Debt and Deficit Negotiations
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-07-18/debt-and-deficit-negotiations
President Barack Obama sits with House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., as he meets with Republican and Democratic leaders regarding the debt ceiling in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, July 13, 2011.
(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
The haggling goes on. The White House says Congress needs to raise the debt ceiling by Friday to avoid a potential U.S. default, but there were few signs of progress over the weekend. The only plan that seems to be gaining some traction is a bi-partisan proposal that allows the president to raise the debt ceiling … without the support of congressional Republicans. The plan assures wrangling for months, if not years, to come. This week both the House and Senate plan largely symbolic votes on measures aimed at soothing ruffled constituents but little else: Join us for a conversations on the debt and deficit battles down to the wire.
Guests
E.J. Dionne Jr.
senior fellow, The Brookings Institution,
columnist, Washington Post
and author of "Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics After the Religious Right" and of "Stand Up Fight Back."
Janet Hook
congressional correspondent, The Wall Street Journal.
David Winston
Republican pollster and President of the Winston Group. He also writes for Roll Call and is a CBS News consultant.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I must be honest. I never respected Bush and I never will. However, after 911, I supported him. Then he decided to invade Iraq.
Conservatives will never respect President Obama. I do not know how many of you actually spend time talking to conservatives. If you do, you realize that bigotry and religious intolerance is behind a lot of their beliefs and NOT Ayn Randian thought.
Incidentally, I loved Ayn Rand.......in highschool.
The Republican idea that cutting taxes will increase revenue is based off the idea of the Laffer curve. Which is that if you raise taxes too high it will discourage economic activity and therefore lower revenue. However, it is important to not that the idea is a CURVE and the opposite is true as well. If you lower rates too much then that will decrease revenue as well, obviously.
What is holding up congress is an extremest view that always thinks taxes should be lower and ultimately wants virtually no government and private everything. Works for those of us with a comparative advantage over others, but its ultimately unhealthy for society as a whole.
What we are fundamentally arguing about is cuts to the poor and vulnerable who are not in a position to tighten their belts versus cuts to the super wealthy, who probably stash a lot of their money overseas anyways.
Don't be shy about calling this what it is, class warfare. The very wealthy have been waging it successfully on the poor and working class for decades now.
Lisa, The Republicans have this in their play book - every time someone mentions that the tax breaks for the wealthy didn't create jobs they change the subject by saying businesses prospered after these tax breaks.
Of course businesses prospered - they hired cheap overseas workers and avoided taxes by locating their headquarters 'off shore'. These are actions that take away jobs and revenue.
You'll notice that when making this argument they avoid mentioning the tremendous increase in executive salaries for doing this very thing - taking away American jobs.
Ten years of war without raising taxes and actually cutting taxes for the wealthy have brought us to this point yet some are advocating more of the same as the 'solution'?
Etaoin
Monte wrote his tome two days ago. Hmmm - I wonder if he is a troll paid for by the wealthy K street lobby folks.
Apparently it's easier to call someone a troll than refute their comments. So noted.
Shrinking the governement from 24% of GDP back to where it was 11 years ago hardly sounds like government is going away but arguing the extremes is the only defense you have.
Apparently it's greed that motivates people to keep what they earn. What is it that motivates people to take what they haven't earned?
Monte seems to lump all federal regulation and programs into the category of ‘welfare’. There should be a distinction between welfare and the 'common good'.
If the government provides a sewer system that prevents scourges of cholera and other diseases - that is not welfare, it is the common good.
If government regulations provide clean water and clean air, that is for the common good.
If the government regulates decent hours, decent pay, safe working conditions that is for the common good.
If government provides a good education for all that is for the common good - it raises the standard living for all citizens.
If the government were to provide health care to the mother stricken with cancer, would that not benefit society as well as that mother and her family?
Speaking of welfare in the context Monte is using it, I’d like to quote Robert Kennedy,
“The answer to the welfare crisis is work, jobs, self-sufficiency and family integrity; not a massive extension of welfare...We need jobs, dignified employment at decent pay; the kind of employment that lets a man say to his community, to his family, to his country and most importantly to himself, ‘I helped to build this country. I am a participant in its great public ventures’...”.
This argues that job creation is properly a government function for the common good.
We have to be able to distinguish what benefits us all and what encourages only the greedy.
I went on Winston's website since to claims to be trained in econometrics. What is interesting is that all other people on his team list their education (typically a masters or bachelors) but Winston does not.
I have studied Econometrics though my graduate degree is in Decision Science. Most "educated" people realize that knowing econometrics is NOT the same as knowing Economics. Therefore, I believe that Winston is trying to pull a fast one on everyone when answering the caller about whether or not he was trained in Economics.
I went on Winston's website since to claims to be trained in econometrics. What is interesting is that all other people on his team list their education (typically a masters or bachelors) but Winston does not.
I have studied Econometrics though my graduate degree is in Decision Science. Most "educated" people realize that knowing econometrics is NOT the same as knowing Economics. Therefore, I believe that Winston is trying to pull a fast one on everyone when answering the caller about whether or not he was trained in Economics.
As for the "games" being played in Washington, I have two Comments:
1) The so-called "McConnell Plan" is blatantly unconstitutional, the height of cynicism, and a "profile in cowardice".
It is the Congress, not the President, who has the "power of the purse", specifically the power "to borrow money on the credit of the United States". (Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 2) Furthermore, the proposal smacks of a "legislative veto" (declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court years ago), so it is void on at least two grounds.
It's only purpose is to allow politicians to "have their cake and eat it too": the President will raise the debt limit (staving off economic disaster), while Congress will be able to posture in protest. Blatant hypocrisy.
Everyone, left, right, or center, should condemn it!
TO BE CONTINUED
2) The call for a "balanced budget amendment" is hardly better.
Its advocates know it has zero chance of passage (either through Congress or the State Legislatures), which is the only good thing about it!
It's attempt to "lock in" conservative ideology only makes it worse. If Republicans want a balanced budget without tax increases, they should either try to pass one, or convince the voters to (once again) give them control of both Congress and the White House (as we did from 2003 through 2006, four years without a balanced budget by the way).
Besides, we all know the politicians will use every accounting "gimmick" they can to get around it. And who decides if the amendment is being obeyed (and forces Congress to obey if not)? Do we really want the courts setting the U.S. budget? (And if not the courts, then the amendment will truly be "just a piece of paper".)
Finally, anyone who thinks requiring a "super majority" to raise taxes is a great idea, should look at the States that have such a requirement. Are their economies doing noticeably better than States that don't? Here in Arizona we have such a provision, and we currently rank 16th in unemployment (better than California, which has such a requirement, but worse than New York, which does not).
Source: http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/lauhsthl.htm
In any case, Arizona allows voters to make spending decisions by petition and referendum, which they use to make sure education is better funded than our Legislature does. Though neither I (nor the Founders) favored "direct" democracy (as contrasted with representative democracy, a.k.a. a "republic"), perhaps we should adopt that for the country as a whole? I would certainly insist that any "Balanced Budget Amendment" give the voters the ability to directly raise or lower spending and taxes. If the politicians won't do their jobs, perhaps we should do it for them!
Ciao, for now.
Did you ever know someone that called themselves and "independent" that was anything other than a big government democrat? calling yourself an independent is something you do after you finish telling yourself how good looking you are when looking into a mirror.
I thought my welfare explanation was pretty good. I learned quite a bit myself putting that together. Thank you to the usual suspects who can appreciate something like that here. I questioned meangreen why he bothered with his efforts and then spent a couple hours working on my contribution, go figure. The few contrary voices here on the D.R. forum are swimming in a sea of Dianes ditto heads, we are the ones challenging our beliefs the others just want to be agreed with and quite frankly are too cowardly to challenge themselves.
E.S. give it your best shot but I know what to expect, intellectual dishonesty in the form of nonsensical hair splitting. It is clear to me you have become what you claim to hate, an extremist partisan.
Some facts to dispute David Winston & his Murdoch/GOP spinning & false equivalencies.
--
David Cay Johnston on tax expenditures [tax rate cuts] & tax deductions – From WNYC radio/ Brian Lehrer Show - 12 July 2011
bl071211dpod.mp3
Government Revenue ##S from 1950-2010 – note Ike still wins for consistently high receipts despite smaller population, lower CEO/Exec salaries & marginal tax rates in the90% range.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1950_2010&view=...
While listening to the show today, one of the guests stated that during the first 4 years after the Bush Tax cuts, tax revenues went up about 800 billion a year as proof that they worked. That statement was left unchallenged but I raised several questions in my mind.
How much of that so called increased revenue was the result of our falsely inflated real estate economy? And if the increase was legitimate, why did they stop working after the first 4 years? Did that figure include the revenue from the tax amnesty given to large corporations to bring off shore capital back into the US banking system? If so how much?
The few minutes with caller "Neil (Neal?) from Cleveland" were wonderful.
Studying "statistical policy analysis and econometrics at The Heritage Foundation" has all the academic legitimacy of working in a Paleontology Department at Bob Jones University.
I heard part of Monday's ( 7.18) broadcast, so please let me know if this question was asked. Mr. Winston, I recall, declared that during the Bush years there was an increase in Government revenue when lower taxes were enacted-as there had been in other times.
During the Bush years, however, I understand that job creation was markedly low. So what is the basis for the enhanced revenue? American workers were more productive? The wealthier were getting wealthier without creating jobs? And I would like to know the breakdown of the revenue in terms of income category, and business/industry. (I imagine the housing market contributed to the growth at this time.)
Debt/deficit is a a manipulative Kabuki show for the sheeple. If Obama had any integrity or guts he'd say to the country "Let's stop the (stupid, illegal, murderous) wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia , ..., ... Let's make the rich pay their fair share of taxes (some of the biggest corps paid zero taxes in the past two years), Let's cut the absurdly bloated military budget in half AND THEN, AND ONLY THEN do we talk about cutting anything else". This is a message that 80% ordinary Americans would agree with.
Unfortunately, Obama has neither integrity not guts. All the politicians now want cover to get funding for their sordid campaigns from the same corps we should be getting taxes from. Such is the damage wrought by unregulated campaign funding. The system holds the entire country (well, 95% of the "ordinary" people) to ransom. The sooner people realize that Dems & Repugs are equivalent the better.
"han810p wrote:
Why not enact Simpson - Bowles recommendations? I believe that would solve a lot of problems. I am in an upper income bracket and I do not mind paying more taxes - and while you are at it, cap the mortgage deduction too. It is a farce that the tax increase would fall on small businesses - the number that it would effect is low. Close the loopholes for both individuals and businesses, keep the payroll tax cut, cap mortgage deductions and only allow them on primary residences. Where are the statesmen of the past who believed in serving and not in profiting"
Some of those loopholes ( write off) all effect small business. Getting rid of write off, increase taxes, and less regulation are what small business need to prosper which is not taking place in the current environment.
Obama is cherry picking with the Simpson-Bowles recommendations. This is the reason why serious thought is not being considered.
"habernathy wrote:
Mr. Winston can keep repeating the claim that revenues increased after the Bush tax cuts were passed, but what does he say to the fact that even before the recession started in 2008, the 2000s had the worst job growth since the depression? Tax cuts do not equal job growth"
Hate to Blow your bubble havernathy:
Why don't you asked Bill Clinton when he had repelled the 1% Wealth Tax.
"Cherie Yelton wrote:
Republicans demonstrate that they care not a bit about curbing the national debt"
Today Republicans have submitted a constitutional amendment to the balance the budget. If that does not demonstrate an action in curbing the national debt then I do not know what will.
"roland wrote:
The strongest economy in Europe (Germany) is the second biggest exporter in the world, they have strong unions, and they pay a lot of tax. Yet over here we seem to think that taxes and unions are the worst thing ever. It would be good if we produced more stuff ourselves, but I doubt that it is taxes and unions that hold us back. My hunch is that Germany's high tax buys them excellent public education, providing companies with the best workforce."
Yea Roland, they Germany are going to be buying everyones elses debt or will be expected too. Beside the PIGS, they just may need to help Italy.
You think we have budget problems, just look at Europe. I wonder how this will effect Germany's standard of living.
ben zinkin wrote:
Your Republican guest deliberately misrepresented Christine Romer's position quoting one sentence of what she said but omitting the next sentence which reads " Dr. Romer has said she believes that a similar study of the impact of spending cuts would find even greater damage [than tax increases]. Today's NY Times. No one called
Christine Romer is a joke. She believe in market forces before she joined the Administration but did something totally different afterwards. She is part of the reason we are in the economics problems we are in.
Yes it is. Not that there is anything wrong with providing help to those who are sick, aged or just in need. It is how God judges a person or society.
And even those in need will espress their desire to contribute.
Human nature, that is. Lost, we are.
House has the responsibilty to spend/tax/budget. Senate can oppose or pass it(usually back and forth 'unofficially'). OPUS can veto law. Senate can overrride veto of president.
There I belive that is correct despite other postings.
GBjr was perhaps our worst president. Bankrupted the country with two off-books wars and shredded individual liberties(hanging-over with his supreme court- corps and llc's and PACs have 'free' speech or however much they wish to secretly spend? Really?; torture- really?; incarceration without charges or redress; rendition; assassination; domestic spying including reading/ listening to all comms without warrant.). Noted many policies continue under Obama and many preceded GBjr but NOT on a 'wholesale' level.
We sacrificed or country in order to save it. We have met the enemy and he is US.
I have served my country many years. And now if I am unemployable and needed for soylent green... go twitter yourself.
Raise / return tax rates for the rich, and our 'problem' disappears. Continue strangling the 'recovery' and the rich will have to build more secure walls... say like those Bin Laden slept within... works for a while.
But Germans almost had sense of humor when beer breaks allowed/ mandated.
Still have serious beer rules... you could live off it- unfortunately the boiled chemical junk consumed in the US will kill you.
Luckily a devasted european economy never effects US. Just as the 'legal' shenanigans of our bankers and lobbyists never effect American consumers- they greed like rabbits.
Next you'll be telling me there is gambling going on in the casino.
Luckily they scrapped nuclear power before the tsunami could hit(yes realize long way for waves to go but they are being reactive- er- proactive).
Wfen Libya invades Italy the problem will be all over. Literally.
In my opinion, the national deficit belongs to each and every American citizen. Out and property could be at stake here. Would it be too far-fetched for each person in this country to donate $5 toward the national debt - do this through our banks who can keep record of such payments and forward it to the US. Treasury. With each person doing this one time, out national debt would be lowered by a bit over a billion dollars.
Programs that need to be in place could stay in place.
More I'd like to see in place:
NO MORE BORROWING for other national programs for any reason.
No more political stuff behind closed doors. They are there for EACH AND EVERY CITIZEN. We have a right to know what they are doing, planning, thinking, so we will know how to vote next election time. The honest and forthright will be re-elected, the rest may (i.e. - have my permission to) fall by the wayside.
In my opinion, the national deficit belongs to each and every American citizen. Out and property could be at stake here. Would it be too far-fetched for each person in this country to donate $5 toward the national debt - do this through our banks who can keep record of such payments and forward it to the US. Treasury. With each person doing this one time, out national debt would be lowered by a bit over a billion dollars.
Programs that need to be in place could stay in place.
More I'd like to see in place:
NO MORE BORROWING for other national programs for any reason.
No more political stuff behind closed doors. They are there for EACH AND EVERY CITIZEN. We have a right to know what they are doing, planning, thinking, so we will know how to vote next election time. The honest and forthright will be re-elected, the rest may (i.e. - have my permission to) fall by the wayside.
In my opinion, the national deficit belongs to each and every American citizen. Our own property could be at stake here. Would it be too far-fetched for each person in this country to donate $5 toward the national debt? Do this through our banks who can keep record of such payments and forward it to the US. Treasury with a receipt given to the banks. Banks could check with each other to ascertain the amount given.) With each person doing this one time, out national debt would be lowered by a bit over a billion dollars.
Programs that need to be in place could stay in place.
More I'd like to see in place:
NO MORE BORROWING for other national programs for any reason.
No more political stuff behind closed doors. They are there for EACH AND EVERY CITIZEN. We have a right to know what they are doing, planning, thinking, so we will know how to vote next election time.
The honest and forthright will be re-elected, the rest may (i.e. - have my permission to) fall by the wayside.
"Semi-Anonymous wrote:
But Germans almost had sense of humor when beer breaks allowed/ mandated.
Still have serious beer rules... you could live off it- unfortunately the boiled chemical junk consumed in the US will kill you.
Luckily a devasted european economy never effects US. Just as the 'legal' shenanigans of our bankers and lobbyists never effect American consumers- they greed like rabbits.
Next you'll be telling me there is gambling going on in the casino.
Luckily they scrapped nuclear power before the tsunami could hit(yes realize long way for waves to go but they are being reactive- er- proactive).
Wfen Libya invades Italy the problem will be all over. Literally."
I guess we will need another "Marshall Plan". Two bailouts nows
I'm not sure if my memory is correct but weren't the recommendations of the "Simpson-Bowles Commission" different than that of Simpson - Bowles. I seems to me that Simpson and Bowles came out days before the commissions report to tout their own recommendations, I assume because they didn't agree with the recommendations of the commission and in essence doing some "cherry picking" of their own.
republicans are here only for the really wealthy small group and if you are a middle class and you call you self a republican you just lying to your self. The house speaker is now proving to you. He Will Not Raise The Taxes For The wealthy group! in any form of combination.
Rolando:
I am a middle class family man and I see that Dem/Libs are taking most of my hard working money. I am a minority as well.