Budget Compromise Reached?

[Tiberius]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/house-senate-negotiators-reach-budget-deal/2013/12/10/e7ee1aaa-61eb-11e3-94ad-004fefa61ee6_story.html

 

 

Wow!!

 

 

"With the deal already under fire from conservatives for weakening the sequester, Ryan acknowledged that the package is not ideal. But in a “divided government” where Democrats control the White House and the Senate, he said, “I deal with the way things are, not the way I necessarily want them to be.”

 

The deal would not deliver a key demand of many Democrats to extend unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployed. While they pledged to keep fighting, senior Democrats acknowledged that checks are likely to be cut off at the end of the month for more than a million jobless workers, undercutting the strengthening economic recovery."

 

 

[DC Tom]

It won't pass. Someone will get bitchy and partisan about it.

[Tiberius]

It won't pass. Someone will get bitchy and partisan about it.

 

Well at the ruinous debt levels we are at, let's hope not!

[boyst]

http://www.washingto...1ee6_story.html

 

 

Wow!!

 

 

"With the deal already under fire from conservatives for weakening the sequester, Ryan acknowledged that the package is not ideal. But in a "divided government" where Democrats control the White House and the Senate, he said, "I deal with the way things are, not the way I necessarily want them to be."

 

The deal would not deliver a key demand of many Democrats to extend unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployed. While they pledged to keep fighting, senior Democrats acknowledged that checks are likely to be cut off at the end of the month for more than a million jobless workers, undercutting the strengthening economic recovery."

and when those checks cut off the Obama administration will quickly raise a hurrah that the Unemployment rate went down by over a million. Which will be perfect, because the amount of uninsured will be, what, 20x's that?

[Nanker]

That's a really 'strengthening economic recovery' right there. On the backs of unemployment insurance checks!

Forward! A new and promising future awaits all! Unemployment checks from college graduation to early retirement at 55! (you want food stamps with that?)

 

B.O. is fundamentally transforming America into a worker-less economy paradise.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Nanker

[NFL95MelGrayDomination]

 

 

Well at the ruinous debt levels we are at, let's hope not!

 

If money is a promise, then isn't the creation of money an illusion?

[keepthefaith]

Well at the ruinous debt levels we are at, let's hope not!

 

I'm fine with all the debt. Expand the economy dammit. I'll be out of the workforce in about 10 years and will be entering the entitlement stage of life. Let the younger folks figure it out. Just give me my checks.

[IDBillzFan]

I can't believe there is finally a bipartisan budget deal on the table and the Dems want to kill it so quickly.

 

Why are Democrats so intent on obstructing this bill? Is it because the WANT a government shutdown? Are they really ready to cut off checks to our miliary and social security checks to our elderly because they want to extend unemployment benefits beyond 99 weeks?

 

Wow. It's like the entire Democrat party is imploding.

 

[/gatormanalternateuniverse]

[Koko78]

I can't believe there is finally a bipartisan budget deal on the table and the Dems want to kill it so quickly.

 

Why are Democrats so intent on obstructing this bill? Is it because the WANT a government shutdown? Are they really ready to cut off checks to our miliary and social security checks to our elderly because they want to extend unemployment benefits beyond 99 weeks?

 

Yes, yes they are. They want the checks to stop, they want the government to stop so that they can blame the GOP for forcing them into shutting down the government in order to protect the little guy and make sure that Joe Johnson, who has been unemployed for 99 weeks due to Bush/Boehner's failed policies, can receive his unemployment checks and feed his 4 children. So therefore, people will need to vote Democrat in November so that Boehner cannot starve Mr. Johnson's 6 children and toss 95 year old Granny Smith out into the cold. The GOP gives people cancer.

 

You know media will sell it and the mongoloids will buy it.

[Tiberius]

I can't believe there is finally a bipartisan budget deal on the table and the Dems want to kill it so quickly.

 

Why are Democrats so intent on obstructing this bill? Is it because the WANT a government shutdown? Are they really ready to cut off checks to our miliary and social security checks to our elderly because they want to extend unemployment benefits beyond 99 weeks?

 

Wow. It's like the entire Democrat party is imploding.

 

[/gatormanalternateuniverse]

 

Sure looks like like the Tea Party is well past their high tide. Even the GOP establishment is ignoring them

 

 

You know media will sell it and the mongoloids will buy it.

 

What is the media? What do you mean by that term exactly?

[IDBillzFan]

Sure looks like like the Tea Party is well past their high tide. Even the GOP establishment is ignoring them

 

What the GOP establishment appears to be doing is protecting their lead. The budget deal may not be the most fiscally prudent move for the next two years, and Tea Party folks like Rubio and Paul will vote against it in principle, but it will still pass without them. This, in turn, keeps the government open for the next two years and allows them to pound Obamacare for the mid-terms, where they stand an excellent chance of keeping the house and winning the Senate by playing a constant loop of vulnerable Senators repeatedly echoing the President's lie that you can keep your plan. Period.

 

Frankly I think I like this idea quite a bit, much like I favored a compromise during the government shutdown so everyone could point out how embarrassing the Obamacare roll-out was.

 

But you keep telling everyone how the Tea Party is done. Louder, Skippy. Louder.

[Koko78]

What is the media? What do you mean by that term exactly?

 

me·di·a

/ˈmēdēə/

noun

noun: media; plural noun: media; noun: the media

1. You're an idiot.
   

[3rdnlng]

That's a really 'strengthening economic recovery' right there. On the backs of unemployment insurance checks!

Forward! A new and promising future awaits all! Unemployment checks from college graduation to early retirement at 55! (you want food stamps with that?)

 

B.O. is fundamentally transforming America into a worker-less economy paradise.

 

http://www.freerepub...s/2545314/posts

 

Pelosi: Unemployment Checks Fastest Way to Create Jobs

Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday. fox news

Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday.

Talking to reporters, the House speaker was defending a jobless benefits extension against those who say it gives recipients little incentive to work. By her reasoning, those checks are helping give somebody a job.

"It injects demand into the economy," Pelosi said, arguing that when families have money to spend it keeps the economy churning. "It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name."

Pelosi said the aid has the "double benefit" of helping those who lost their jobs and acting as a "job creator" on the side.

"It's impossible to think of a situation where we would have a country that would say we're not going to have unemployment benefits," Pelosi said.

Edited December 12, 2013 by 3rdnlng

[B-Man]

Why the media adore a budget deal that accomplishes so little

by Howard Kurtz

 

Turns out nobody likes this budget deal except the press, which loves bipartisan agreements, no matter how puny.

 

The tone of the coverage is as follows:

Finally, they’re acting like grownups.

Finally, a return to “regular order” (a legislative term no one cares about but which means doing a budget for a year rather than these endless stopgap measures).

Finally, both sides have agreed to compromise.

Finally, no danger of a government shutdown.

 

All true.

 

But let’s not get carried away: the agreement accomplishes very little. Maybe journalists are just relieved they don’t have to work over the Christmas holidays on another up-to-the-brink budget mess.

 

Paul Ryan and his Senate counterpart, Patty Murray, will bask in favorable coverage, and it’s probably true that a small deal was the only deal they could get.

 

But given the magnitude of our financial problems and the huge size of the deficit, it really is minor news.

 

 

 

http://www.foxnews.c...shes-so-little/

Edited December 12, 2013 by B-Man

[B-Large]

_{Until there are substantial changes to Medicare/Medicaid, SSN or Defense Spending outlays, OR we decide we are actually going to collect dollar for dollar from Americans tax payers to pay for every cent of Government spending, its all window dressing. Keep borrowing, keep spending, keep adding up the LTD.}

 

http://www.foxnews.c...shes-so-little/

 

exactly, great deal for photo ops, essentially changes nothing wiht the problem

Edited December 12, 2013 by B-Large

[TPS]

_{Until there are substantial changes to Medicare/Medicaid, SSN or Defense Spending outlays, OR we decide we are actually going to collect dollar for dollar from Americans tax payers to pay for every cent of Government spending, its all window dressing. Keep borrowing, keep spending, keep adding up the LTD.}

Doesn't anyone here on the right understand the need to look at the Debt/income ratio? Debt/Asset ratio? Interest expense ratio?

[keepthefaith]

Doesn't anyone here on the right understand the need to look at the Debt/income ratio? Debt/Asset ratio? Interest expense ratio?

 

Lots of nice numbers I'm sure. Let's talk about the interest expense. Is it conceivable that in a couple decades the interest rate at which our debt (which could be $30T by then) will be financed is double or close to double what it is today? Shouldn't we expect that interest rates will have to rise over time? If so we could have an annual expense of roughly $1.25T - $1.5 T annually. Today it costs about $400B. If so, is it possible that taxpayers (I'm talking about people in the workforce then) could be really pissed off that such a large piece of the budget is committed simply to interest on debt? I really don't want to hear about debt/GDP or Interest/GDP or any other nice numbers. What I want to know is if taxpayers then and politicians then are gonna look at the debt expense and be really sorry that some spending discipline wasn't exerted previously. I want to know if an expense like that will be very problematic in the effort to fund the government then.

Edited December 12, 2013 by keepthefaith

[Azalin]

Doesn't anyone here on the right understand the need to look at the Debt/income ratio? Debt/Asset ratio? Interest expense ratio?

and how many on the left are actually doing anything about reducing spending? I'm not talking about % of GDP measurements, just simply balancing a budget. why does it need to be any more complicated than that?

[B-Large]

and how many on the left are actually doing anything about reducing spending? I'm not talking about % of GDP measurements, just simply balancing a budget. why does it need to be any more complicated than that?

 

Most Americans polled do not want SS or Medicare cut, and perfer not to see big cuts in Military spending. Without addressing those the balanced budget talk is useless... we will continue to spend, borrow to make up the difference and keep the guise of low taxes for Americans until the point that interest expense forces us to default or kick people off programs or cut Defense dramatically. I think it was George Will on one of the Sunday morning politics show who said something roughly: American Govt does Comprehensive Poorly, but Handles Crisis Effectively. We will deal with the debt when it is in crisis mode, no sooner IMHO

[TPS]

 

 

Lots of nice numbers I'm sure. Let's talk about the interest expense. Is it conceivable that in a couple decades the interest rate at which our debt (which could be $30T by then) will be financed is double or close to double what it is today? Shouldn't we expect that interest rates will have to rise over time? If so we could have an annual expense of roughly $1.25T - $1.5 T annually. Today it costs about $400B. If so, is it possible that taxpayers (I'm talking about people in the workforce then) could be really pissed off that such a large piece of the budget is committed simply to interest on debt? I really don't want to hear about debt/GDP or Interest/GDP or any other nice numbers. What I want to know is if taxpayers then and politicians then are gonna look at the debt expense and be really sorry that some spending discipline wasn't exerted previously. I want to know if an expense like that will be very problematic in the effort to fund the government then.

would you evaluate a business by its interest expense independent of its income? Would a bank? An investor? If you want to fix the discussion to your bias beforehand, that's up to you. Everyone else pays interest from their income.