I hope hope we don't raise the debt ceiling

[Mangano's Gold]

I hope Obama rejects all debt ceiling offers that put the burden on only the bottom 80%. If there are no revenue increases, there should be no deal, IMO. In all but the very shortest of terms I think the country would be better off with a little tough-love pain.

Who's the government going to stop paying? I'm curious. Skip a SS payment or two to the oldtimers? Cut Medicare reimbursements, or delay payments? Bounce checks to government employees and soldiers? Pay government contractors less than their invoices, or don't pay them at all. Say no pell grants for Fall semester? Don't replenish Food Stamp Cards. Skip a couple coupon payments on Treasuries?

Let's see the real impact of spending cuts!! The backlash may be extremely instructive. Maybe we'll learn that there are worse things in the world than modest tax increases. And the lesson will stick with us.

[puglogic]

The problem with this experiment is that the 80% will suffer and the top 20% -- the group zealously campaigning against any rollback of the tax credits -- will not. So no lesson will be learned at all, unless the pain is spread equally across society. Which it will not be.

[ApatheticNoMore]

When the pain gets bad enough, the 80% will learn to march in the streets, and they won't ask permission from their betters to do so. (of course a whole police state apparatus built in the last couple of decades exists now that can be used to crack down on such things). So yea, the wealthy have a vast array of power, sure. They are the power elite afterall. But they don't have ALL the power, they only have ALL the power if we continually concede what little power we do have. If we continually roll over and say "well what can I possible do, I'm not the 20% afterall ...". Only THEN do they have ALL the power. By the way I don't think it's the top 20%. Sure you can include the technocratic middle class and upper middle class in this if you want (doctors and high paid technical jobs or whatever), but while these people are somewhat privileged sure, I don't think they have the real power. The real power and the real wealth is in the hands of a MUCH smaller fragment of the population.

But yea I hear you Mangano on the debt. The economy is horrible, and all our money goes to wars. But even so debt increases forever and ever are clearly not sustainable. Not in the world as it actually is, where whole countries are driven to bankruptcy based on flight from their debt, never mind that sooner or later the interest itself eats up more and more of the revenue and becomes unpayable.

[kfander]

I hope Obama rejects all debt ceiling offers that put the burden on only the bottom 80%. If there are no revenue increases, there should be no deal, IMO. In all but the very shortest of terms I think the country would be better off with a little tough-love pain.

I hope the Republicans hold firm and refuse to raise the debt ceiling whatever the offer, but I'm not holding my breath, well aware that most Republicans are Democrats at heart.

[Rogar]

I think it's just a political game of chicken and someone will swerve a the last minute. I tihnk as flawed as they might be, social security and medicaid/medicare are good programs. I probably fall into the middle middle class or lower and would not mind paying a little more in taxes to keep them going. I'm not sure why the rich folk are complaining about this one.

I would be nice to see some real tax reform and major efforts to reduce healthcare costs at the source for everyone instead of all this partisan bickering over tax rates and entitlements.

[benhyr]

Oh yeah, we'll I hope a meteorite hits earth and wipes out humanity! That'll show us!

But, I predict nothing will happen... showmanship for votes on both sides followed by not much in the way of news.

[janharker]

It occurred to me tonight, while listening to All Things Considered, while they were talking about priorities and what to cut first, that I wonder what would happen if we decide that the first thing to cut would be aid to other countries, like Pakistan, Israel, etc. etc. Would there be economy struggles among those who are currently getting hand-outs? Would this be an opportunity for those countries to learn to pay their own bills? I truly don't know the answer.

[Zigzagman]

I have mixed emotions. My investments (which I live on) would probably take another hit and I'm not sure that my retirement could survive yet another huge downturn. Very frustrating for someone that did all the right things, no debt, lifetime saver, etc. I feel that our political heros are putting the burden on working people to pay for their mis-guided and corrupt actions. Those that have profited from the last decade are doing better than ever.

On the other hand I fear that unless we allow the system to fail that we are probably just prolonging the inevitable which will probably be worse in the future than now. I just don't think with the country so deeply divided that any elected official will have the guts to make the hard decisions that might be able to fix our long term problems.

I also would view the forced downsizing of our military budget as a positive but doubt that will happen unless the economy collapses. The very people that led us to the brink of collapse are now acting as if cutting social programs (which they despise) will bring us more jobs.

Either way, I think that people like most of us will end up paying the price for allowing the continued corruption of the GOP. I don't think they will be happy until either they get more control or the system collapses.

Fingers-crossed!

Peace

[Alan]

I think it's foolish to talk of tax increases until government has gotten a handle on spending. The monster will just keep growing as long as we feed it.

[stuboyle]

Now, is what I'm hearing correct?

The Republicans want $4 trillion in spending cuts and Obama says okay, if you give me $1 trillion in revenue increases.

[Zigzagman]

After watching the Obama Press conference today it appears to me that Pres. Obama is the only adult in the room. I believe that if the "party of NO" continues their stonewalling they will lose in the next election cycle.

Let's get this thing done!!

Peace

[Mangano's Gold]

Now, is what I'm hearing correct?

The Republicans want $4 trillion in spending cuts and Obama says okay, if you give me $1 trillion in revenue increases.
Who knows what the real numbers are, since they can use budget sleights of hand. But taking the numbers at face value, I'd suspect you could get broad Democratic support with a 2/1, 3/1, or 4/1 cuts-to-revenue ratio. You could probably get plenty of Republican voters on board with that, but not Republcian politicians who are driven by the least reasonable elements in their party.

And mind you, the "revenue increases" appear to be primarily (if not exclusively) the elimination of tax preferences, which many economists argue are effectively government spending through the tax code. In that sense, the cuts-to-revenue ratio just gets higher.

[LDAHL]

After watching the Obama Press conference today it appears to me that Pres. Obama is the only adult in the room. I believe that if the "party of NO" continues their stonewalling they will lose in the next election cycle.

Let's get this thing done!!

Peace

Lacking the Lone Adult's subtlety of mind, I was puzzled by his admonishment to Eric Cantor: "Don't call my bluff". In my experience of the game of poker, the bluffer doen't normally call such attention to his perfidy. You'd think a guy who came up through Chicago politics by way of Harvard Law would have a better handle on effective prevarication. Honestly, it's enough to make you miss Bill Clinton. I'm getting the impression here of a couple of deadbeats in a restaurant arguing over who gets to run out on the bill first.

It's been a good run, but I'm increasingly resigning myself to a period of decline as the bond market vigilantes scare up a posse. Tatterdemalion credit. Aromatic currency. Scapegoating anything smacking of economic success. Government "helpers" on every street corner. Acarpous investment portfolios.

Our best hope for continued influence is that our primary competition will behave even more stupidly than we do.

[Mangano's Gold]

If the "compromise" is real spending cuts against the the middle class, and tax cuts for the wealthy disguised as tax increases (by using budgetary gimmicks), then let it blow up. The blow up will last days or weeks, not months, before the public demands some sort of fair-minded approach.

[Gregg]

I'm still amazed that so many in the Republican party hare holding on so staunchly to the no new taxes mantra. I respect anyone who tries to live up to campaign pledges, but the simple truth is that we won't get out of this bind without increasing revenue. Spending cuts alone won't do it. Of course neither will simply reversing tax cuts from previous administrations. Everyone needs to pay more to get to where we can balance the books. Or we could simply grant several million people working in this country who don't pay taxes some form of legal stature to increase revenue, but that would probably be too simple for anyone in Washington...

[JaneV2.0]

We've been cutting and cutting and cutting tax rates for decades, pandering to the top one percenters and their wannabes. If we returned to pre-Reagan era rates, we might be able to fund an effective government. Maybe we could study countries with healthy economies and stable governments (and happy, educated, employed citizens) and implement strategies they use. Trickle-down still isn't working, no matter how they spin it.

[loosechickens]

"We've been cutting and cutting and cutting tax rates for decades, pandering to the top one percenters and their wannabes. If we returned to pre-Reagan era rates, we might be able to fund an effective government. Maybe we could study countries with healthy economies and stable governments (and happy, educated, employed citizens) and implement strategies they use. Trickle-down still isn't working, no matter how they spin it." (JaneV2.0)
----------------------------------------------------------------
One would think we could study all the rest of the western democracies that manage to provide health care to all their citizens, and have no families of their citizens going bankrupt from medical bills, or dumped out on the street by hospitals, while spending half (or less) per capita than costs in this country. But we don't. It's enough to make you tear your hair out, for sure.........

Now that all those "job creators" (new focus group tested word for rich people) are paying less than half the taxes they used to pay, and have more and more of the wealth of the country clutched into their hands, where are the jobs? That's another question that I find myself having.......

[creaker]

"We've been cutting and cutting and cutting tax rates for decades, pandering to the top one percenters and their wannabes. If we returned to pre-Reagan era rates, we might be able to fund an effective government. Maybe we could study countries with healthy economies and stable governments (and happy, educated, employed citizens) and implement strategies they use. Trickle-down still isn't working, no matter how they spin it." (JaneV2.0)
----------------------------------------------------------------
One would think we could study all the rest of the western democracies that manage to provide health care to all their citizens, and have no families of their citizens going bankrupt from medical bills, or dumped out on the street by hospitals, while spending half (or less) per capita than costs in this country. But we don't. It's enough to make you tear your hair out, for sure.........

Now that all those "job creators" (new focus group tested word for rich people) are paying less than half the taxes they used to pay, and have more and more of the wealth of the country clutched into their hands, where are the jobs? That's another question that I find myself having.......

Short answer - as long as they don't expect some return (profit) from creating jobs, they won't. And if they can increase profit margins by reducing their workforces and increasing productivity they will.

Jobs won't come back until consumers start spending and those jobs are required to increase profits, and consumers won't start spending until they have jobs.

[Zigzagman]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/07/25/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/debt%20changes%20under%20bush%20obama.jpg?uuid=qZC izrbZEeCYzBMQCYwsyQ

What’s also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama’s major expenses were temporary — the stimulus is over now — while Bush’s were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn’t just lower revenue for 10 years. It’s clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.

To relate this specifically to the debt-ceiling debate, we’re not raising the debt ceiling because of the new policies passed in the past two years. We’re raising the debt ceiling because of the accumulated effect of policies passed in recent decades, many of them under Republicans. It’s convenient for whichever side isn’t in power, or wasn’t recently in power, to blame the debt ceiling on the other party. But it isn’t true.

[Gregg]

I thought Fareed Zakaria had an interesting op-ed today regarding the debt ceiling. I can't seem to find much to argue with in what he has to say. Any way you slice it I think our politicians are doing a lot more harm than good with their grandstanding.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/28/the-damage-is-already-done/

[Zigzagman]

http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/virginiamary14th.jpg

[Catwoman]

I hope he does too, but for different reasons than yours, Zig.