Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/27/13 10:43 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 2/27/13 09:07 PM, TheMason wrote: The absurdity is thinking soaking the rich is a good idea.

What's absurd is pointing to the luxury tax as an example of why not raising the top marginal rates on the wealthiest Americans is not a good idea. Nobody here has called for it.

What's absurd is believing that rich people who were able to pay almost 0% in taxes thanks to all the loopholes, deductions, and lobbying will suddenly start paying 39.6% when all those loopholes, deductions, and lobbying are still in place.

All you've ensured is a system where:

Non-Politically connected: Up to 35%
Politically connected: 0%

To a system where:

Non-Politically connected: Up to 39.6%
Politically Connected: 0%

Meaning people like the CEO of General Electric, who despite operating a multi-billion dollar company, has paid 0 in income taxes for the last two years will continue to pay nothing, while smaller competitors continue to get soaked.

Excellent strategy.

At 2/27/13 10:23 PM, Feoric wrote: I have absolutely no idea where you're getting this notion that Republicans get "screwed" when compromising with the Democrats. ...

It's called having a longer memory...and I should have been more clear on taking a historical view instead of a snapshot.

Reagan got screwed over this way by Tip O'Neil.
Bush One got screwed over by Tom Foley
The same game was played between Clinton and Gingrich (w/roles reversed)...until Gingrich overplayed his hand over the second government shut-down.

The problem: the Dems are better at messaging than the Republicans.

Is this gallows humor or something? Democrats are fucking atrocious at this compared to Republicans.

What? If that was true we'd have President Romney right now! Obama is a horrible, horrible governor! What he does excel in is controlling the message.

At 2/27/13 07:14 PM, TheMason wrote: Really? Obama was more interested in campaigning (even though he had won re-election) than staying in DC and actually governing. What the Republicans should've done was leave DC until Obama returned to actually start negotiating.

How many trillions of spending cuts did Obama offer before the cliff? 2? 3, was it? Instead the Republicans turned that all down and we got the half assed mess where some tax hikes happened, but NO spending cuts. In other words the Republicans looked a gift horse in the mouth and ended up losing the horse altogether. Sad thing is, we, the People, are the ones feeling the hurt, not them.

At 2/27/13 09:07 PM, TheMason wrote: It's not really that absurd once you stop to think about it rather than go along with the emotions. Tax the rich schemes often fail to bring about the desired ends and quite often hurt the 'little guy'.

That sounds pretty, but rests on a major false premise.

When you take money away from individuals in the form of taxes and give it to the government, you are siphoning money out of the economy to launder it through the government to give to local public officials to provide you with a service.

And here is the false premise: the wealthy put all of their money inthe economy. That is completely false, on numerous levels. The wealthy (by wealthy, I mean those who are targetted by the tax the rich schemes, more speicifally those with $1 million in non-primary residential assets.) They put their money in the stock market, offshore accounts, banks, high end goods.

Putting money in the stock market SOUNDS like money in the economy, when it really is not. Secondary sales of stock do absolutely NOTHING to benefit the economy. The company whose name is printed on the stock doesn't see a penny of it. It only effects the economy indirectly through valuation, which, frankly, should NEVER come from the "hey, we're stupid investors" stock market, and by setting the purchase price in future public offerings. In short, investing in stock is merely a high yield, high risk, bank.

Offshore accounts don't help the US economy at all, as even the fees and incidentals dont come the economy.

Putting it in banks once was a helpful idea, allowing a bank to lend money. Nowadays, aside from giving a bank confidence to lend, the amount of capital they hold is nearly irrelevant. Current laws allow for shadow lending of close to 10fold the bank's actual monetary capital.

High end goods seems like it would benefit the economy, however, the high end market (I mean the really high end market) is a fairly tight market. Some middle and lower class workers are employed for the labor, but nowhere near as much as the regular goods industries. Much of the high end market income goes to other high end folks, just as it does in stocks and at the bank.

The myth that the wealthy put their money in the ecnomy, or that the money was in th economy to begin with is nothing but a complete myth.

At least when the government gets money, it spends ALL of it. A small percentage leaves the country, but most of it stays here and goes largely to the middle class through contracts, public works, or directly through Federal employment.

Secondly, ever hear of the luxury tax?

Just sond like poor implementation. Nothing inherently bad about the idea.

The absurdity is thinking soaking the rich is a good idea.

Personally, I think we ALL pay about 10-15% less than we should. If we want a mostly free market (where the government cannot make direct profits off of goods) and want a civilized superpower, we all have to pay a shit ton more than we are now.

The rich SHOULD pay more, because they can easily absorb it without any problems. A person who makes $1,000,000 a year can handle paying $400,000 in taxes a lot more than a person who makes $30,000 can handle paying $5,000 (23% less a share of total income.) It sounds unfair on direct numbers, but when you figure out that the 30Ker lives in a sublet room for $300/month and cannot afford a car to drive to work, and barely has any health insurace, while the rich person, even with their higher tax, has a 5,000 sqft house, three cars, and a concierge physician, that direct unfairness doesn't appear so unfair anymore.

At 2/27/13 11:20 PM, TheMason wrote: Reagan got screwed over this way by Tip O'Neil.
Bush One got screwed over by Tom Foley
The same game was played between Clinton and Gingrich (w/roles reversed)...until Gingrich overplayed his hand over the second government shut-down.

Great, so you recognize there's precedent for the GOP to hold the economy hostage when things aren't going their way.

What? If that was true we'd have President Romney right now! Obama is a horrible, horrible governor! What he does excel in is controlling the message.

Obama's campaign =/= the Democratic party's message wing. No amount of glossy packaging can sell somebody a piece of shit. This is why Romney lost. But the GOP sure as hell does an excellent job at making people think the deficit, government debt/spending, and welfare are killing the economy. The Democrats just don't have the media influence the GOP has. Ironically enough, the opposite is a GOP talking point. See what I mean?

At 2/27/13 11:07 PM, Memorize wrote: Meaning people like the CEO of General Electric, who despite operating a multi-billion dollar company, has paid 0 in income taxes for the last two years will continue to pay nothing, while smaller competitors continue to get soaked.

Yeah, the federal income tax rate is totally the same thing as the corporate tax rate.

meh, I hope no one is fooled by any of this. The plan is working perfectly. Obama knows he's won either way. he gets his way, he wins and gloats. he doesn't get his way, the sequester kicks in and he wins by blaming it on the GOP and naturally, the media repeats it like good little parrots.

I said it a long time ago and I'll say it again. Why would Obama negotiate when he can't lose? the sequester kicks in, and he'll actually win twice. he'll put in a tax cut bill that's exactly the way he wants it and dare the GOP to vote against it, then laugh as the media beats the GOP in the face with it.

At 2/28/13 01:22 AM, Korriken wrote: meh, I hope no one is fooled by any of this. The plan is working perfectly. Obama knows he's won either way. he gets his way, he wins and gloats. he doesn't get his way, the sequester kicks in and he wins by blaming it on the GOP and naturally, the media repeats it like good little parrots.

You seem to think that the GOP is going to be unjustly criticized for it's role in the sequester cuts, but I think you're pretty much right other than that. Obama is just not a good negotiator, at all. He's better off just flat out refusing to negotiate at this point, honestly. The current plan for all parties involved as it is this very second seems to be to let the sequester kick in and then battle it out during the aftermath, which is going to badly hurt a lot of people. And as bad as that will be, the real battle is going to be the debt ceiling fight, again. Yes, again.

Interestingly, another big battle is for news outlets: they're having a hard time making people give a shit about the sequester in the first place. Really, think about this. The sequester, born from the idea that bipartisanship can only be achieved via the threat of egregious across the board cuts, is being a) encouraged by the GOP and b) ignored by the public. I just....don't know what to think anymore.

I said it a long time ago and I'll say it again. Why would Obama negotiate when he can't lose? the sequester kicks in, and he'll actually win twice. he'll put in a tax cut bill that's exactly the way he wants it and dare the GOP to vote against it, then laugh as the media beats the GOP in the face with it.

Can you stop calling "it" The Media(TM) as if it's this massive monolithic entity that hates Republicans but LOVES Obama? At least call it the liberal media or something that isn't completely dishonest.

Anyway, believe it or not, Obama actually really cares about making a deal. Even if it means him caving and unnecessarily losing a bunch of leverage. I remain cautiously optimistic that this won't happen this time around, but I've been hilariously disappointed in the past. I'm actually rather amused over how much credit you're giving him with your defeatist attitude.

At 2/27/13 11:56 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 2/27/13 11:07 PM, Memorize wrote: Meaning people like the CEO of General Electric, who despite operating a multi-billion dollar company, has paid 0 in income taxes for the last two years will continue to pay nothing, while smaller competitors continue to get soaked.

Yeah, the federal income tax rate is totally the same thing as the corporate tax rate.

And you don't seem to understand that rich people know how to hide and make money in a way that avoids taxes.

Case and point:

Obama paid a smaller PERCENTAGE than his own secretary.

Same with Warren Buffet.

At 2/28/13 02:03 AM, Feoric wrote:

You seem to think that the GOP is going to be unjustly criticized for it's role in the sequester cuts, but I think you're pretty much right other than that. Obama is just not a good negotiator, at all. He's better off just flat out refusing to negotiate at this point, honestly.

Translation: "When Republicans refuse to negotiate, it's obstructionism. When Obama refuses to negotiate, he's standing on principal."

Can you stop calling "it" The Media(TM) as if it's this massive monolithic entity that hates Republicans but LOVES Obama? At least call it the liberal media or something that isn't completely dishonest.

Expanded Wars.
More Soldier deaths.
Extending Patriot Act.
More Drug Raids (3x as many in just 1 term)
Assassination of American citizens (including a 16 year old kid in a green zone which killed him and relatives during a barbecue).

Considering the incredible lack of caring about any of these by the Media under Obama unlike the extensive, never ending coverage under Bush... if that doesn't qualify it as a monolithic entity, I don't know what does.

"But the economy!" You're probably thinking.

Well, according to that same media, the economy is on the uptick! Our problems are soon over under our Messiah!

Keep in mind that you're defending a President who not only is the exact same as Bush, but is also responsible for the direct murder of a 16 year old minor. But you're still sucking his dick so hard, you can barely walk around without people noticing Obama's crusted seamen hanging from the corner of your mouth.

At 2/28/13 05:50 AM, Memorize wrote:

Considering the incredible lack of caring about any of these by the Media under Obama unlike the extensive, never ending coverage under Bush... if that doesn't qualify it as a monolithic entity, I don't know what does.

You're straight up bonkers if you think there hasn't been a relentless media shitstorm circling the classified drone memos, the attacks in Benghazi and the Sequester circling the white house from the 24 hour news networks and the rest of media. Just because you aren't watching the channel something aired on or didn't read the article it was in doesn't mean that it wasn't said.

The Democrats absolutely do not hold the patent on constant organized media efforts that the republicans do. They TRY, but they flat out fail. They don't even come remotely close to the level of Citizen Kane shit that the GOP does.

I don't know how you can spin the idea of "liberal controlled media" when nobody gives enough shit to watch liberal oriented programming.

At 2/27/13 11:56 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 2/27/13 11:20 PM, TheMason wrote: Reagan got screwed over this way by Tip O'Neil.
Bush One got screwed over by Tom Foley
The same game was played between Clinton and Gingrich (w/roles reversed)...until Gingrich overplayed his hand over the second government shut-down.

Great, so you recognize there's precedent for the GOP to hold the economy hostage when things aren't going their way.

Twist words much? I'm saying that in the past when Repubs and Dems compromise the Repubs open their legs at just the promise of cuts...the Dems get what they want but never deliver.

You take one incidence and try to paint too broad a stroke with it my friend. :)

What? If that was true we'd have President Romney right now! Obama is a horrible, horrible governor! What he does excel in is controlling the message.

Obama's campaign =/= the Democratic party's message wing. No amount of glossy packaging can sell somebody a piece of shit. This is why Romney lost. But the GOP sure as hell does an excellent job at making people think the deficit, government debt/spending, and welfare are killing the economy. The Democrats just don't have the media influence the GOP has. Ironically enough, the opposite is a GOP talking point. See what I mean?

Wait...what? I'm sorry but in what way does the GOP have a media advantage? I mean yes...it dominates talk radio and has one news channel. But what about the liberal media outlets?

And mainstream media? I'm not going to make the BS claim that they are horribly skewed one way or another in terms of broadcast news...but how does the GOP have an advantage with them?

Also, the Dems have a highly effective message machine right now. They are more plugged into social media, and in a youth centered culture their message appeals to the young more. They used this machine to great effect in '06 to take back congress...without an Obama campaign. Finally, they are much better at crafting emotional arguments which work far better than the wonky, numbers driven arguments made by Repubs.

At 2/28/13 08:40 AM, TheMason wrote:

Wait...what? I'm sorry but in what way does the GOP have a media advantage? I mean yes...it dominates talk radio and has one news channel. But what about the liberal media outlets?

As I linked in the post directly above yours, Fox outranks it's next few ranking competitors (MSNBC, CNN, ABC) combined. How do you not see this as being basically in firm control of media circulation?

And mainstream media? I'm not going to make the BS claim that they are horribly skewed one way or another in terms of broadcast news...but how does the GOP have an advantage with them?

Fox is mainstream media. Frankly it is THE mainstream media. It basically controls the propagation of talking points, practically created the Tea Party by way of selective reporting their own promotional events and, well, they had Glenn Beck. I really hope I don't need to explain that last one any further.

Honestly if you're somebody who goes around saying things like 'The mainstream media....' in every day political conversations without being prompted to, you're more or less just painting a target in your head that says "I will repeat talking points I hear without analyzing them too carefully".

At 2/28/13 05:40 AM, Memorize wrote: And you don't seem to understand that rich people know how to hide and make money in a way that avoids taxes.

Case and point:

Obama paid a smaller PERCENTAGE than his own secretary.

Same with Warren Buffet.

You really have no idea how marginal tax rates work, don't you?

At 2/28/13 05:50 AM, Memorize wrote: Translation: "When Republicans refuse to negotiate, it's obstructionism. When Obama refuses to negotiate, he's standing on principal."

Except for the fact that, just as one example, during the Fiscal Cliff bullshit Obama repeatedly compromised. In fact he compromised on the one thing he vowed not to: the Bush tax cuts. He said the cutoff for the extension was at 250k but wound up going to 400k at the last second. I think the difference here is that Obama has repeatedly compromised on principal to much dismay of progressives while the GOP refused any offer Obama was making because they literally bet the election on Romney. They lost their bet, and now they have to deal with it.

At 2/28/13 08:40 AM, TheMason wrote: Twist words much? I'm saying that in the past when Repubs and Dems compromise the Repubs open their legs at just the promise of cuts...the Dems get what they want but never deliver.

I really don't care at all what happened 20+ years ago because it's flat out irrelevant. Obama delivered the GOP a perfect deal for the GOP in 2011 and now they're begging for it back. Them turning numerous opportunities down has fuckall to do with Tip O'Neil and more to do with shitstains like Norquist and his tax pledge, betting on the election, and the fact that Boehner has no control over his party.

Wait...what? I'm sorry but in what way does the GOP have a media advantage? I mean yes...it dominates talk radio and has one news channel. But what about the liberal media outlets?

Who gives a shit about liberal media outlets? Really, Drudge Report is a hell of a lot more influential at propagating talking points than Mother Jones, for example. Heritage and Cato are absolutely brilliant at spinning things and all their talking points are regurgitated from right wing media personalities both on radio and TV, listened and watched by millions of Americans every day. "Unbiased" organizations like CNN constantly have conservative pundits on their show doing their thing. There's also the fact that since the spectacular rise of FNC, there's a big pressure on "neutral" networks to not have a spin, so you repeatedly hear "the truth is in the middle" bullshit that places blame equally on both parties. The truth is not in the middle in this instance.

I think you're right about the internet to an extent, but liberals are not at the point where this effectively counteracts the monopoly the right has on talk radio for example. There's a generational gap between the two and that will be a long process as the older generations start to die out.

At 2/28/13 10:27 AM, Feoric wrote:

You really have no idea how marginal tax rates work, don't you?

And you're a fucking idiot, aren't you.

I also like how you completely ignored every aspect of Obama being exactly like Bush.

At 2/28/13 01:27 PM, Memorize wrote: And you're a fucking idiot, aren't you.

You aren't going to have a heart attack or something are you? Take a few nice deep breaths and relax. Nice and easy. I don't want you getting hurt. I'm being 100% sincere when I say that. You win, ok? Feel any better?

I also like how you completely ignored every aspect of Obama being exactly like Bush.

Yes. This is Obama's second term and we're still pointing out that there is policy overlap between Bush and Obama. Awesome. Now if you're not going to talk about the sequester or any upcoming battle like the debt ceiling negotiations then kindly don't say anything. Take it to another thread where you may be on topic, or make a new one entirely! You can even send me private messages to let me know just how much my posts upset you! There's so many options here. Clogging this thread with your petulant bullshit shouldn't be one.

At 2/28/13 02:03 AM, Feoric wrote:

You seem to think that the GOP is going to be unjustly criticized for it's role in the sequester cuts, but I think you're pretty much right other than that.

oh no, the criticism is justified. it's just that Obama is going to be made out to be the hero in all this. and it's all according to plan.

Obama is just not a good negotiator, at all. He's better off just flat out refusing to negotiate at this point, honestly. The current plan for all parties involved as it is this very second seems to be to let the sequester kick in and then battle it out during the aftermath, which is going to badly hurt a lot of people. And as bad as that will be, the real battle is going to be the debt ceiling fight, again. Yes, again.

Actually, I'd say Obama is a master negotiator. he got what he wanted without giving the GOP what they wanted, and even got a brand new crisis to make use of to his advantage. Hell, he even got himself some deep defense spending cuts to boot. Not bad.

Interestingly, another big battle is for news outlets: they're having a hard time making people give a shit about the sequester in the first place. Really, think about this. The sequester, born from the idea that bipartisanship can only be achieved via the threat of egregious across the board cuts, is being a) encouraged by the GOP and b) ignored by the public. I just....don't know what to think anymore.

meh, the mindless drones

Can you stop calling "it" The Media(TM) as if it's this massive monolithic entity that hates Republicans but LOVES Obama? At least call it the liberal media or something that isn't completely dishonest.

well I could say "all the American media corporations except Fox News" but that's a mouthful. so i just call it the media because it's the general consensus on the left here that Fox News isn't a real news company anyway.

Anyway, believe it or not, Obama actually really cares about making a deal. Even if it means him caving and unnecessarily losing a bunch of leverage. I remain cautiously optimistic that this won't happen this time around, but I've been hilariously disappointed in the past. I'm actually rather amused over how much credit you're giving him with your defeatist attitude.

defeatist? more like Realist. think about it. The deal didn't go through. Obama wins. Obama will go around, campaign style, as usual, and say "I wanted to make a deal, but they just want to block everything I do!" the media outlets report on it, don't point out any kind of counterpoints, and the population of mindless goats all start braying the same tune. had the deal went through, Obama would have won too. "Obama the great leader managed to make a deal with the party of no to avoid the sequester!" But I doubt that was ever the case. when you've already won, there's no need to give up what you want, only take what the opponent wants and cut it down as much as possible.

Obama got his tax hike on January 1st. After that, what else is there to talk about? budget cuts? right. why give the hostage taker a million in unmarked bills and a plane to south america when you already got him to give up the child? at that point you just walk in, shoot him in the head and call it a day. Obama wanted tax hikes, he got tax hikes. now it's time for him to campaign for midterm elections with this shiny new weapon, the sequester.

At 3/1/13 11:53 AM, Korriken wrote: oh no, the criticism is justified. it's just that Obama is going to be made out to be the hero in all this. and it's all according to plan.

I don't think he'll be made the hero, because it's not like he's saving us from austerity. It's ultimately happening under his watch, and the GOP will do their damndest to pin as much blame as possible on him. There's no way Obama planned for this to happen initially, this is why the sequester was put into place to begin with.

Actually, I'd say Obama is a master negotiator. he got what he wanted without giving the GOP what they wanted, and even got a brand new crisis to make use of to his advantage. Hell, he even got himself some deep defense spending cuts to boot. Not bad.

No way dude, you're far off the mark. The sequester is exactly what the GOP wanted. If Obama really was a master negotiator then the entirety of the Fiscal Cliff would have already been resolved and we wouldn't be having this discussion. The defense cuts were added as part of the sequester because Republicans always make a big stink about defense and military budgets. But guess what? It's not just about defense cuts, the Democrats aren't caving in this case either. Both sides are willing to let their hostage be shot; the sequester didn't contain enough sacred cows on either side to actually work for its publicly stated goal to force deficit reduction compromise. The GOP didn't give a shit about the defense cuts in the end; they tricked Dems into thinking they were too hawkish to accept military sequestration when in actuality they were perfectly fine with that. Sure, cutting defense has always been a goal for Democrats, but a lot of people are being needlessly hurt to get then, and there's certainly a whole lot of new ammunition for the GOP to attack Democrats with during the 2014 elections.

Obama got his tax hike on January 1st. After that, what else is there to talk about? budget cuts? right.

Congress has to pass a budget by April 15 or their paycheck will be put in escrow until they either pass a budget or the current term expires, whichever comes first. Plus the debt limit will need to be extended again by May 18. There's plenty to talk about. Like I said earlier, the sequester isn't the real fight here. There was no fight, this is just the bell ringing at the start of the match.

why give the hostage taker a million in unmarked bills and a plane to south america when you already got him to give up the child? at that point you just walk in, shoot him in the head and call it a day. Obama wanted tax hikes, he got tax hikes. now it's time for him to campaign for midterm elections with this shiny new weapon, the sequester.

In actuality the sequester didn't wind up being Obama's weapon, it turned out to be the GOP's weapon, and they're making a risk with it. The way I see it as of right now, the current strategy for the GOP is to let the sequester happen (which happened today) while Democrats shuffle around the cuts to avert as much negative impact as possible without adding new funding. It's not entirely a loss for the GOP since we have our next budget fight in a month, where without a new CR the government will shut down. This is where the GOP has leverage over Obama: the baseline budget numbers we will be dealing with will be the much lower post-sequester budget levels rather than the pre-sequester budget levels if I'm not mistaken. Republicans will be able to use the CR as a hostage to prevent any hardball proposals the Democrats will come up with. I think this will play out the same way the Bush tax cuts did: make the cuts, and when the Democrats attempt to reverse those cuts, fire up their base about how Democrats are making unprecedented spending increases. With this, the Republicans will have much more rhetorical leverage to keep the federal budget at post-sequester levels.

Of course I have no idea if the end game will end up like that, it's all hypothetical, but this is pretty much the GOP's plan right now. True, it's certainly a risky maneuver, but this is absolutely the best time in the midterm cycle to try risky maneuvers. Keep in mind that the Sequester is not just a budget reduction this year only. Unless the sequester gets outright repealed, this across-the-board cut is in effect for the next 10 years. The GOP and easily punt and delay the sequester until March 2015. That would mean the Republicans are back to betting on an election with the hopes of a more GOP-friendly Congress like what they did with the Grand Bargain.

At 3/1/13 04:01 PM, Feoric wrote:

I don't think he'll be made the hero, because it's not like he's saving us from austerity. It's ultimately happening under his watch, and the GOP will do their damndest to pin as much blame as possible on him. There's no way Obama planned for this to happen initially, this is why the sequester was put into place to begin with.

if the media reaction to all of this is any indication, it's the apocalypse. and guess whose going to save us?

No way dude, you're far off the mark. The sequester is exactly what the GOP wanted.

If Obama really was a master negotiator then the entirety of the Fiscal Cliff would have already been resolved and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

depends on what the master negotiator wants to accomplish.

The defense cuts were added as part of the sequester because Republicans always make a big stink about defense and military budgets.

the sequester didn't contain enough sacred cows on either side to actually work for its publicly stated goal to force deficit reduction compromise.

this much I agree on. of course, neither side are going to sacrifice what they told sacred. It's like having 2 children bring to you their most prized possession. you'll probably get a tennis racket and a pair of socks.

The GOP didn't give a shit about the defense cuts in the end; they tricked Dems into thinking they were too hawkish to accept military sequestration when in actuality they were perfectly fine with that.

whether they did or didn't, they weren't willing to give the democrats their way and the democrats weren't willing to give the GOP their way. and both sides wanted a solid victory.

Sure, cutting defense has always been a goal for Democrats, but a lot of people are being needlessly hurt to get then, and there's certainly a whole lot of new ammunition for the GOP to attack Democrats with during the 2014 elections.

yeah but that same ammunition can be turned on the GOP as well with a very similar message, "They say they care, but they let it happen anyway!"

Congress has to pass a budget by April 15 or their paycheck will be put in escrow until they either pass a budget or the current term expires, whichever comes first. Plus the debt limit will need to be extended again by May 18. There's plenty to talk about. Like I said earlier, the sequester isn't the real fight here. There was no fight, this is just the bell ringing at the start of the match.

Perhaps, we'll see. it's really more of a staring match to see which side blinks first. until a major threat hangs over the heads of those who are so well dug in that they could commit high treason on national television, and still get reelected from behind bars happens, there's not much hope. and there are such people on both sides.

In actuality the sequester didn't wind up being Obama's weapon, it turned out to be the GOP's weapon, and they're making a risk with it.

we'll see. it only just happened and as with anything political both sides are going to rush to define the message that comes from it. the GOP will probably try to say, "We gave him tax hikes, but they keep demanding more out of us without giving up anything!" and the democrats will say... probably the typical jargon, "they're obstructing the process! they won't negotiate at all! they want it their way or no way!"

The way I see it as of right now, the current strategy for the GOP is to let the sequester happen (which happened today) while Democrats shuffle around the cuts to avert as much negative impact as possible without adding new funding.

seems like a silly notion on the GOP's side, but then again, the alternative was to bend over and apply lube. They already bent over once and gave Obama his way on the bush tax cuts. The alternative though would have been worse, letting them all expire, which would have been a BIG win for Obama, given he could easily have gotten an Obama Tax Bill put in and dared the GOP to stop tax cuts to the poor, which would have ignited a media shit storm if they tried it.

It's not entirely a loss for the GOP since we have our next budget fight in a month, where without a new CR the government will shut down. This is where the GOP has leverage over Obama: the baseline budget numbers we will be dealing with will be the much lower post-sequester budget levels rather than the pre-sequester budget levels if I'm not mistaken.

I think you're right, but I'm not certain either.

Republicans will be able to use the CR as a hostage to prevent any hardball proposals the Democrats will come up with. I think this will play out the same way the Bush tax cuts did: make the cuts, and when the Democrats attempt to reverse those cuts, fire up their base about how Democrats are making unprecedented spending increases. With this, the Republicans will have much more rhetorical leverage to keep the federal budget at post-sequester levels.

again, it all depends on how the politicians and media define everything. both sides are going to try and pin the blame on the other, facts be damned. Much like how the housing bubble got pinned on Bush and the GOP despite the facts that would have pinned a lot (but not all) of the blame on the democrats. Instead, it was defined as Bush's bubble.

Of course I have no idea if the end game will end up like that, it's all hypothetical, but this is pretty much the GOP's plan right now. True, it's certainly a risky maneuver, but this is absolutely the best time in the midterm cycle to try risky maneuvers.

Given that the alternative is to cave in, be defined as the party of weakness and infighting, then lose big in the midterms, It's worth a shot.

Keep in mind that the Sequester is not just a budget reduction this year only. Unless the sequester gets outright repealed, this across-the-board cut is in effect for the next 10 years.

yeah I know.

The GOP and easily punt and delay the sequester until March 2015. That would mean the Republicans are back to betting on an election with the hopes of a more GOP-friendly Congress like what they did with the Grand Bargain.

If they can somehow manage to define it as Obama's fault and keep it that way, that would make for an easy 2016 victory. However, I seriously doubt it's going to work that way. Given that the GOP has already been defined for the last 4 years as "the party of no" and "the party of destroy Obama" I don't see this happening.

At 3/1/13 04:49 PM, Korriken wrote: if the media reaction to all of this is any indication, it's the apocalypse. and guess whose going to save us?

It's the media's job to react to what people inside the Beltway are saying, they [the media] aren't just inventing this narrative out of thin air. First it was "the apocalypse" (which it will be for some people, like WIC recipients) and now it's "eh, it's no big deal."

depends on what the master negotiator wants to accomplish.

A grand bargain. He wouldn't be offering to cut the two most popular federal programs if this wasn't true.

seems like a silly notion on the GOP's side, but then again, the alternative was to bend over and apply lube. They already bent over once and gave Obama his way on the bush tax cuts. The alternative though would have been worse, letting them all expire, which would have been a BIG win for Obama, given he could easily have gotten an Obama Tax Bill put in and dared the GOP to stop tax cuts to the poor, which would have ignited a media shit storm if they tried it.

I can't reiterate this enough: Obama gave the Republicans everything they wanted while only asking for a few small tax increases (which he caved on, extending the cuts up to 400k which is apparently the new middle class). For some perspective, Social Security and Medicare cuts were politically unthinkable until Obama proposed them first. It wasn't long until other Democrats started saying how we needed to cut them. Chained CPI is still on the table. As a matter of fact, the plan going forward seems to be to trade chained CPI for the military-related cuts. The GOP is more than pleased with this.

I think you're right, but I'm not certain either.

Here's some more on that:

"House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., on Wednesday helped explain the details of his bill at the special meeting of the Republican Conference. He is drafting a fiscal 2013 spending package that would effectively cap spending at around $974 billion. It uses mechanisms put in place by the two recent budget control measures (PL 112-25, PL 112-240) to make the cuts. Those measures would keep in place a cap of $1.043 trillion on discretionary spending for fiscal 2013, but the sequester kicks in March 1 and cuts that back to about $974 billion.

There had been some concern that the bill starts out with a nominal topline thatâEUTMs higher than the sequester. Under current law, the sequester will be triggered Friday and will hit hard at Rogers' bill. It will absorb about $71 billion of the $85 billion in scheduled cuts. Congress would need to alter the law to prevent this. But to assuage the concerns of conservatives, Rogers will write into his bill a provision that will state a clear intention for the sequester to hit."

So this basically means that the House will pass a modified CR which they then expect to apply sequestration on top of. Sequestration could still be repealed or kicked down the road while the CR would stay in place with a higher cap on discretionary spending.

yeah but that same ammunition can be turned on the GOP as well with a very similar message, "They say they care, but they let it happen anyway!"

If they can somehow manage to define it as Obama's fault and keep it that way, that would make for an easy 2016 victory. However, I seriously doubt it's going to work that way. Given that the GOP has already been defined for the last 4 years as "the party of no" and "the party of destroy Obama" I don't see this happening.

I don't see it that way so far. The best thing Democrats can do in this situation is to provoke the Republicans into praising or flat out taking credit for the sequester, which appears to already be underway.

At 3/2/13 10:30 PM, Feoric wrote:

It's the media's job to react to what people inside the Beltway are saying...

Well I suppose at this point, the white house is backing off the doomsday prophecy, while still blaming republicans. You'd figure it would be the job of "journalists" to take the data and point out bullshit from fact, but I suppose it's never really been that way. Still, I'm beginning to feel that most of the younger people are too busy wondering who is going to get voted off of Reality Show X, than what is happening. If only they'd take the time to not vote and maybe we could get some of these entrenches incumbents out or perhaps even make them scared for their jobs.

A grand bargain. He wouldn't be offering to cut the two most popular federal programs if this wasn't true.

Depends on how you look at it. offering up something you would rather not lose is simple enough if you know for a fact the deal is not going to go through. and I'm sure both sides have known for quite a while this is going to be the scenario.

I can't reiterate this enough: Obama gave the Republicans everything they wanted while only asking for a few small tax increases (which he caved on, extending the cuts up to 400k which is apparently the new middle class).

If he gave the republicans everything they wanted and got what he wanted, this would be a done deal. so, in your opinion, what stopped it?

I don't see it that way so far. The best thing Democrats can do in this situation is to provoke the Republicans into praising or flat out taking credit for the sequester, which appears to already be underway.

Given that both sides are trying to place the mantle of blame on each others shoulders, we'll see. It'll probably look more like 2 children pulling each others hair while screaming for help from mommy.

Also, just to lighten the mood, I'm beginning to see this a plausible.

At 3/2/13 10:30 PM, Feoric wrote: In actuality the sequester didn't wind up being Obama's weapon, it turned out to be the GOP's weapon, and they're making a risk with it. The way I see it as of right now, the current strategy for the GOP is to let the sequester happen (which happened today) while Democrats shuffle around the cuts to avert as much negative impact as possible without adding new funding.

Except that they voted against a GOP plan that would have given them and Obama exactly that sort of discretion.

I can't reiterate this enough: Obama gave the Republicans everything they wanted while only asking for a few small tax increases (which he caved on, extending the cuts up to 400k which is apparently the new middle class).

You're joking, right? The republicans got nothing in the fiscal cliff deal except embarrassment. Their entire position was no tax rate increases and that's exactly what they caved on.
As for entitlement reform, it wasn't "politically unthinkable" until Obama proposed it, it's been part of the republican platform since before George W. Bush.

At 3/4/13 04:25 PM, adrshepard wrote: You're joking, right? The republicans got nothing in the fiscal cliff deal except embarrassment. Their entire position was no tax rate increases and that's exactly what they caved on.

The GOP only caved after they denied the big concessions Feoric mentioned. Had the GOP been less "stick to your guns, even if it kill syour family" and more "Do our jobs" they wouldn't have had to cave with no reciprocal cuts. They had massive cuts handed to them on a silver platter and decided dogma was more important than the USA and turned it down. In the end, not only did they cave on their dogma, they lost their cuts too.

The GOP was playing blackjack, saw that the dealer had 16, and even though the GOP had a 20, they just had to get that 21, and because of that irrational need to be perfect to their platform, they busted.

At 3/4/13 05:15 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

The GOP only caved after they denied the big concessions Feoric mentioned. Had the GOP been less "stick to your guns, even if it kill syour family" and more "Do our jobs" they wouldn't have had to cave with no reciprocal cuts. They had massive cuts handed to them on a silver platter and decided dogma was more important than the USA and turned it down. In the end, not only did they cave on their dogma, they lost their cuts too.

Massive cuts? As I remember, Obama's proposal was $1.4 trillion in new taxes and $600 billion in spending cuts, while the Republicans' deal was $800 billion in revenues and $1.2 trillion in cuts. It boggles my mind how you can accuse the republicans of "not doing their jobs" when they were willing to put forth $800 billion in revenues and Democrats and Obama said "it's not enough."

I'm not seeing the concessions Feoric listed.

Now, even though Republicans agreed to $600 billion in higher taxes and no cuts, Democrats still balk at the idea of any sequester aversion plan that doesn't involve more revenue. What happened to the $600 billion in cuts Obama proposed? The $1.4 trillion in revenues wouldn't have stopped those particular programs or departments from being defunded, so obviously they are relatively or completely unnecessary. And what was the latest Democratic plan? A "debt reduction" deal that would have raised the deficit by $7 billion over 10 years?
It seems pretty clear that the Democrats do not take deficit reduction seriously and are treating this purely as a political exercise to attack Republicans, regardless of the consequences for the country. Screw the political analysis. One can expect some degree of partisian posturing and bullshit from both sides, but to me, the democrats' behavior goes beyond the pale. I don't see any sort of genuine concern for the country's financial position, and if it isn't a political game, the only explanation is that they actually DO believe that the rich and wealthy don't deserve their money and have no qualms about giving it away to others in the form of lower taxes or government services that people could probably manage without or less of.

The GOP was playing blackjack, saw that the dealer had 16, and even though the GOP had a 20, they just had to get that 21, and because of that irrational need to be perfect to their platform, they busted.

At 3/4/13 07:19 PM, adrshepard wrote: Now, even though Republicans agreed to $600 billion in higher taxes and no cuts, Democrats still balk at the idea of any sequester aversion plan that doesn't involve more revenue.

That's because the two main causes for the defecit do NOT include spending. Those two causes are the bad economy and taxes that are far too low for any developed nation. So one side is doing the right thing and the other is doing somethin that has been proven to not only NOT help the defecits, but to make them bigger by hurting the economy. Bet you can;t guess which is which.

I don't see any sort of genuine concern for the country's financial position,

That's because the Democrats know this isn't 1998, and th economy is in the shitter. Every cut in spending is a loss in jobs and income. How exactly does killing jobs help the economy return to growth so that the economy can start paying off the defecit?

The problem with the GOP's cut spending only proposals is that it fails to realize the actual causes of the defecit. Is there bas spending? Absolutely. Is the spending so bad that the defeit is unavoidable? Absolutely not. A good economy creating higher incomes and more taxes combined with taxes that aren't straight out of antiquity (i.e. 10% higher for all groups) will fix the defecit.

At 3/4/13 04:25 PM, adrshepard wrote: Except that they voted against a GOP plan that would have given them and Obama exactly that sort of discretion.

Please, that was a bunch of bull. The whole point of giving Obama power over the cuts was that it would make every single cut Obama's fault. There'not enough cuts to shuffle around for Obama to avoid cutting valuable and needed programs that he can then be blamed for. Republicans would then continue to run on cutting spending, and blaming the consequences on someone else. The whole thing was ridiculously transparent, and Senate Democrats were right in shooting it down.

You're joking, right? The republicans got nothing in the fiscal cliff deal except embarrassment. Their entire position was no tax rate increases and that's exactly what they caved on.

I was referring to the debt ceiling fiasco in 2011 and the Grand Bargain in particular. You're focusing on the end result of the FC ordeal, and you're right, they lost big time. They lost because Cantor convinced Boehner to walk out of the negotiations in the hope of a Republican president and a GOP friendly Congress. Prior to that, Obama was offering Medicare at 67 and chained CPI. That's not a big deal for Republicans?

As for entitlement reform, it wasn't "politically unthinkable" until Obama proposed it, it's been part of the republican platform since before George W. Bush.

Exactly. Is Obama a Republican?

At 3/4/13 08:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote: That's because the two main causes for the defecit do NOT include spending. Those two causes are the bad economy and taxes that are far too low for any developed nation.

You have seen the economic news from Europe, right? They aren't exactly countries the US should emulate when it comes to fiscal policy.

So one side is doing the right thing and the other is doing somethin that has been proven to not only NOT help the defecits, but to make them bigger by hurting the economy. Bet you can;t guess which is which.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Government spending does cause economic growth, but only some of it will come back as tax revenue. It would have to be one hell of a program with incredible existing barriers to private investment in order to generate so much economic activity that the taxes alone would repay the expenditure. And even if there weren't corresponding interest costs (since it would be financed through debt), it'd take a hell of a long time to recoup the initial outlays. Government spending is useful in recessions to weather the contraction, but I've never heard anyone prescribe it as a way to reduce the deficit. We're not exactly conquering the midwest and opening up huge new areas for settlement through railroads anymore.

Is the spending so bad that the defeit is unavoidable? Absolutely not. A good economy creating higher incomes and more taxes combined with taxes that aren't straight out of antiquity (i.e. 10% higher for all groups) will fix the defecit.

How can you be talking about growing the economy and a 10 percent rate hike across the board in the same sentence? The payroll tax holiday expiration was what, 2 percent or so, and it created a visibile ripple in the economy. Some studies anticipate a 0.6 percent decrease in annual GDP growth for 2013 because of it. You couldn't escape such a massive increase's negative effect on growth, no matter how long it took for you to phase it in.

At 3/4/13 08:19 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 3/4/13 04:25 PM, adrshepard wrote: Except that they voted against a GOP plan that would have given them and Obama exactly that sort of discretion.

Please, that was a bunch of bull. The whole point of giving Obama power over the cuts was that it would make every single cut Obama's fault.

Pretty much, but you're the one who said the Democrats' strategy was to shuffle the costs around to minimize the damage, and that's what I was referring to. Even so, wouldn't the country be better off under targeted spending cuts? Who's holding who hostage, here? You've been describing this whole negotiation as one huge political game, but it obviously isn't a game any more and there are real costs associated with partisan stubborness. Is the Democrats' goal of sticking it to the wealthy really that important?

I was referring to the debt ceiling fiasco in 2011 and the Grand Bargain in particular.

So you don't agree with the Woodward account of Obama insisting on new revenues at the last second? That's why Boehner walked away.

At 3/4/13 10:49 PM, adrshepard wrote: You have seen the economic news from Europe, right? They aren't exactly countries the US should emulate when it comes to fiscal policy.

I am squarely talking about Europe. How have spending cuts in a severe recession helped them? Oh wait, they HAVEN'T. For all intent and purposes, they're worse off since they picked austerity. The cuts killed jobs which dwindled revenue even further ans essentially resulted in a net loss.

At 3/4/13 10:49 PM, adrshepard wrote: Pretty much, but you're the one who said the Democrats' strategy was to shuffle the costs around to minimize the damage, and that's what I was referring to. Who's holding who hostage, here?

Ah, my bad, I wasn't clear about that. I meant that in the context of the defense cuts: I think they're probably going to be one of the cuts that winds up being reversed, and the Democrats will gladly help the GOP get that done if it means getting a deal done on the upcoming negotiations, while retarded non-marginal cuts stay. That's just my opinion based on cynicism.

Even so, wouldn't the country be better off under targeted spending cuts?

Absolutely, no question.

You've been describing this whole negotiation as one huge political game, but it obviously isn't a game any more and there are real costs associated with partisan stubborness. Is the Democrats' goal of sticking it to the wealthy really that important?

It is a political game, that doesn't mean I don't find it sickening. As for your latter point, I guess that depends on your perspective. Is the Republican's goal of never raising taxes + closing loopholes really that important?

So you don't agree with the Woodward account of Obama insisting on new revenues at the last second? That's why Boehner walked away.

This one? This was about the sequester, not the GB. What I'm referring to is this:

At 2/27/13 10:23 PM, Feoric wrote: "Cantor was one of the most influential political forces in Obama's first term. In June of 2011, the President and the Speaker began working toward a Grand Bargain of major tax increases and spending cuts to address the government's long-term budget deficits. Until late June, Boehner had managed to keep these talks secret from Cantor. On July 21st, Boehner paused in his discussions with Obama to talk to Cantor and outline the proposed deal. As Obama waited by the phone for a response from the Speaker, Cantor struck. Cantor told me that it was a "fair assessment" that he talked Boehner out of accepting Obama's deal. He said he told Boehner that it would be better, instead, to take the issues of taxes and spending to the voters and "have it out" with the Democrats in the election. Why give Obama an enormous political victory, and potentially help him win reelection, when they might be able to negotiate a more favorable deal with a new Republican President? Boehner told Obama there was no deal. Instead of a Grand Bargain, Cantor and the House Republicans made a grand bet."

Unless there's another article you're referring to that I don't know about.

At 3/5/13 11:56 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/4/13 10:49 PM, adrshepard wrote: You have seen the economic news from Europe, right? They aren't exactly countries the US should emulate when it comes to fiscal policy.

I am squarely talking about Europe. How have spending cuts in a severe recession helped them? Oh wait, they HAVEN'T. For all intent and purposes, they're worse off since they picked austerity. The cuts killed jobs which dwindled revenue even further ans essentially resulted in a net loss.

I may be wrong, but one thing I've noticed among all the critics of austerity is that they point out how the debt ratio to the economy has increased despite an absolute reduction in debt. The debt-to-GDP ratio is usually used as an indicator of how much economic activity a government can tax to repay its debt. Another thing I've read is that the advocates of austerity underestimated the multiplier effect, thinking it was .5 for every euro spent when it was actually 1.5, which led to GDP contraction greater than the deficit reduction.
But think about it in terms of what that means for revenue and taxing ability when the GDP growth comes solely from government spending. The revenue gained from that sort of GDP growth will never outweigh the initial cost unless its enabling economic activity other than what it costs simply to pay for the program or service (funding a police force would be example, since without it people would be too afraid to do much of anything).
What I'm saying is that the argument about debt to GDP ratio increasing under austerity is pretty much irrelevant when the drop comes from reduced spending alone (as opposed to tax increases, like Europe did) and when that spending is not a vital precursor to economic activity. The contraction in GDP doesn't reflect upon the ability of a government to repay its debt when it would have been funding the missing growth at a loss to begin with.

At 3/5/13 01:19 PM, Feoric wrote: It is a political game, that doesn't mean I don't find it sickening. As for your latter point, I guess that depends on your perspective. Is the Republican's goal of never raising taxes + closing loopholes really that important?

That's more of a personal opinion, I guess. Given how many people don't pay zero or negative net federal income taxes and how much wealthy peope pay in absolute (and for some groups, relative) terms, coupled with the inherent justice of allowing people to keep what they've earned, I find the no tax increase position more defensible.

So you don't agree with the Woodward account of Obama insisting on new revenues at the last second? That's why Boehner walked away.

This one? This was about the sequester, not the GB. What I'm referring to is this:

Ok, I'll readily admit that I can't keep any of these damn negotiations straight, so I won't say any more.