home

The Pledge

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:11:17 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Here is how I think the posturing on the super commission on the debt will play out - Dems will be for Simpson-Bowles (Kerry and Murray said yes to Simpson-Bowles. Baucus said no, but, come on, it's Baucus.) Republicans will be for no new taxes. Joan McCarter fills us in on the GOP picks:

John Boehner (R-Ohio) has appointed Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.), Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and House Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) to serve on the deficit supercommittee. [. . .] Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) appointed his deputy Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), former Bush budget director Rob Portman (R-Ohio), and Tea Party favorite Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.)

The kicker - all six are slaves to Grover Norquist and his no new revenues pledge.

So we now see what the atmospherics will be. What about the result? No deal means automatic cuts. Is there room for a no revenues deal? Only the President knows. I assume Yes.

Speaking for me only

< Let Them Eat Cake | Thursday Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Pledge | 125 comments (125 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    What is there to say? (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:17:28 AM EST
    Nuthin that will be heard.  And that is why there will be riots in our streets too.  Take a look at the UK and see us in about six months to a year.

    Yup, there about that far ahead ... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 03:28:22 PM EST
    on the austerity measures, so we're about that far behind on the riots.

    Parent
    Here? (none / 0) (#64)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 10:22:16 PM EST
    I'll believe it when I see it.

    I believe civic sense has been wrung out of us in the last three decades.  I see people dropping out and/or knuckling under.  Apathy, resignation, etc.  Low expectations, I believe, will be the norm.  

    I know, pessimistic, but given the way public life has played out in recent years people have no understanding about how we got into this mess and no clue about how to get out of the mess and there are no leaders to show the way.

    Look what happened in '08.  Some signs of wisdom when Democrats won big margins in the House and Senate and took back the White House.  Even with such heavy Wall Street command of many Democrats a responsible leader could have made progress reversing the course.  But the top of the ticket was occupied by a weak reed and the potential for turnaround was lost.  How confusing it must be for the casual observer.

    Parent

    Agree---apathy or ignorance rules (none / 0) (#80)
    by klassicheart on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 02:41:59 AM EST
    And there is no uproar in the media...not even from so called progressive voices...Americans are suckers...The progressives and liberals of the creative class were suckered by Democratic leadership and those phony Dems supporting Obama just as Republicans have been suckered by the Koch Tea Party.  But Dems did have a leader...and they didn't fight for her..they went for a phony progressive with no history and no accomplishments...a marketing phenomena...But leadership is critical...and when all is said and done...Dems don't fight...So why would they expect a leader who fights?

    Parent
    I don't think it can completely (none / 0) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 05:18:48 AM EST
    be wrung out of anyone.  It is sort of a mixed bag to ruminate on our lack of organized anger that the deaf can no longer ignore.  It is somewhat reassuring that we "expect" solutions will eventually come if we hold tight, that we don't react violently easily.  But we aren't immune.  We are human too, and if solutions aren't produced and I'm not seeing any on the horizon, we will be rubbing up against that fragility and our needs.

    Parent
    Hey, why waste time doing anything (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 01:39:10 PM EST
    that could really have a positive effect on the economy, when we all know what's most important is...configuring a message.

    From David Dayen, who brings us Robert Reich:

    I tend to look at the available evidence from the President, that he wants to enact a "grand bargain" that cuts safety net spending far more than raising taxes, that he's willing to put really misguided proposals like raising the Medicare eligibility age and cutting federal participation in Medicaid on the table, and I make the banal judgment that the man is telling me who he is and what he wants. But Robert Reich has some additional insight from inside the White House, who argue that no, this is all just a deeply cynical ploy.

    I'm told White House political operatives are against a bold jobs plan. They believe the only jobs plan that could get through Congress would be so watered down as to have almost no impact by Election Day. They also worry the public wouldn't understand how more government spending in the near term can be consistent with long-term deficit reduction. And they fear Republicans would use any such initiative to further bash Obama as a big spender.

    So rather than fight for a bold jobs plan, the White House has apparently decided it's politically wiser to continue fighting about the deficit. The idea is to keep the public focused on the deficit drama - to convince them their current economic woes have something to do with it, decry Washington's paralysis over fixing it, and then claim victory over whatever outcome emerges from the process recently negotiated to fix it. They hope all this will distract the public's attention from the President's failure to do anything about continuing high unemployment and economic anemia.

    So out of fear for the short-term political hit of additional spending, the Administration refuses to fix the economy, consigning millions of Americans to additional suffering. And they want to use the deficit as a political device to distract attention from said additional suffering.

    I feel like I live in Crazy Town, because this is just insane.

    Completely beyond me why (none / 0) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 03:37:33 PM EST
    any political "operative" would think it would be a Bad Thing for Obama to come out fighting for jobs, whether he wins or loses.

    Talk about living in a bubble.

    Parent

    Insane, yet perfectly consistent with (none / 0) (#57)
    by masslib on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 07:38:45 PM EST
    this administration.  There is no policy agenda.  It's all politics.

    Parent
    We are in Crazy Town (none / 0) (#65)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 10:27:46 PM EST
    But policy will always take a backseat for the Administration.  We have a standard bearer whose only skill is in running for office, for gaining acceptance.

    Garry Wills tells it better.

    Parent

    Actually some of this was predictable (none / 0) (#81)
    by klassicheart on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 02:47:26 AM EST
    Maybe not the extent of the betrayal...but hey...Obama did extoll the virtues of Reagan in the primaries...Some of us understood....clearly not enough of us.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#113)
    by cal1942 on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 11:49:39 AM EST
    it was predictable and predicted.

    I talked myself blue in the face trying to dissuade people in my county's Democratic Party to no avail and in fact to ridicule.

    Parent

    The only hope for the economy (none / 0) (#2)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:24:49 AM EST
    with this clown show is large tax cuts for the middle and lower classes. Forcing revenue increases isn't going to help the economy one bit. It's just more deficit hawkery.

    Federal taxes on anyone earning under $65k should be cut to zero. The FICA tax should be eliminated. This will go a long way toward stimulus.

    None of this will happen, of course. The mandate of this commission is to find ways to further damage the economy. We are ruled by imbeciles.

    Selfish, careless, malevolent imbeciles n/t (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 12:03:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Bought and paid for (none / 0) (#114)
    by cal1942 on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 11:51:07 AM EST
    imbeciles and that part, given the Citizens United decision, will get worse.

    Parent
    Amazing (none / 0) (#9)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 12:18:58 PM EST
    .

    The only hope for the economy with this clown show is large tax cuts for the middle and lower classes.

    That is where the bulk of the tax reductions went in the "Bush tax cuts."  Old George has more supporters than ever it seems.

    Parent

    timing is everything (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CST on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 12:28:02 PM EST
    and pretending like you need the same policy in place when underlying conditions are changing is just stupid.

    When George did it it was unnecessary.  But we've had a lot of bills in the last session that attempted to save the middle/lower class tax cuts and get rid of the upper class ones, but the Repubs wouldn't support that, becasue we all know they just threw in these tax cuts as a "bone" to keep the other ones in place.

    Parent

    This is false (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 12:36:17 PM EST
    You've spent too much time listening to Rush. I'm not advocating for any further tax cuts to the rich, other than what they would receive on their first $65k of income.

    Secondly, if you had ever read my comments you'd see I'm one of the few people around here who disagrees with Obama when he demands more revenue. The last thing the economy needs right now is more federal revenue. Increased federal revenue results from a good economy, it does not cause a good economy.

    Thirdly, I advocate spending increases more than tax cuts as they are more stimulative dollar for dollar. My point is that with spending increases entirely off the table, tax cuts to the middle and lower classes are all we have left. I'd like to see Republicans say no to that. Since you seem to think my ideas wholly support George Bush, I guess Republicans would be all for the tax cuts I am suggesting. Good for them.

    Parent

    One Problem (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 10:34:37 PM EST
    Levying very high taxes on high income will help the economy.

    So much of the nation's wealth is trapped at the top.  Tax it and spend it directly into the economy.

    Tax the hell out of it to reduce financial support for right-wing organizations.

    Don't stop at rolling back the Bush tax cuts.  Roll back the Reagan tax cuts.

    Parent

    It is literally trapped at the top (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 10:45:49 PM EST


    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#70)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 10:56:20 PM EST
    it doesn't get back out into society.  It's not invested in public goods to strengthen the nation.

    It's invested overseas, used to buy more power, etc.

    IMO, in a modern society, low taxes on the very wealthy are a symptom of weakness.

    Parent

    If the Bush tax cuts expired for only income (none / 0) (#18)
    by Buckeye on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 01:50:14 PM EST
    above $250K, that would bring $700B over the next ten years.  If the Bush tax cuts expired for everyone, it would bring in $3.7T.  Over 80% of the tax cuts went to income earned below $250K.  

    Parent
    I think the point is not to raise taxes at all (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Lacey on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 02:03:57 PM EST
    From what I have read, most economists argue liberals and conservatives are kind of prescribing the wrong medicine. First, the last thing you want to do in a recovery is cut government spending, as conservatives propose. It makes things worse. But, the liberal argument to raise taxes, even on the rich, is also not going help during a recovery. The problem of long-term debt can be dealt with if the economy improves and a long-term plan is put in place that will look at increasing taxes and cutting back on spending once the improvement has taken hold.

    Parent
    Those earining above $500K on up can absorb a (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by jawbone on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 02:20:26 PM EST
    repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts. The higher rate would apply only to earnings above $500K. Even if it were for those earning $250K or more, it would be only on the taxable amounts above $250K, not on all the persons's earnings.

    And people told pollsters in December that they wanted Obama to stand firm on 1) repealing the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy, and 2), if that was impossible, to let all the Bush Tax Cuts expire. By two to one.

    We would be well on our way to meeting the budget shortfalls -- or might even be able to fund some social policy programs and also pay down the deficit.

    Obama, as is his wont, ignored what the people want.  He wanted to be able to cut SocSec/MM, and he got his way, possibly hurting the nation far more than we know yet, in putting off the debt ceioing increase to do so.

    Parent

    Disagree (none / 0) (#29)
    by Lacey on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 02:34:40 PM EST
    Whether people want those taxes increased or not is beside the point. The point is that, right now, taxes shouldn't be increased and spending shouldn't be cut. Doing either of which hinders the recovery. Second, there are no cuts to social security or medicare. You may think there will be, but as of yet there are not any cuts to either system.

    Parent
    Lacey (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:05:10 PM EST
    it helps the economy when high incomes are heavily taxed.  Those revenues can be spent directly into the economy.  

    The 400 highest incomes in this country, which average $340 million, pay a paltry 16.6% in federal taxes.  That enormous amount of discretionary money is not spent in the economy.  Much of it is invested overseas or spent to increase the individual's power and influence.  In effect the money represents a considerable amount of the nation's total wealth and allowing it to be stagnant is a drag on the economy.  Tax it.  Tax the hell out of it and spend it.

    Parent

    You're not paying attention (none / 0) (#74)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:29:22 PM EST
    Obama has no plans to tax in order to spend. He wants to tax in order to pay down the debt. I.e. he wants to tax money and eliminate it from the economy. This helps absolutely no one.

    If Obama actually did want to spend (which he does not), he doesn't have to raise taxes one penny in order to do it. What he needs is congressional approval. With that he can spend however much is needed to get the economy moving again. The federal government does not spend tax money or borrowed money. It spends money out of thin air.

    If you doubt me, consider this. The government would have no money to tax or borrow if it hadn't spent money into the economy in the first place. Thus the government does not need to tax or borrow in order to spend. It must first spend in order for it to tax or borrow.

    Parent

    Here is economist... (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by desertswine on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 12:07:33 AM EST
    JK Galbraith's take on Obama. I am particularly moved by the last paragraph.

    Parent
    That's scathing (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 05:09:21 AM EST
    I wish more "esteemed" Keynesian economists would let him have it with both barrels of the truth like that.

    Parent
    Jamie Galbraith is a (none / 0) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 08:40:39 AM EST
    pull-no-punches genuine lefty economist.  How he survives down in Texas is beyond me.

    His book "The Predator State" is devastating.  Anybody who thinks Krugman is "shrill" should read Galbraith.  Krugman's a pussycat by comparison.

    Parent

    Many thanks (none / 0) (#112)
    by cal1942 on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 11:45:56 AM EST
    for the link Desert.

    Parent
    Thank you so much for this link. (none / 0) (#116)
    by rennies on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 03:14:56 PM EST
    Read it, everybody -- and send it on.

    Parent
    You didn't get it (none / 0) (#109)
    by cal1942 on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 10:58:54 AM EST
    I was not talking about Obama's "plans," which won't happen anyway and in the current environment it's impossible to put together a proper tax code.

    I was talking about the way we should be using the tax code.

    Our most prosperous period was a high upper income tax period that made the nation's wealth available for public goods.

    And that's the whole point, use the wealth to strengthen the nation, don't let it sit around under the control of a handful of people.  The individuals holding that wealth got it from the people as a whole and in a healthy society much of that wealth should go back into public investment.

    Parent

    Cal, I think what Obama plans to do with (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 11:39:41 AM EST
    any increased revenue is an important point to consider.

    If I give more money to the government in the form of taxes, and the government just uses it to offset its deficit, how is that increased revenue helping the economy?  I don't have the money - so I can't do anything with it anymore.  I can't spend it, I can't invest it, I can't use it to pay down any of my own debt, which, unlike the government, actually does affect my financial well-being.

    If the government doesn't spend it or invest it - what's the point?  

    If, on the other hand, the government collects more revenue for the express purpose of being able to spend it - redirect it, really - in areas of the economy that benefit from it, then, yes, it makes sense.  And this is precisely why the GOP has a problem with it - it's the foundation of their old, tired argument that the people know better how to spend their money than the government does.

    The Obama plan seems to be to (1) cut the amount of money it is currently spending, and (2) attempt to increase revenue not to spend it, but to cancel out some debt.

    As near as I can tell, this helps no one.  It won't reverse the downward spiral no matter how much the Obama administration wants to believe it, or how hard they sell it.

    For whatever reason, the Obama administration seems to believe that "balance" has to be spending cuts on the one side, and tax increases on the other, when in fact, what would really bring our debt and our economy into balance would be to spend more to put people back to work.  Working people pay taxes, and don't require as much in the way of government services; they spend their wages in the local economy which increases demand and helps create more jobs.

    The responsibility of government is to act in this way when the private sector cannot or will not, and our government's failure to do so is approaching the criminal, in my opinion.


    Parent

    Obama plans to use the money cut from (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 05:15:23 PM EST
    domestic and safety net programs to "reform" the tax code. "Reform" is the word they are now using when they talk about reducing corporate taxes and lowering the taxes on the uber-rich.

    So Obama plans to "reform" the safety net programs and "reform" taxes. IOW both are being cut. The U.S. will reduce the benefits people paid for in order to increase the welfare programs for corporations and the top 2%.

    Parent

    Again (none / 0) (#120)
    by cal1942 on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 11:41:58 AM EST
    my point was not about Obama or current fiscal policy.  Given the current environment no real reform is possible and I fully understand that spending will be reduced and any revenue increase won't be spent. In fact, I suspect marginal tax rates on very high income individuals and corporations have a better chance of being lowered as part of some spurious compromise.

    My point was about steeply graduated taxes in general.

    Parent

    I've already rebutted (none / 0) (#110)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 11:05:08 AM EST
    your point that higher taxes on the wealthy produce a better economy. Perhaps that was true in the 1960s when the US was still on the gold standard, although I doubt high taxes on the wealthy was the cause of prosperity during that time. I think stronger labor unions and a better regulated financial system had more to do with it.

    But the USA gave up the gold standard completely in 1971. It does not need to increase taxes on the wealthy in order to create prosperity. This can be seen from the fact that under a fiat money system the government must spend money before it can even tax it, otherwise there would be no money for it to tax! It is the government spending that creates the prosperity, not the taxation.

    Parent

    I don't disagree (none / 0) (#117)
    by Lacey on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 04:27:42 PM EST
    Under most circumstances, I would say go for it. But it makes no sense to raise taxes on the wealthy and distribute that money to other income groups in a recession. Instead, leave the tax rates where they are and borrow the money at crazy low interest rates. When the economy begins to improve, than raise those taxes to help cover the money you borrowed.

    Parent
    Other than (none / 0) (#23)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 02:20:01 PM EST
    the idea of a long-term debt problem, which I don't agree exists, I agree with your comment. Neither party has the right idea for fixing the economy as neither party is advocating for stimulus.

    Parent
    The debt problem is not a big problem (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Lacey on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 02:36:55 PM EST
    Once the economy improves and the two wars wrap up. I think it is prudent and necessary and responsible for any government to have a plan in place that properly addresses long-term debt and eventually gets away from deficit spending. That, too me, is a liberal position. That should require a mix of eventual tax increases and spending reductions. Where you reduce spending is key.  

    Parent
    Deficit spending (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 02:49:33 PM EST
    is how new money gets added to the economy. If you put a stop to it and go for surpluses year after year you will drain the economy of money until eventually it's all gone.

    Parent
    At some point, you have to stop deficit spending (none / 0) (#35)
    by Lacey on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 02:55:31 PM EST
    The question is when to stop. You don't do it during a recovery, you do it once a recovery is in place. Eventually, you use budget surpluses to pay off the debt you accumulated.

    Parent
    You stop deficit spending (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 03:01:15 PM EST
    when the economy is running at full capacity, unemployment is at zero more-or-less and further deficit spending would cause inflation.

    You and I are unlikely to see this point ever reached given the current state of economic thought and policy.

    Parent

    You're probably right (none / 0) (#38)
    by Lacey on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 03:05:34 PM EST
    Because I don't believe full employment is ever possible.

    Parent
    It is possible (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 03:12:33 PM EST
    It's just contrary to the thinking and policies that our elites have been providing us with for about 40 years now. The elites pay lip service to the idea of increasing employment, but refuse to enact policies that will allow it to happen.

    The only markets that get their attention are the financial and stock markets. Improving the labor market is the least of their concerns. Economists have come up with all sorts of garbage theories to justify governments continuing these policies. There is no hope that this will change while Obama is president. I doubt his immediate successor will be any different.

    Parent

    I just don't think it's prudent (none / 0) (#42)
    by Lacey on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 03:20:55 PM EST
    We shouldn't run deficits every year until we eventually have zero unemployment. When was the last time unemployment was at zero? Run deficits to get the economy moving, once it's on track than you look at cutting back.

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 03:27:26 PM EST
    What is the problem with deficits? Why are they more important than jobs? The US has run deficits almost every single year of its entire existence. Interest rates on government debt are at all time lows.

    Parent
    Because you're paying off the debt (none / 0) (#90)
    by Lacey on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 07:46:14 AM EST
    Every dollar spent paying debt is money not being spent to improve the lives of people. Government should increase spending during bad times, but during good times it should move to pay off the debts it accumulated. Paying interest on money borrowed means less spending in another area.

    Parent
    Paying some interest (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 08:23:19 AM EST
    on money borrowed is stimulative in ways too though along with economically expansive.  There is a golden mean window to be had.  It isn't really a black and white dogma that leads to a healthy economy, it is about having a healthy mix of everything on the field and available.  Why did we lose our credit rating though?  Because our debt ratios are abysmal and there is no political will in sight to raise taxes on the filthy rich and immediately improve them.  There is will to cut "entitlements" and the economic contraction multiplier in doing that is pretty daunting...literally every dollar they cut from "entitlements" will be cut right out of the dollar being spent on mainstreet leading to more economic contraction and a further loss of tax revenues.  A benefit may never be reflected in our debt ratios going about it in that fashion.  At best it can only be very incremental....eventually....and that reality is NOT confidence building in any fashion.

    Parent
    Paying interest on money (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 08:24:18 AM EST
    borrowed is still spending. And no it does not mean less spending in other areas because the USA is on a fiat currency, i.e. it can spend whatever it needs to spend to create a robust economy.

    Parent
    This is so silly to say (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:03:32 AM EST
    when you look up the history of fiat currencies.  The average life expectancy of a fiat currency is 27 years.  Fiat currencies have to managed too, if that wasn't so why have so many of them blown themselves up in a whole assortment of different ways?

    Parent
    What on earth (none / 0) (#97)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:07:37 AM EST
    are you talking about? The USA has had a fiat currency for 40 years. Canada has operated a fiat currency for 89 years. What blow ups are you referring to? We had plenty of blow ups under the gold standard. The 1800s had several 'panics', and the Great Depression happened under the gold standard.

    Parent
    40 years is usually the max (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:10:42 AM EST
    before a fiat currency needs at least a retooling.  But you run around here spewing junk economic "talk" about fiat currencies somehow being all powerful and if it were true, why is the average lifespan of a fiat currencies 27 years?

    We are doing well at 40 years, but looking seriously seriously like we need a retooling. Fiat currencies must be managed or they will manage you until there is a reset of some sort :)

    Parent

    You'll have to offer some (none / 0) (#102)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:12:34 AM EST
    evidence for your 27 year statistic, as well as a definition of what you mean by 'blow up' and 'retooling'.

    Since when did you become a gold bug? Just so you know there isn't a country left that uses the gold standard. Fiat is here to stay.

    Parent

    And why am I stopping there (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:07:48 AM EST
    since you call me a "deficit hawk". How does a fiat currency acquire its worth?  It acquires its worth through its ability to collect tax revenues.  OY....economics 101.

    Parent
    I agree with that (none / 0) (#99)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:09:50 AM EST
    So what's your point? Are you becoming a gold bug too?

    Parent
    Am I a gold bug? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:11:23 AM EST
    Is there no end to your knee jerk junk economic talk?

    Parent
    Tracy (none / 0) (#103)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:13:56 AM EST
    you offer some of the silliest economic talk I've ever seen. You claim to be a Keynesian but you are full of talk about needing more revenue in a recession and bizarre attempts to slam the fiat currency system. I don't know where you get these ridiculous ideas.

    Parent
    You sound like some kind (none / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:24:16 AM EST
    of religious freak, that I must worship something God like about fiat currency.  It is like anything in life, it is a tool. It isn't a God and it does not have Godlike qualities and I'm not anti Keynesian or less Keynesian because I lack religious fervor for the words "fiat currency" when you type them and I'm willing to stick with the facts, the facts of life, and history.  Keynesian economics isn't about pulling magic out of your arse though I'm sure the Tim Geithner and Larry Summers and several Hedge funds that haven't collapsed yet might disagree with me.

    Parent
    I'm really sick (none / 0) (#105)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 09:26:15 AM EST
    and tired of you. Please just eff off and stop responding to my comments if you don't have an actual argument and evidence.

    Parent
    Warren (none / 0) (#121)
    by cal1942 on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    You are over the top harsh on MT.

    There's a nasty, personally insulting edge to your comments.

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#122)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 01:32:16 PM EST
    and being likened to a 'religious freak' isn't nasty, harsh, personal, insulting etc? You're being a hypocrite and playing favorites. Respond to my points and I'll respond to yours. Call me a religious freak and I'll tell you where you can put it.

    Parent
    I didn't call you (none / 0) (#123)
    by cal1942 on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 04:10:24 PM EST
    a religious freak.  The tone of your response demonstrates my point.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#124)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 09:31:31 PM EST
    You can't possibly be this obtuse, can you?

    You attacked me for my response to Tracy, but you didn't criticize Tracy in the least for her insult of me as a being like a religious freak. Therefore you are a hypocrite and playing favorites. You like Tracy more than you like me so you ignore her bad behavior and accuse me of bad behavior instead, when all I am doing is defending myself against dishonest and irrational attacks aimed against me personally and not aimed at the logic of my arguments. You both disgust me, frankly.

    Parent

    Once again (none / 0) (#125)
    by cal1942 on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 11:51:19 PM EST
    your tone demonstrates my point.

    Parent
    Once again (none / 0) (#126)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 09:02:13 AM EST
    you demonstrate your thorough hypocrisy. Despicable.

    Parent
    I meant to add (none / 0) (#94)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 08:47:27 AM EST
    that you are right in the sense that paying down the debt isn't necessarily a bad thing, because the government doesn't need to borrow a penny in order to spend. It chooses to do so as a relic of the gold standard. The real function of federal spending in the fiat era is 1) to provide the Fed with a mechanism to drain excess reserves from the banking system in order to hit its target interest rate and 2) to provide free money to the already-wealthy in the form of interest payments on federal debt.

    But, as we saw from QE and QEII, the debt can be paid off with fiat money at the stroke of a keyboard, and no inflation will result. The federal government doesn't need to borrow or tax in order to spend. It can spend 'greenbacks' if it chose to just like Lincoln did. Lincoln could not tax or borrow greenbacks until he first spend them.

    The problem with Barack Obama is that he thinks he has to pay off debt with tax money. This is false. He also thinks the annual deficit is too large and he wants to make it smaller by increasing taxes. He does not plan to use tax increases to increase spending. He plans to take that increased revenue and use that to mathematically reduce the deficit. The revenue money itself will just be shredded.

    Parent

    Oops (none / 0) (#95)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 08:48:41 AM EST
    I meant to say 'the real purpose of federal borrowing'. Sorry

    Parent
    Once the economy's on track, (none / 0) (#53)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 03:55:13 PM EST
    a lot of the spending will self-adjust downward.  As more people go back to work, fewer people will be receiving unemployment, and getting assistance through other government programs.  And so on.

    This is how it's supposed to work - this is the kind of balance our dim-witted representatives should be talking about - the balance between public and private spending, with public spending going up when the private sector can't or won't, and going down when the private sector gets back in the game.

    I wish people would stop thinking about deficits as something to fear, and look at them more like a valuable tool.  I blame the collective body of representatives, and the media, for the constant - and wrong - comparison to the "household budget" or to a credit card, because it has made people believe deficits are evil and scary and to be avoided no matter what the cost to them personally.

    If more people realized how this entire issue was being manipulated for ideological purposes, they would flat-out lose their minds.

    Keep the people afraid: it worked to allow the diminution of our civil and privacy rights in the wake of 9/11, and now it's working to screw with the average person's financial well-being.

    I'd say it was unconscionable, but that would mean those pushing it would actually have to have a conscience.

    Parent

    My husband asked tonight (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 08:30:14 PM EST
    what happened to big labor with their money and influence in the WI fight?  Sort of frustrated just a tiny little kept to myself bit, because few military types understand other sides of the coin that feeds us all and some labor issues have been a learning experience for him that came with the marriage and the new union family members that are now retiring boomers.

    I know he hasn't been cognitively present for this whole labor fight, but two generations of systematic cultural demonization campaigns is what happened to the big labor that was able to show up to fight the Kosh brothers.

    Parent

    Labor had a lot of skin in that fight (none / 0) (#63)
    by DFLer on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 09:20:14 PM EST
    from cash for ads, to phone calling to door knocking.

    Locally, the SE MN Labor Council AFL-CIO,  did a lot of that for the Kapanke race across the river in La Croasse WI.

    The Dem defeated Kapanke. Yay.

    I think you may mean the Koch brothers.

    Parent

    typo ...sorry (none / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 10:44:58 PM EST
    I think what threw my husband though is the notion he has been fed forever that when the Unions show up to a fight it is a steam roller coming to town.  The days of Unions packing that kind of social power doesn't exist right now.  I think it may come to pass again, but will it come to pass the same way it came about before?  Will it take that kind of violence and that much raw anger to empower a serious Union presence again?  I fear it will and I fear we will see it in my lifetime too.

    Parent
    No, you really don't (none / 0) (#47)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 03:31:07 PM EST
    You want to keep the deficit to reasonable proportions, like it's always been, but there's absolutely no need to eliminate it, and in fact, as Warren says, it would be a Bad Thing to not have defecit spending by the government.

    The federal budget really has no relationship to a family budget, a credit card, or even a business.

    Parent

    Deficit spending by the government is (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 08:31:14 PM EST
    wonderful and economically expansive when we have healthy revenues.

    Parent
    Budget cutting and (none / 0) (#77)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 12:48:41 AM EST
    contractionary policies are insane when we're in an unrelenting recession. You know that.

    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 05:04:54 AM EST
    The point I had hoped to make above was that even when the economy is sufficient, running a deficit that doesn't damage our debt ratios usually has an expansive beneficial for all affect.  So the balanced budget dogma is a bit irrational.

    Parent
    The Bush tax cuts (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 02:17:36 PM EST
    of 2003 resulted in a decrease of 3.6% for incomes above $311,000. Incomes below that got a 2% decrease, but incomes under $28k got no decrease at all, other than a tiny little break on income between $6k and $7k, which saved everyone a whopping $150.

    So someone who earned a million bucks that year saved about $26,000, i.e. 2.6% of his income, while the guy earning $26,000 saved only $150, i.e. 0.58% of his income. And every single person earning over $7,000 got that same $150 savings anyway. The Bush tax cuts were regressive.

    Parent

    T/U for this reminder. I knew this, but had (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jawbone on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 02:23:44 PM EST
    forgotten.

    Obama in giving the Republicans in December more than they dreamed they would get also gave a little flick off his shoulder to the poorest taxpayers: He actually had them paying slightly more than the previous year.

    Givent the marginal utility of money, that hurts these people way more than an actual increase would have hurt the high earners.

    What a Dem prez!!!

    Parent

    $249,999 is "middle class"? (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 02:23:16 PM EST
    Weird.

    I always thought "middle class" meant, ... ya know ...

    ... near the middle.

    Parent

    Median income -- the one actually in the middle (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jawbone on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 02:30:53 PM EST
    In 2005:

    According to the US Census men tended to have higher income than women while Asians and Whites earned more than African Americans and Hispanics. The overall median personal income for all individuals over the age of 18 was $25,149[4] ($32,140 for those age 25 or above) in the year 2005.[5] The overall median income for all 155 million persons over the age of 15 who worked with earnings in 2005 was $28,567.[6]

    I've been looking for a more recent medial income, but havne't found one.  Does anyone here have that figure?

    Incomes for lower earners has been either dropping slightly or barely holding steady in buying power.  I don't know what the Big $hit Pile mess and the long recession/job depression has done to that figure. I'm assuming that if one earns nothing, a number which has been growing, they don't get counted toward median income...right? Wrong?

    Parent

    Then we aren't middle class (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 08:31:53 PM EST


    Parent
    that's right (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:14:10 PM EST
    sociocultural markers aside (whatever they may be), & size of income aside (whatever it may be), you are not middle class to the extent that your life depends on your ability to sell your time in exchange for sustenance

    that makes almost everyone who is working at all a member of the working class

    the sooner the "middle class" & the "lower middle class" & portions of the "upper middle class" come to accept this reality, the better it will be for almost everyone in the country

    Parent

    Warren T. does your (none / 0) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 02:58:28 PM EST
    thinking, when you say the economy does not now need more federal revenue, include maintaining  the estate tax/ gift tax part of the Deal?   Estate taxes derive from past economies, but a return to the $l million threshold and greater rates would be an increase.  Hence, I take it that estate taxes should also not be changed from the two-year run of the Deal.  

    Parent
    I say (none / 0) (#41)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 03:19:51 PM EST
    leave taxes on the rich, including estate taxes, where they are, lower taxes on the middle class and poor, and raise government spending.

    Parent
    I agree with Warren (none / 0) (#44)
    by Lacey on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 03:22:08 PM EST
    It makes no sense right now to raise any taxes. And it makes no sense to cut back on government spending.

    Parent
    Thank you and to Lacey, too (none / 0) (#52)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 03:48:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Toomey is a Tea Party bat guano crazy freshman (none / 0) (#3)
    by jawbone on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:26:37 AM EST
    senator.

    Perhaps  Pope Grover I will give dispensation for them to raise revenues in exchange for killing SocSec and Medicare.

    Toomey's last job (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:31:11 AM EST
    was to chair the Club for Growth. There's no way he's agreeing to a remotely acceptable deal. Period.

    Parent
    His definition of growth... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 12:04:47 PM EST
    ...is to wither on the vine, die, then fall to earth and decompose.  Jesus will then return.

    Parent
    You stole my comment. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 10:06:47 AM EST
    But you are absolutely correct. Toomey is of the no compromise breed. Club for Growth is worse than Norquist's organization on that tax thing.

    Parent
    What about Portman? (none / 0) (#115)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 03:08:35 PM EST
    I definitely agree that Toomey is the hardest nose of the hard rights.  While my recall of Portman as budget director years ago was that he was quite conservative as well, the updates in recent years paint him as the least nutty of the Repub Senate threesome on the Committee. That, of course, doesn't say much these days....

    Parent
    Patty Pathetic & Kerry (none / 0) (#5)
    by seabos84 on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:46:59 AM EST
    Kerry Kerry Kerry - I remember the Queen Anne Yuppie-0-crats of Seattle coming out of the woodwork from their leafy neighborhoods to support Kerry cuz he was electable and, how could the right wing lie about a war hero and ... Howard Dean will scare the moderately independently swinging centrists, and we'll lose!!!! (DFH! DFH!)

    That year I checked off the name of Murray and the name of the "electable" guy - who was the lying flat earther running against Patty Pathetic in '04? ... yawn ... whatever.

    Last year I wrote in "Medicare ForAll" instead of checking off Patty Pathetic's name - and I have NEVER regretted it.

    Ya see, I still got all the right wing lies coming outta a Phake Democrat, I still got all the crap sell out votes, I still got all the Queen Anne yuppies making excuses outta their double talking yuppie traps - BUT I DIDN'T VOTE FOR IT!

    Too bad Las Vegas book makers are too smart to allow me to bet on me getting sold out, cuz I would bet my retirement on it!  

    rmm.

    Time for sit-ins at all Patty's (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 03:37:14 PM EST
    in-state offices by locals.

    If I weren't so sick, I'd lead it myself.

    Parent

    Well... I'd do it, except for the fact that (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 08:15:52 PM EST
    1) Mmes. Murray and Cantwell are firmly ensconced within the walls of the heavily securitized Jackson Federal Building

    and

    2) Both of their offices already loathe me

    (I might add, the feeling is mutual.)

    Parent

    Not good. Be nice to the staff (none / 0) (#62)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 09:01:30 PM EST
    whether you loath the boss or not.

    And there's always the Tacoma office on Pacific Ave. or Spokane or Yakima if you're in the area!

    Just a thought.

    Parent

    I try! On occasion, I'll get somebody (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:06:23 PM EST
    with a brain at Cantwell's -- though, of the two senators, she is really the worst, IMO. Her staffers often tell me to "check the website, you'll see her position on xxx there." But Murray's local office is infamous for having the worst staff, with regard to their grasp of the issues and their treatment of constituents. They clearly do not want to talk to anyone aking questions or challenging the status quo. And, I'm sorry to have to say this, but they just seem dumber than dumb.

    Too bad they don't have offices in Shoreline or Everett area. That's going to be my new haunting grounds soon.

    Parent

    Revenues. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Addison on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 12:01:08 PM EST
    I disagree that there is room for a no revenues agreement. Of course this is founded only on personal opinion.

    However, I think that the revenues they'll come up with will be a few fringe loopholes for show and a handful of regressive tax restructurings for "substance". It'll add up to a number that will allow the Democrats to write some big-sounding press releases (200-300 billion?), but the deficit reduction will be almost entirely done with spending cuts.

    The GOP will release one or two of their 6 to vote for it, and all the Democrats will have to vote for it -- with a similar process in the larger Congress.

    Obviously that's a somewhat detailed scenario, and there's almost no point in speculating until we start to see the initial posturing poses from the President and Boehner, but what are blogs for if not speculation!

    The main question in my mind is this: is there room for a no-entitlement cut deal? If there are no revenues on the table, or only nibbles at revenue, is it possible that the Democrats will cut entitlements? Or will they, in that case, stick to budgetary spending cuts? If entitlements get cut with no corresponding revenue gains that will be pretty unforgivable in political terms, let alone policy terms.

    Will this committee's hearing be public? Will (none / 0) (#10)
    by jawbone on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 12:25:08 PM EST
    have witnesses appearing before them? Public comment?

    My impression is no, everything is secret, closed door stuff. Now I may think that bcz Obama so loves to hold closed door secret meetings.

    But? Anyone know?

    The timing is so compressed with two big deadlines just before the two biggest holidays of the year.

    Had to be a reason for that approach. To limit public participation and awareness?  Or will people be stuffing their turkey are reading the Committee of the Twelve Caesars' report?

    Family get togethers will have reading sessions with various members of the family giving reports over turkey dinner about their assigned section?

    Just found this at TPM--there is rising concensus (none / 0) (#15)
    by jawbone on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 01:29:20 PM EST
    that the Cat Food Politburo MUST be open and transparent.

    Members of Congress as disparate as Chaffetz, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and David Vitter (R-LA) have all demanded the committee operate openly. in recent days, and the Sunlight Foundation -- an influential transparency advocate -- has helped align these efforts.

    "We've seen almost no resistance," said John Wonderlich, Sunlight's Policy Director told me in an interview Tuesday. "Occasionally someone will try to say secrecy is good or necessary for deliberations."

    Momentum is on their side.

    "The work of this Committee will affect all Americans, and its deliberations should be open the press, to the public and webcast," Pelosi said in a statement Friday. "Any acceptance of the Committee proposal will be dependent on the ability of the American people to fully view its proceedings."

    A spokesmen for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) did not respond to a requests for comment on the transparency issue Tuesday. A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said Reid will defer to the Committee leadership regarding its transparency protocols.

    In the Senate, a number of Republicans led by Dean Heller (R-NV) are joining the transparency push with legislation that would require the committee's work to be conducted in public, except when issues are classified for security reasons. Vitter introduced separate legislation to require committee members to disclose any campaign donations they receive while serving of over $1,000.

    In the House, Reps. Mike Quigley (D-IL), and Jim Renacci (R-OH) are rounding up signatures on a letter to leaders to push four requirements.

    1. All meetings and hearings should be publically noticed in advance, open to the public, broadcast live over the internet, and archived on the Committee's website.
    1. The final legislative language put forward by the Committee should be posted online at least 72 hours prior to the final Committee vote.

    2. Campaign contributions received by Committee members should be posted online at least once per week to ensure proper oversight of donations from special interests to Committee members.

    3. All meetings between lobbyists and other special interest groups and members of the Committee and their staffs should be posted online at least once per week, as was done with the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

    We shall see.

    Parent

    Hey (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    Maybe Nancy's picks will save the commission - (she hasn't made hers yet).

    (Yes,this is snark)

    honestly (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by CST on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    I think the house dems will be totally irrelevant.  I don't expect Nancy to pick anyone who would vote for anything that would come out of a meeting with those 6 republicans.

    But the commission only needs one Dem vote to pass.  I expect if that comes from anywhere it will be one (or more) of the senators.

    Parent

    All three Dem Senators (none / 0) (#21)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 02:11:57 PM EST
    will make !noises! for the media, then completely fold like the plastic deck chairs they really are. And Pelosi's picks will be neutered placeholders.

    Parent
    Simple question (none / 0) (#82)
    by klassicheart on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 02:53:58 AM EST
    Would anyone want any of these Dems fighting on their team?  Sorta answers all questions.  And Baucus of health care fame?  Please.

    Parent
    The country's best bet (none / 0) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 01:43:08 PM EST
    given the options, would be a Cat Food II failure. But that is a remote possibility--the auto-cuts call for a 50/50 cut on security/ social programs and the Pentagon will not have it.  Our new Secretary of Defense has already said we must cut social programs so as not to "hollow out" the military.  And, the president can't see how we can cut the military budget much more either.

    And, the purpose of Cat Food II, anyway, is to give cover to a joint Republican/Democratic objective to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.   All Cat Food II members seem to be from safe districts or are far away from re-election.   It will be a cuts only job, even if some loop holes are closed, others will be opened.  It will be called tax code reform.

    The voters pledge should be (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 04:41:24 PM EST
    Democratic voters should notify their Senators and Representatives that they will hold the entire party responsible for any cuts to the safety net programs. If cuts pass, you will not vote for your current Representative or any Dem Senator up for reelection now or in the future.

    Republican voters should notify their Senators and Representatives that they will hold the entire party responsible for any cuts to the safety net programs. If cuts pass you will not vote for your current Representative or any Republican Senator up for reelection now or in the future.

    That is the only way that the voters could stop the politicians from playing "The Other Guy Did It" games and picking and choosing who votes for the cuts and who is allowed to vote nay.

    Of course, that has as much chance of happening as me winning the lottery.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#69)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 10:48:28 PM EST
    No chance.

    What's worse is that the constituents will be ignored because each party believes their rank and file have nowhere else to go.

    They'll all wring their hands when the faithful stay home and they'll fervently believe that all they have to do is put together a better GOTV effort the next time.

    God forbid they would actually consider examining policy.

    Parent

    Notice? (none / 0) (#83)
    by klassicheart on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 02:58:11 AM EST
    Give notice?  How polite.  The Democratic party will be demolished...which seems to be the plan...Dems were taken over by Republicans because they are too weak to ever fight...Kerry, the ultimate weakling.  

    Parent
    Failure of Super Catfood Commission is an option (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 06:26:18 PM EST
    Cut everything.....

    Then, turn around around and restore everything.

    If the Super Catfood Commission fails, the Dems could actually get some leverage....the hawks will freak and the price for restoration of Defense cuts could be....well, perhaps a jobs program?

    Fail, please fail.  

    Parent

    The Pledge (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 01:56:02 PM EST
    All that is required is to place one's hand over one's fossilized heart and remove it for good, then recite any paragraph written by Ayn Rand (or two by Norquist).

    At Least We Can Be Over 95% Certain (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by seabos84 on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 02:46:19 PM EST
    the thugs will stick to sticking it to the bottom 95%, AND, lying about it, AND, blaming the Dim-0-craps.

    Logically, I should be over 95% certain that the Dim-0-Craps will hem and haw and sternly word letters and keep the powder dry, AND

    sell me out!

    Stupidly, I HOPE that the sell out has ... only an 80% chance of happening.

    At least people KNOW what the thugs are about.

    rmm.

    Parent

    I'm just dumb (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 02:27:13 PM EST
    I asked for a Platinum wedding ring instead of gold one.  It is about time to start melting this stuff down into bars though isn't it?  Who needs jewelry when we can just buy more later when its cheaper :)

    Fabulous analysis of Catfood Commission 2 (none / 0) (#31)
    by rennies on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 02:40:12 PM EST
    by Jane Hamsher at:

    http://tinyurl.com/3nhrjh3"

    an obama supporter (none / 0) (#78)
    by klassicheart on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 02:00:22 AM EST
    in the primaries.  let's keep identifying those that put us here...whose horrendous judgment and fan mentality...led way too many trusting people to follow the pied piper over the cliff.  blame must be affixed.  progressives and liberals brought us obama....and potemkin journalists....

    Parent
    Incredible, isn't it? (none / 0) (#119)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 06:34:28 PM EST
    Canvass the country today and you'll find, maybe, three people voted for Obama.

    What's that saying? "Victory has a thousand fathers, defeat is an orphan"

    Yeah, call'em out.


    Parent

    Wasn't it Grover Norquist (none / 0) (#34)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 02:55:10 PM EST
    who recently wrote an opinion that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire does NOT violate the pledge taken by Repubs to vote against new taxes?  So, isn't this the way to 'raise revenue' -- at least some?  

    How? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Addison on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 03:22:02 PM EST
    Well, the issue is that the law of the land is that they ARE expiring. So the committee, if they wanted to include the Bush tax cuts in their calculations, say what exactly? "We're counting revenue gains from the act of not actually doing anything at all?" How could they possible count that as deficit reduction when it would happen automatically anyway?

    And legislatively, how would that look in the deal sent to the full Congress? A side-note affirmation that the Bush tax cuts would expire? But there's already a law that says that they expire. So it's just a redundant "pledge" that could easily be broken?

    And I doubt very seriously that as part of the deal we'll see an immediate repeal of the Bush tax cuts for those over $250,000. Though that of course would make sense.

    So I don't see how they credibly include it in the committee deal (unless it's immediate, but I don't think it will be). If they do try to include it, it's because the Democrats desperately want to pass something out of the committee but are scrambling for some fig leaf of compromise to show the world. Of course that is neither a desirable nor an unlikely outcome.

    Parent

    My comment was (none / 0) (#51)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 03:45:26 PM EST
    responding to some of the other comments on taxes, and on the important issue of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire -- recall how in Dec. 2010 that did not happen.  On a personal note, I find your response to my comment unnecessarily antagonistic.

    Parent
    It wasn't intended to be antagonistic... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Addison on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 04:18:08 PM EST
    ...and I honestly don't know where you get that from. I was running through a list of my reasoning fairly objectively, using rhetorical questions. Nothing personal was in there, no name-calling, no slights against you. Just rhetorical question marks. If you feel that was "antagonistic" then I don't know what to tell you. I'm certainly not going to come close to apologizing for it.

    Your comment was in reply to BTD's post, which is clearly about the committee and the chances for getting revenue gains out of their plan. The context was clear, and if you didn't mean your comment as a direct response to BTD's post then my "mistake" was pretty easy to make, since you replied directly to it.

    Parent

    Friedman's Int'l Airport VIP Lounge Musings (none / 0) (#39)
    by Addison on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 03:08:58 PM EST
    Nothing is more pathetic (and revealing) than political fan fiction from the "big league" pundits. Here's Tom Friedman's latest.

    I had to stop reading... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:39:14 PM EST
    ...when my literal gag reflex kicked in.  Somewhere around the point at which he thanks the Tea Party for their passion.  Kind of like thanking soccer hooligans for their passion.  Genuine passion is beautiful, what they are full of is anything but.

    Parent
    why even link to friedman (none / 0) (#79)
    by klassicheart on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 02:05:49 AM EST
    He's a total phony....The only NYT columnist one can believe is paul krugman ....the others are propagandists. Obama is the true Manchurian candidate.  And Dems were suckered by other Dems and so called "liberal" or "progressive" Potemkin journalists like Friedman.  Can't blame Republicans for Obama...Dems did this to themselves...

    Parent
    To Military Tracy: it's one thing (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 03:33:38 PM EST
    to mess w/Medicare and/or Social Security. But jewelry?  It won't just be African American toung men in Tottenham.

    Site Violation - Spam (none / 0) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 07:26:56 AM EST


    Norway: 4% unemployment; (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 07:27:28 AM EST
    no deficit; surplus due to Norway's government owned aoil; surplus expected to fund social safety net for 50 years after oil production is exhausted. Not unusual to have 2 teachers per classroom.  

    Due to a typo in your comment, oculus, (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by caseyOR on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 10:26:34 AM EST
    I thought, on first read, that you were attributing Norway's surplus to their government-owned aoili, and I was surprised that a garlic and olive oil mixture, albeit a tasty mixture, could be so economically beneficial.

    On second reading, I realized it was a typo and you meant to write oil.

    Oh well. It's early here on the west coast, and I am still on my first pot of coffee.

    Parent

    I did the same thing - and I have no excuse, (none / 0) (#108)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 10:44:22 AM EST
    it being almost noon here in the East...

    Oh, well...we take our laughs where we can get them these days.

    Parent

    The Pledge | 125 comments (125 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment