Washington's Debt Negotiations Debacle
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-07-27/washingtons-debt-negotiations-debacle
The White House versus Republican leaders over the deficit and debt ceiling: the threat to America's standing in the world, what comes next and who voters will blame.
Guests
Stephanie Cutter
assistant to the president and deputy senior adviser in the Obama administration.
Norman Ornstein
resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and coauthor of "The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track."
Alice Rivlin
senior fellow, Brookings Institution, vice chair, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System (1996-99); director, White House Office of Management and Budget (1994-96); and founding director, Congressional Budget Office (1975-83).
Sudeep Reddy
economics reporter, The Wall Street Journal.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Here is the link, forgot it in the last post
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-25/politics/debt.talks.obama_1_debt-ceil...
Mike Seargant:
All I see is two sentences and the rest blank space. So, yes, that IS the President's "plan"!
My Congressional Representative, David Schweikert (R), and many teaparty members of the house are saying this is not really a crisis and we can "just pay the interest on our debt."
two questions
Wouldn't that ruin our credit rating?
How do you pay Social Security recipients? I don't think I can get by with a government IOU to pay my expenses. Do you?
if the dept limit is not increased, what will the effect be on mortgage loan interests and inflation? Will inflation increase? will loan interest rates increase?
"Here is the link, forgot it in the last post"
Oh goody. Fianlly. That article is from TWO DAYS ago. And it's not the President's plan, it's Harry Reid's plan. The President is basically copying Harry Reid's paper. If he's tinkering with invoking the 14th ammendment, I begin to wonder if maybe that's how he got through law school.
Has everyone forgot how the lame duck Congress of 2010 forced President Obama to renew the 2001 Bush tax cuts for two years in exchange for 13 months of unemployment benefits for two million Americans? The constant threat of a Republican Senate filibuster kept away positive answers, leaving this negative option. That was when the Tea Party members were elected but not yet sworn in. The Clinton tax rates, with a 39% top marginal income tax rate instead of the current 35%, was on track to eliminate the national debt starting in 2000 and finishing in 2010! Foolish $2.5T tax cuts for the rich and two illegal wars for $3T+ later, the debt ceiling looms again. http://domnogin.blogspot.com
There is sufficient income (about 200B/month) to pay interest on the debt, SS, MC, and soldiers (at least). Anyone who says otherwise (like Mr. Obama and Ms. Rivlin is fearmongering. Many other programs would get cut or at least be suspended.
The private central bank, The Federal Reserve, runs this country since at least 1914. Throw in Wall Street and other off-shore, private central banks, who profited from our ‘bailouts’, makes all this talk nonsense theater.
I find Ms. Rivlin’s comments about The Constitution appalling, but then again, look at her resume.
Look at the Masters she has served for the last 60+ years.
She is a complete and utter United States hating sell-out.
What about the Glass-Steagall Act?
Go ask Alice...
"Has everyone forgot ..."
Has domnogin forgot ... a little think called "the internet" and a Republican Congress that made the Clinton Presidency look like a success?
Oh, and as for the "two illegal wars for $3T+", care to back that with some evidence? First the wars were not illegal, they were endorsed by Congress and U.N. resolutions, and second the TOTAL cost of Iraq and Afghanistan TO DATE is about $1T, not 3, and HALF of what Obama has wasted in his first 2 1/2 years on "stimulus" and the ACA. A little fuzzy on the math there domnogin, or do you think posting false numbers will somehow make your falacious argument look better.
Wow, your clarity is inspiring! I think the young people of Egypt really got this view of government.
Thanks.
A simple point of realization must occur. It does not matter where the debt came from as it exists and must be dealt with. This will mean an increase in taxes to accomplish the payments. This will also mean a reduction in spending to keep the debt from growing.
All spending reductions reference cutting or reducing funding of programs, what needs to be addressed is fixing the cost of those programs and making them more efficient which will in turn reduce the costs.
Taxes - yes I pay them and lots, still need to go up - since 90% of the wealth is owned by 5% of the American public, 90% of the taxes must also be born by that group. You cannot tax a poor person - they do not have any money, so guess which group will need to pay.
As far as the groups of people that in theory that represent Americans in our government (The House, Senate, and the President) need to really think why they are there - to govern America, not control America. Governance requires compromising the wants versus the needs of society to achieve a plan that supports America and does not support a party or the demagogues of a party. If these people cannot achieve a consensus on this issue or other issues (Budgets delivered on time) they simply need to quit, as there are many people in this country that would like the power and monetary gains these positions offer and I certainly think most would do a better job.
So you want something new EVERY DAY? How about every 15 minutes? Where is the new Republican proposal for the day? They have had the same one for months.
He endorsed it, makes it his plan. Again I didn't think that anyone would accept that anyways without it written in his handwriting with a quorum of Republicans witnessing every word written.
Bottom line is this, this argument about him not having anything in writing is a red herring, it is NOT his job to do this (read your Constitution please, the section that contains the words "power of the purse"). It is his job to sign it after Congress has passed it (again I reference the Constitution). Therefore, his endorsement of the Harry Reid plan is about as far as he can go and the Reid Plan is the Democratic plan that conservatives are saying is not there. Again I quote the immortal Elanie Bennes to the Soup Nazi, " NEXT!"
From what I can tell, those who argue that certain debts of the US can be paid while skipping others does not result in default. This argument says that it is ok for individuals to finance the government for free. Due to past abuses of non-payment, the government has required itself to pay interest to contractors on late payments. Fortunately, June 30 has passed so a delay in payments to States won't cause them to fail to balance their budgets at fiscal year end as they would if this were happening in May or June as they assume they will receive their monthly funding for Medicaid and other US obligations like clockwork. But for the most part, it will end up being individuals who pay the price, directly or indirectly.
Second thought of the day:
This "crisis" highlights the failure of our education system. The inability of so many people to be able to think critically is apalling.
Families that can think would budget their funds in advance. The current logic of cutting once the obligation has been made is fundamentaly the same as telling your six year old that you will no longer be providing food as you just realized budget no longer allows that kind of discretionary expense. The credit card payments must come first.
The commitment to properly raise the child was made seven years previously when the child was but a zygote. Even if the credit card expenses were incurred to fund necessities, the obligation to raise the child does not end because you decide you can no longer afford it.
"it is NOT his job "
It is the job of a leader to bring two sides together, not drive them apart and demonize one of them.
That being said, then why has he CLAIMED to have a "plan" for WEEKS!!! He could have just said, "Hey, Mike Sergeant says - read the Constitutuion - I don't HAVE to have a plan!" Why did Doug Elmendorf have to say, "we don't score speeches"?! It's because Obama presented it as "his plan" when all he was really doing was ripping Republicans, starting with Paul Ryan - then offering NOTHING in response. Not very constructive IMHO.
Obama (and the Democrat-controlled Senate) are very late to this party.
Here is the bottom line: the Democratic plans, suggestions, ideas, etc. have been nothing but "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today". A lot of promises of spending cuts down the road. Listen carefully, Mikey: they... never ... ever ... happen. That is why the Republicans are insisting on specifics before they'll agree to anything.
"Again I quote the immortal Elanie Bennes" [sic] (I think you meant Elaine Benes, but never mind). Oh I got the reference, alright. And Elaine put Yev Kassem out of business, just as progressive liberals are trying to do to thousands of small businesses in this country.
TTFN
At least you admitted that the Dems have a plan, so stop saying they don't and let's get on with discussing the real issues.
By the way, I was really enjoying the debate until the condescending "Mikey" comment. This is a debate on opposing ideas not on the people who have the ideas. If you want to have a passionate debate about these ideas assume that I have a brain (as I do you) and leave the insults out. It will get you no where.
When did the Repubicans get the "religion". This is the same group of "leaders" that started two unfunded wars (hate to keep beating this drum but it is relevent), gave tax cuts when they should have used the Clinton surplus to pay down the debt (it is what any sane small business owner would do with a surplus), not give it away. All this patriotic (I was there for this and remember it all) spending was made on the premise that we will "gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today". Now suddenly this same philosophy is heresy and anyone subscribing to it should be metaphorically burned at the stake.
In addition can you show me hard numbers (not economic theories) that this any tax increase will put "thousands of small businesses" out of business? It seems to me that the country boomed when Reagan raised taxes and cut spending. Not sure how this is different. Remember hard numbers, not economic theories please.
You also missed the reference, Yev Kassem was put out of business by not tending to his affairs, e.g. knowing where his recipes were and giving away where they were stored to Elaine, just like we are now, not tending to our affairs while giving away the very thing that we need to survive.
I had a bit of a problem with the guest list. There were no progressive voices. I suppose that Alice Rivkin was supposed to be the more moderate person, but she was to the RIGHT of Norm Ornstein of AEI. She actually said that BOTH sides were intransigent, when as far as I can see Reid has completely caved with no new revenue. Ornstein agreed with this and couldn't believe the Republicans weren't going for this unexpected windfall. Alice keeps telling us that they are all the same. I really, really, really, can't stand that.
Reid's plan is far to the right of any polling you can find, and yet we can't have a progressive voice on the NPR show. If you polled them, the progressive caucus plan would poll better than any of these plans, and yet it's never represented.
I'm sorry, but I hope that it's a long time before I have to hear form Alice Rivkin again.
Sincerely,
Conesnail
FOX News Senior White House Correspondent Ed Henry asked Press Secretary Jay Carney “What was the point of giving a prime-time address to the nation, without an Obama plan on paper?”
Carney never did answer the question, but he did give the standard snarky non-response of calling Henry's legitimate question as "point #1 of the talking point issue by Republican Party."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdzW9c_0DKM
The overriding problem of our times is climate change, which was is a result of large populations and great wealth. Perhaps in the long run things that negatively impact wealth like defaulting on our debt, may be to the climate's and therefore our benefit.
The banks were bailed out so they could make loans again – we are still waiting for the banks to begin loaning money.
The job creators need the tax breaks so they can create jobs - we are still waiting for them to create jobs.
What is the answer?
Take the tax breaks away from the job creators who are not creating jobs on American soil and keep those tax breaks for ones who are creating jobs on American soil. Job creators not creating jobs need their tax burden rolled back to the rates in place during the rule of President God-Reagan.
This way the job creators will either create jobs or pay taxes.
conesnail wrote:
"I had a bit of a problem with the guest list. There were no progressive voices. I suppose that Alice Rivkin was supposed to be the more moderate person, but she was to the RIGHT of Norm Ornstein of AEI."
"I'm sorry, but I hope that it's a long time before I have to hear form Alice Rivkin again. "
----------------------------------------------------
Thanks for admitting that liberals demand NPR only broadcast liberal opinions. But that you could even question Alice Rivlin's liberal credentials, whom POTUS Obama appointed to his National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and formerly POTUS Clinton's deputy director of Office of Management and Budget, is indeed spooky.
It's a little hard to stomach all the statements that hyper-partisanship comes from "both sides." Over and over, on every issue from the Bush tax cuts to the design of the healthcare bill and the stimulus plan, Obama has started by meeting the Republicans half way. The problem is, many Republicans are not negotiating in any normal sense. They are just throwing out demands that provide excuses not to cooperate, which they hope will damage Obama's re-election chances. Meeting their demands is pointless. They will just make new ones. Now, however, the time has come to actually get something done, and they are completely clueless about how to proceed. They don't seem to have any idea how our deliberative process is supposed to work, and we will all suffer for that.
Congress can't even contemplate shrinking their empire of spending. We need to prioritize and eliminate or cut non-essential spending, and there's plenty of that.
Who protects the taxpayer? Where is their lobby group? The debate seems to be about how we divide and grow the government pie.
The Balanced Budget Amendment is one of the worst things ever proposed. Your guests state that a potential agreement could be so close. To reconcile Boehner with Reid, just do this and that, and you include the Balanced Budget Amendment. I'm not sure that buying the debt limit increase at that price isn't a pyrrhic victory. Please comment.
"All this patriotic (I was there for this and remember it all) spending was made on the premise that we will "gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today"."
THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT NOW!!!!
That's always the liberal response ... "you did it first", "you did it more", "blah, blah, blah".
Republicans f'd up ROYALLY and the American people punished them with near banishment in 2006. You say, "I was there". Were you even half paying attention?!
Republicans cut taxes to attempt to spur the economy which was IN DECLINE when Clinton left office and drifted down to near recession levels before the Bush tax cuts had a chance to reverse that trend.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=66
Here's the numbers you wanted. The old lawyer's saw is, "don't ask a question you don't already know the answer to".
Considering the impact of 9/11 on the economy, it worked about as well as it could have. But they also SPENT like drunken sailors, which is why conservatives stayed home in 2006.
Oh ... and Regan was a NET tax cutter and did it with a Dem Congress. You seem to have a habit of trying to rewrite history - first with Reagan, and now with Obama's "plan". Too funny!
Btw, I'd love to butt heads with you in a Seinfeld trivia contest. I'm partial to my boxed set because I get to see the scenes that haven't been edited for syndication on TV. When I sit and mouth the lines unconsiously, it drives my wife crazy!
In a New York Times editorial, two law professors recommended that Pres. Obama raise the debt ceiling unilaterally. I assume that they mean that the president should sign an executive order. This could solve the crisis with a decisive stroke of leadership.
His authority to do this is unclear. However, any court challenge would probably take months or years to resolve. In the meantime, an economic crisis could be averted. The Justice Dept. could preempt a lawsuit by filing, in federal court, a request for a declaratory judgment confirming that the president can issue an executive order raising the debt ceiling.
This might be a good strategy that the president could keep in is back pocket if Congress doesn't act before the deadline.
I have been tuning into the Rush Limbaugh show for the past month, haven't listened to the show in years. I am a libertarian and always had a lot of problems with the conservative version of big government. I must say the man presents quite a educational experience on the dept debate. The fact is Mr. Limbaugh does a better job than what I hear on this show for the same topic "dept negotiations" I have used comparisons in the past to say Dianes listeners are equally biased on the issues as Rush's are. I apologize to Limbaugh's listeners, they are subject to a much more intellectually honest discussion on the issues. I think the problem with NPR is it is living the lie of not having a bias. The problem with liars is it becomes inevitable they increasingly loose the ability to recognize the truth.
To my fellow posters:
How about keeping the focus on the debt ceiling rather than personal attacks on radio hosts?
GMG,
It's funny to see these two living together in your comment:
"It's a little hard to stomach all the statements that hyper-partisanship comes from "both sides." "
Well - actually, that oxymoron can stand on its own! but couple it with this one and you have real humor:
"They are just throwing out demands that provide excuses not to cooperate, which they hope will damage Obama's re-election chances."
Pot, meet kettle. GMG, that is the DEFINITION of "hyper-partisan"!
Hippo wrote:
"In a New York Times editorial, two law professors recommended that Pres. Obama raise the debt ceiling unilaterally"
Obama's own lawyers have told him that trying to act under the 14th ammendment (which is what this is all about) would be unwise, unconstitutional, and could lead to articles of impeachment. Seriously, this is no joke.