How can Obamanomics play out?

[IDBillzFan]

Probably not the best choice of words. Especially if taken out of context. Obamabots are quite sensitive about their dear leader. If they were any more thin skinned they'd have a resevoir tip*

 

*Not sure who to attribute quote to, Dennis Miller I think but not 100% sure

Yes, sir. Dennis Miller. Every bit as funny as his "Janet Napolitano is what you get when you add water to Helen Thomas."

[/dev/null]

Hey, I don't mean to be a pest, but you had mentioned a plan earlier that included "3 trillion in spending cuts offered for 1 trillion in revenue" which the GOP was against.

 

Can you show me the details of this plan? Who proposed it? Where will we find the $3T cuts? What are these cuts, specifically? How fast will the cuts take place? When was this proposal put on the table? How many Republicans voted against it? When did the vote take place?

 

Could you please answer these questions. Based on your comments above, it should be VERY easy for you to provide links to the proposal and who in the GOP voted against it.

 

Thank you in advance.

 

Haven't you learned that details aren't important? It's the thought that counts. Like fixing Health Care. The Obamacare bill was a clusterf*ck that only made things worse. But they said it would fix Health Care, and that's all that matters

 

Why not take the high-road and stop playing the political game that you chastise the republicans for?

Because those partisan games are only wrong when it's the other guys. When their home team does it then it's different.

[Dante]

Probably not the best choice of words. Especially if taken out of context. Obamabots are quite sensitive about their dear leader. If they were any more thin skinned they'd have a resevoir tip*

 

*Not sure who to attribute quote to, Dennis Miller I think but not 100% sure

I should have said "political demise" I suppose. Either way I wouldn't lose any sleep. Anyway, on the subject of business being scared, here is a bit from Steve Wynn

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/wynn-ceo-steve-wynn-conference-call-transcript-obama-2011-7

[Wacka]

Probably not the best choice of words. Especially if taken out of context. Obamabots are quite sensitive about their dear leader. If they were any more thin skinned they'd have a resevoir tip*

 

*Not sure who to attribute quote to, Dennis Miller I think but not 100% sure

 

 

See my sig

[Dan]

You saw 'Morning Joe' this morning?

Actually no. I don't watch MSNBC at all.

 

You lost me right here. You are more than welcome to assume you think you know what might possibly be taking place in these meetings, but you don't know jack. And back to the reason for my post: people like Buftex and pBills yap about how Obama has put cuts on the table and the GOP has walked away from them...or the Democrats have agreed to $3T in cuts for $1T in debt increase, and yet neither of them have one single link or proof that this is the case.

 

So you have a choice: you can question the validity of their liberal talking points, to which they choke on their own BS and have absolutely NOTHING to back their claims...or you can take the "I think we can all assume..." position.

 

It's amazing to me how many people are batschitt crazy about the GOP standing firm on their commitment to not increase taxes, and yet have no problem making up numbers and false proposals for the Democrats based on the fact that Mika and Joe told them so this morning.

You say that there is no plan for these cuts; yet in a post after this you readily admit that all the talking has been going on behind closed doors. So, how do you know there's no specific plan for the cuts? You don't. I'm not saying every deal of every cut is in place. I'm not in the meetings. But, I find it hard to believe that anyone, including our politicians, are dumb enough to meet for as long as these people have been and not have any specific ideas - for cuts and taxes.

 

It really is a "who's dumber" race to the bottom. With the Republicans currently in the lead.

 

When anyone with half a brain (i.e., not the Republican base) knows you can't reduce the debt without increasing taxes. They're alienating 60% of the country to appease 20% of it, and simultaneously accomplishing something that the Democrats couldn't do in ten years: making the Democrats look sane and reasonable. Good strategy.

Pretty much how I'd summarize this whole mess.

 

Because the GOP aren't idiots - the proposal that I've heard bandied about was tax hikes of $1 trillion in exchange for a promise to look at spending cuts equaling $3 trillion down the road. A grand bargain indeed.

I've heard or read plenty of speculation - certainly some cuts.. many cuts are down the road. But, certainly some cuts would be much sooner. Just as many of the tax loopholes would be closed down the road as well. Does congress ever pass a bill that has immediate effects?

[Peace]

 

You say that there is no plan for these cuts; yet in a post after this you readily admit that all the talking has been going on behind closed doors. So, how do you know there's no specific plan for the cuts? You don't. I'm not saying every deal of every cut is in place. I'm not in the meetings. But, I find it hard to believe that anyone, including our politicians, are dumb enough to meet for as long as these people have been and not have any specific ideas - for cuts and taxes.

 

 

Not to mention Obama is talking about cuts and changes to the Medis and Social Security as part of this plan. Publicly. The Dems are clearly giving in on a lot of spending programs. The Reps need to give in on some tax issues.

 

LA, you need to tak off the partisan hack hat you're getting all to comfortable in and see that the plan developing is good for the country and Dems are caving on a lot of issues.

 

The senators backing the new proposal say 74% of the deficit reduction would come from spending cuts and 26% from new taxes. It would impose spending cuts and caps, and make changes in Social Security to make the program solvent over 75 years. It would direct congressional committees to reduce the deficit by specific levels in their areas of jurisdiction, likely including major entitlements such as Medicare and Medicaid.

 

The plan also would make big changes to the tax code. It would lower personal and corporate tax rates, eliminate the unpopular Alternative Minimum Tax and many deductions and tax breaks.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Peace

[Joe Miner]

Not to mention Obama is talking about cuts and changes to the Medis and Social Security as part of this plan. Publicly. The Dems are clearly giving in on a lot of spending programs. The Reps need to give in on some tax issues.

 

LA, you need to tak off the partisan hack hat you're getting all to comfortable in and see that the plan developing is good for the country and Dems are caving on a lot of issues.

 

Call me when someone's actually giving in on something that's not a 4 page outline.

 

Then call back again, when they (Congress) don't completely !@#$ up this 4 page outline rushing to pass parts of it as a bill.

 

If nothing comes of this 4 page outline only an idiot would jump to conclusions and blame 1 side or the other about some ambiguous bill based on it not passing.

[IDBillzFan]

Not to mention Obama is talking about cuts and changes to the Medis and Social Security as part of this plan. Publicly. The Dems are clearly giving in on a lot of spending programs. The Reps need to give in on some tax issues.

 

LA, you need to tak off the partisan hack hat you're getting all to comfortable in and see that the plan developing is good for the country and Dems are caving on a lot of issues.

What plan? What plan has Obama put out there that specifically talks about cuts and changes to the Medis and Social Security? Did you read his plan? Did you see his plan? If he did this "publicly," beyond speeches (which, in case you haven't heard, the CBO won't score), you must have a link to his plan, right?

 

You listen to the bullschitt mumbo jumbo of this dolt and because he mentions something about cuts to the Medis, you naturally assume that he has plan. And if people like me have a problem with his non-plan that DOES NOT EXIST, you expect me "to take off the partisan hack hat."

 

So tell me, the partisan hack...WHAT...IS...HIS...PLAN?

 

Exactly. He's got bumpkus, and to be frank, I'm a little surprised that a guy who is allegedly as smart as you is someone buying into this embarrassing rhetoric.

 

But no. I'm the partisan hack. For asking about the emporer's clothes.

 

Jesus.

[Peace]

What plan? What plan has Obama put out there that specifically talks about cuts and changes to the Medis and Social Security? Did you read his plan? Did you see his plan? If he did this "publicly," beyond speeches (which, in case you haven't heard, the CBO won't score), you must have a link to his plan, right?

 

You listen to the bullschitt mumbo jumbo of this dolt and because he mentions something about cuts to the Medis, you naturally assume that he has plan. And if people like me have a problem with his non-plan that DOES NOT EXIST, you expect me "to take off the partisan hack hat."

 

So tell me, the partisan hack...WHAT...IS...HIS...PLAN?

 

Exactly. He's got bumpkus, and to be frank, I'm a little surprised that a guy who is allegedly as smart as you is someone buying into this embarrassing rhetoric.

 

But no. I'm the partisan hack. For asking about the emporer's clothes.

 

Jesus.

 

So you believe that the 5 page outline, which is certainly flawed in some ways, but cuts 4T from the deficit over 10 years, is crap?

 

Step 1 is agree to an outline. Step 2 is details. It seems like the outline is done. In terms of the importance of raising the debt ceiling, it was pretty f-ing important to get #1 done.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Peace

[/dev/null]

Step 1 is outline. Step 2 is details. It seems like the outline is done.

 

Step 3: Profit!

[Joe Miner]

So you believe that the 5 page outline, which is certainly flawed in some ways, but cuts 4T from the deficit over 10 years, is crap?

 

Step 1 is outline. Step 2 is details. It seems like the outline is done.

 

I believe it has potential.

 

I believe it will turn into crap.

 

"Just show me the baby."

 

I don't think either side should win an award should even a good bill get passed from this outline. And it's way too early to definitively say that one side or the other is to blame if this outline doesn't result in a bill.

[GG]

I've heard or read plenty of speculation - certainly some cuts.. many cuts are down the road. But, certainly some cuts would be much sooner. Just as many of the tax loopholes would be closed down the road as well. Does congress ever pass a bill that has immediate effects?

 

And you're referring to the outline presented yesterday, not the ones that were offered up last week when everyone was screaming at GOP for being obstructionist. The most recent proposal is much closer to what GOP was targeting and that's why the two sides are still working on it.

 

So, let's not conflate the issues by equating last week's offers to yesterday's

[Joe Miner]

And you're referring to the outline presented yesterday, not the ones that were offered up last week when everyone was screaming at GOP for being obstructionist. The most recent proposal is much closer to what GOP was targeting and that's why the two sides are still working on it.

 

So, let's not conflate the issues by equating last week's offers to yesterday's

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303661904576456072630104778.html

 

Again, what politicians say in public is not what the say when actually making a deal.

[DC Tom]

So you believe that the 5 page outline, which is certainly flawed in some ways, but cuts 4T from the deficit over 10 years, is crap?

 

I never understood how people got so excited about cutting 4T over ten years from a deficit that's currently running 1T+ a year.

[IDBillzFan]

So you believe that the 5 page outline, which is certainly flawed in some ways, but cuts 4T from the deficit over 10 years, is crap?

 

Step 1 is agree to an outline. Step 2 is details. It seems like the outline is done. In terms of the importance of raising the debt ceiling, it was pretty f-ing important to get #1 done.

Ooooh, an outline. Yes, an outline is very important. Five pages, you say? Was that double-spaced? And it said something like "cut money from deficit!" Why, that's simply genius!!!

 

An outline isn't a plan. It's a plan to come up with a plan. It's like saying you passed a test because you sharpened your #2 pencil. Yes, you need to sharpen your pencil, but you're a long way from being ready to pass a test. Not to mention, it's not Obama's plan, which was the point of my original post. It's just a plan he gets to call “broadly consistent with the approach I’ve urged.”

 

The leader is now the Urger-in-Chief. Leading America to important comments about a five-page double-spaced plan-for-a-plan just weeks before an August 2nd deadline which, according to the WH and its Treasure Secretary, will cause an economic disaster so massive that we can't even guarantee grandma will get her check on Aug. 3rd.

 

Yep. We have a plan for a plan and one of these days it may just lead to a plan. Maybe even a budget.

[Magox]

I'm not sure if it was you or not Peace, but I believe when the GOP made some cuts last time around it was suppose to have been a higher number than it actually ended up being. Were you the one to highlight that and post that here? I can't remember, but I know someone did. I guess the point that I'm making is that I'm highly skeptical of these purported possible cuts. Krauthammer had a good idea yesterday (which it seems that I almost always agree with what he says) whichis to make a 6 month deal just to make sure that the cuts are actually taking place the way they are being planned to.

[Peace]

I'm not sure if it was you or not Peace, but I believe when the GOP made some cuts last time around it was suppose to have been a higher number than it actually ended up being. Were you the one to highlight that and post that here? I can't remember, but I know someone did. I guess the point that I'm making is that I'm highly skeptical of these purported possible cuts. Krauthammer had a good idea yesterday (which it seems that I almost always agree with what he says) whichis to make a 6 month deal just to make sure that the cuts are actually taking place the way they are being planned to.

 

I don't think it was me but I agree 100%. One of the early ceiling proposals proposed raising the debt ceiling in 700B increments exactly for this reason. And that would allow both parties to keep playing politics with the cuts/taxes issues.

[TPS]

And that would exacerbate the revenue problem because the wealthy have a much greater ability to defer income. That's very bad fiscal policy, as you're tying a big chunk of your revenues on a demographic which can wait out the tough economic times.

 

Nice to get votes, horrible to run a country.

The point of the Yahoo article was that the high top marginal rates coincided with higher growth in real gdp. And the other side of the coin, with the Bush2 tax cuts we experienced the lowest 8-year real gdp average in the post-war2 era. The Yahoo article also mentions a point I've made here before--low top marginal rates coincide with increases in inequality and asset bubbles/speculation.

It's more like 10 years.

Just seems longer...

 

Yet Laffer only talks about the revenue side, and among the countless conversations in that decade has been the point that a deficit isn't a driver but an outcome of revenues & expenditures. And the whole point of the Tax Foundation graphs is that during the Bush II tax cuts, the revenue take has been in line with historic averages, even though marginal rates were low. So from that standpoint, he was right.

This is just pure bunk, and is also a rehash. If you compare any Bush2 year with any historical post-war year with the same level of unemployment, revenues as a % of gdp are lower. The "full-employment budget deficit" is higher with those lower marginal tax rates.

 

Yes, of course the deficit is an outcome of spending and tax decisions. The outcome of supply-side tax cuts has been larger deficits which is standard keynesian expansionary fiscal policy.

 

Yet, nobody on the left wants to talk about the true drivers of runaway spending and the demographic wall we're about to hit.

Many left-leaning economists argue the main driver of future deficits is Medicare/Medicaid/and public pension benefits. Dean Baker talks about this all the time. Fix the health insurance issue, and the majority of future liabilities will be resolved.