunting aside of inconvenient provisions just because some "crisis" has been declared opens a *HUGE* can of worms. Sure, WW2 was a legitimate crisis, but who is to say that some future Congress/President won't declare a "crisis" just to ignore some part of the constitution they don't like, or that prevents them from a long-term consolidation of power? (ie, "It is now the 10th term of President Forlifer, as Congress once again voted to suspend the 22nd amendment in light of the ongoing grave crisis...")

In fact, the only thing I KNOW can be suspended in time of war or rebellion is the writ of Habeas Corpus. Not the rest of it.

-Arlos

[Tikker]

The reason a balanced budget amendment is needed is politicians have proven time and again they are all irresponsible with our taxpayer money and need as many roadblocks to expenditure as possible. Most states have this, and it forces them to act responsibly. The Fed in my opinion also needs this and to be forced to live within their tax provided means.

100% agree

I personally think it's ludicrous that it's not been a major staple of federal government (everywhere) for hundreds of years

[brinstar]

Well, the constitution can be ignored in times of crisis. There also can provisions in case of war or disaster.

Anyways, your reply does not really answer my question on why a balanced budget amendment is such a bad deal. What's really bad to me is when one party gets control and rolls out a trillion dollar 'stimulus' orgy of spending without actually passing a real budget and showing any responsible behavior.

The reason a balanced budget amendment is needed is politicians have proven time and again they are all irresponsible with our taxpayer money and need as many roadblocks to expenditure as possible. Most states have this, and it forces them to act responsibly. The Fed in my opinion also needs this and to be forced to live within their tax provided means.

the stimulus you're probably referring to has already mostly paid for itself, as i understand it. can't really say that about the wars and deep tax cuts for the wealthy Dubya left us

obviously i'm not saying that unrestricted out-of-control spending is a good thing, nor would i even begin to challenge your opinion that politicians (again, on both sides) continue to act like they don't give half a fuck about taxpayer dollars... but slapping a concrete lid on top and saying THOU SHALT BALANCE THE BUDGET DOWN TO THE LAST PENNY OR ELSE is just as irresponsible in my book. yeah you can bake in failsafes for contingencies (external attack, natural disaster, etc) but expecting the govt to adhere to its own rules when it is perfectly capable of changing/ignoring them on a whim seems like a disingenuous waste of time and resources

imo we need another kind of balance - what i'm talking about here is balance between trimming fat and inefficiency from programs (instead of cutting them altogether) in order to reduce operating costs AND tapping into underutilized sources of revenue. the problem with both parties in power is that they're each interested in only one or the other

[Phlegm]

Apparently the deal wasn't enough. S&P just downgraded the the US credit rating.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 5-20-42-31