Bill Kristol tells GOP to come back to the table.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Robear wrote:

I think maybe you're in the Bargaining stage of the phases of grief. Nevertheless, you make a good point - Republican views have not been crushed, and should not be. However, the burden of compromise lies on *both* parties, and while Obama has offered up entitlement cuts, Republicans have not offered much at all in return.

I fully agree that both parties have to compromise. I'm not sure the mere fact of "entitlement cuts" qualifies as a compromise on the Democratic side, though. Obama has repeatedly said spending needs to be reigned in, that's his existing position.

Greg wrote:

I guess Democrats should have elected more Representatives to get around this pesky divided government issue.

I guess this was meant to be snarky but it's actually true. If the country had completely repudiated the Republican viewpoint, that's what would have happened.

I think the problem is that the converse of this is also true - if Republicans wanted to get everything their Party stands for, they should have swept out the Democrats, as well. But given the fact that neither side has a mandate to do everything they want, the Republican Party seems more interested in acting like they do. Entitlement cuts may be arguable one way or the other as a compromise (I personally think it counts, but can see why you might be unmoved), but it's at least a passing gesture in the face of Republicans not really doing anything other than beating the same drums they've beaten for some time.

It's just an ongoing problem. As Greg pointed out, Kristol's advice was solid, though I think there's some argument to be had about how genuine he was in giving it. The GOP has acted for the last few years as if their viewpoint on government and social issues is the only acceptable one, whereas the Democratic Party has made notable concessions. So when you and Greg then act like you need to point out that maybe the Democrats shouldn't be acting like they're trying to just crush all Republican input, it rings very hollow.

I fully agree that both parties have to compromise. I'm not sure the mere fact of "entitlement cuts" qualifies as a compromise on the Democratic side, though. Obama has repeatedly said spending needs to be reigned in, that's his existing position.

That is PART of his existing position and certainly not the entire thing. His budget that got zero votes, while true from a very weird point of view, was also a complete distortion of the truth. This is too, and I really don't feel it's conducive to our debate on this.

Offering cuts to programs that Democrats favor for concessions from the Republicans is a compromise. Republicans being unwilling to offer cuts to their own favored programs or offer revenue generating measures for their prefered constituents does not make them "fighting for the best deal", it makes them unwilling to compromise. This isn't a symantic argument... if they're not offering up cuts as well or "tax raises" for expiring tax breaks... they're not fighting for the best deal because they haven't offered anything to deal with yet, unless I missed some news this morning or last night.

From the same article I linked yesterday regarding the Republicans wanting Obamacare to be put on the table:

But If that is what the GOP leadership wants to do, then the Democrat leadership should follow suit and add a chip of their own.

Here is a suggestion for that chip. The U.S. is fast on its way to becoming the top oil and gas producer in the world. It is agreed by all that we should do all we can to be independent of foreign oil. So the Democrats could propose placing a high tariff on all exported oil and gas.

How do you think the Republican representatives and governors of oil producing states like Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, the Dakotas and Pennsylvania would respond to that proposal? Not go so well, I suspect.

Democrats should say to the GOP: "Tell you what — you pull Obamacare off the table and we will pull this oil export proposal off the table. Happy now?"

So, maybe this is just all theater. Maybe it is just "let's throw the biggest thing we want on the table and see what happens, can't hurt right?" with no other motive in mind and that they will really negotiate when it comes down to it. Having said that, I'm still afraid that this is just another instance of setting negotiations up to fail only so that you can say after the fact "well, we made offers to move this deal forward but the Democrats wouldn't even entertain what we had put on the table!".

Demosthenes wrote:

That is PART of his existing position and certainly not the entire thing. His budget that got zero votes, while true from a very weird point of view, was also a complete distortion of the truth. This is too, and I really don't feel it's conducive to our debate on this.

Okay, then...

Offering cuts to programs that Democrats favor for concessions from the Republicans is a compromise.

Woah, stop. What specific cuts to which specific programs is Obama offering? Could you cite his statements on this, preferably post-election?

Norman, you need to do some reading yourself. If you just want to spout more punditry we are not having a conversation, and we can watch Fox News or listen to Rush on our own.

The White House has a lot of great resources on the president's proposed budget cuts and consolidations available to the public.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...

A lot of cuts accross the board to EPA, programs to assist the poor, funding to NASA, consolidating many NLRB offices (less NLRB), Medicaid.

That's, what, the budget from 10 months ago that was never brought to a vote/soundly defeated? Obviously that's a non-starter, I'm talking about hashing out a deal.

Also, thanks for the personal attack, I'll try to broaden my resources from the virulently right-wing New York Times:

Republicans and even some Democrats have expressed frustration that Mr. Obama has avoided a serious public discussion on spending with barely a month until deep automatic budget cuts and tax increases are scheduled to take effect. While the president’s aides said it was important to engage the public on taxes, others say he has not prepared the country for the sacrifice that would come with lower spending.

“The problem is real,” said Erskine B. Bowles, who was co-chairman of Mr. Obama’s deficit reduction commission. “The solutions are painful, and there’s not going to be an easy way out of this.”

After meeting with White House officials this week, Mr. Bowles said he believed “they were serious about reducing spending” but added that “we need to talk more about the spending side of the equation.”

So when Demosthenes claims Obama's offering cuts to programs Democrats care about, I think it's fair to press him on that point - what's currently on the table?

NormanTheIntern wrote:

That's, what, the budget from 10 months ago that was never brought to a vote/soundly defeated? Obviously that's a non-starter, I'm talking about hashing out a deal.

And what is wrong with it? Present House Republicans are the same ones who complained about their own proposed reforms being "Jammed down America's throat" in the ACA. What a Republican proposed last year or the year before is voted down when it is suggested by the White House. Much of that budget looks Republican in nature to me.

The Republican strategy the last 2 years was vote no on everything, halt government, prepare for a Republican president.

Obama does not get to cast votes in the house or senate. Compromise and negotiation is to be had by the 400 some men and women in the house, and the 100 in the senate. Whose fault is it that House Republicans waited until after the election to do their damn jobs? They are like Clark Griswold spending his Christmas Bonus on a pool, and then he gets jelly.

So what is the argument Still? Obama will not work with us. Bald faced lies, on the record, in the press, for all the world to see. Screaming that you saw Bigfoot for a year does not mean Bigfoot exists.

As it stands now. The country will be in better shape on the whole if we go back to Pre-bush tax schedules. I think Obama has enough in discretionary spending as is, to make up for increases to middle class tax brackets.

This goes back to my original comment. I want to SEE what they are proposing. Right now it's mostly imaginary. I want the nuts and the bolts on the table.

House Speaker John Boehner declared himself disappointed that "no substantive progress" has occurred, saying Republicans were waiting for the White House to propose significant spending cuts.
Obama "has to get serious," Boehner told reporters following his discussion with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. "It's very clear what kind of spending cuts need to occur, but we have no idea what the White House is willing to do."
At their own news conference, Senate Democrats said Boehner had it backwards because Obama has made his positions clear and it was up to Republicans to offer a counter-proposal.
"I don't understand his brain," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said of Boehner.

Democrats have been much more forthcoming with the changes they want to make. All of which the republicans seem to just dismiss as non starters. They don't even appear to offer any type of counters.

That's not bargaining... That's obstructing.

Some republicans actually seem to be getting the idea... Tom Cole suggested passing a portion of the tax stuff an extension of the cuts for those under 250k...

What was the overall republican's response? NO

How does that make any sense?

KingGorilla wrote:

Whose fault is it that House Republicans waited until after the election to do their damn jobs? They are like Clark Griswold spending his Christmas Bonus on a pool, and then he gets jelly.

It's amazing that you would accuse me of partisan punditry and try to make this argument in the very next post. The Democratic Senate, unlike the House, hasn't passed a budget in 41 months. Fourty one months. I'm sure this is somehow our fault as well though.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/con...

This is awesome.

WASHINGTON—Amid ongoing negotiations in Congress over the looming “fiscal cliff,” Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY) told reporters Wednesday he is “completely torn” between his commitment to conservative activist Grover Norquist’s meaningless anti-tax pledge and the general welfare of the entire country. “On the one hand, you have a nonsensical promise to blindly oppose tax increases regardless of circumstances, but on the other, you have the well-being of more than 300 million people and the long-term stability of the entire U.S. economy,” said Reed, adding that he is “really stuck between a rock and a hard place” now that he must decide between his loyalty to a dogmatic political lobbyist and his responsibility to serve the best interests of his constituents. “At the end of the day, it’s a question of whether a nonbinding signature on an outdated and worthless pledge written 26 years ago is more important than preventing the nation from completely going to hell. I just don’t know what to do here.” When reached for comment, Norquist urged the pledge’s signatories in Congress to “remember what’s really important” before sacrificing utterly irrational principles for the sake of the country’s future.
When reached for comment, Norquist urged the pledge’s signatories in Congress to “remember what’s really important” before sacrificing utterly irrational principles for the sake of the country’s future.

Any ol' godless liberal can live according to rational pricinples! It takes a strength of convictions, and a moral fortitude to live by irrational principles!

OG_slinger wrote:

One, the US is not insolvent. Being insolvent means that you are incapable of paying your debt.

...

Can this continue forever? Absolutely not. But as the past couple of years have shown, the world's investors seem to think Treasury bonds are a solid investment even with all our problems. Until the EU gets its collective act together or China becomes the dominate economy of the world, the US will always be able to borrow money.

Three, debt and deficit are two different things. Get them straight. Our national deficit is large, but it is most definitely not growing.

Ah, we had been agreeing in principle, but using different terms, as is common.

My point is that some type of compromise on the fiscal cliff leads into discussions on having an actual budget, which needs to at some point become balanced (see footnote 6 at linked wikipage), including all the discretionary spending (e.g. "wars") that somehow doesn't get included. Reaching that means resolving two problems, both of taxation and of spending, and neither party has been in a position to do so. Republicans in general have been unwilling to take a realistic look at taxation, and Democrats in general have been unwilling to take a realistic look at spending. As I said, any specific proposal other than "less taxes" means pissing off some politically connected group.

As for the deficit / debt...it is misleading to discuss the deficit not growing while not also acknowledging that the debt is simultaneously increasing. We have simply shrunken the amount we are growing in debt each year, which is an improvement but hardly worth celebrating.

edit: I should just stick to Batman jokes in some cases, sorry.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

It's amazing that you would accuse me of partisan punditry and try to make this argument in the very next post. The Democratic Senate, unlike the House, hasn't passed a budget in 41 months. Fourty one months. I'm sure this is somehow our fault as well though.

Jumping onboard edit: the original post above by Bloo Driver's point, the House may have been the only of the two bodies to pass a budget, but passing a budget that has no chance of being approved or even negotiated is not praiseworthy. That's like telling your spouse that you have created a household budget that includes no money for beauty salons, make-up, her favorite snacks, etc. "Hey, at least I made a budget!"

Keithustus wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

It's amazing that you would accuse me of partisan punditry and try to make this argument in the very next post. The Democratic Senate, unlike the House, hasn't passed a budget in 41 months. Fourty one months. I'm sure this is somehow our fault as well though.

Jumping onboard edit: the original post above by Bloo Driver's point, the House may have been the only of the two bodies to pass a budget, but passing a budget that has no chance of being approved or even negotiated is not praiseworthy. That's like telling your spouse that you have created a household budget that includes no money for beauty salons, make-up, her favorite snacks, etc. but upgrades the cable package to include NFL Sunday Ticket "Hey, at least I made a budget!"

ftfy

lol, thanks.

Every couple months someone brings up the "need" for a balanced federal budget. I need to just find one of goman's countless posts and favorite it for situations like this.

People are worked up for nothing. Both parties passed what they wanted to have happen. Sequestration is what passed. Now, scoring political points is the only work left.

Happy Holidays!

Greg wrote:

I guess Democrats should have elected more Representatives to get around this pesky divided government issue. Spare me the mandate whining.

That more Democrats weren't elected to the House wasn't because voters didn't want them, it was because the Republicans gerrymandered the hell out of Congressional districts to make sure their boys were safe.

Take my state, Ohio. Obama won the popular vote by 2% and yet 12 out of 16 House seats went to Republicans. Hell, the House district I'm in is was made so safe for Republicans that the only Democrat to run against him was a 60-odd year-old long haul truck driver who appeared out of nowhere to file his campaign paperwork and then he essentially disappeared. I mean what's the point of investing any time, effort, talent, or money in a district that has been purposefully designed to funnel votes to the other guy?

Keithustus wrote:

Ah, we had been agreeing in principle, but using different terms, as is common.

I can't tell if we're agreeing in principle because those words have specific definitions and you were using them incorrectly. I honestly thought you were spouting FOX News BS when you said that the deficit was huge and growing.

Keithustus wrote:

My point is that some type of compromise on the fiscal cliff leads into discussions on having an actual budget, which needs to at some point become balanced (see footnote 6 at linked wikipage), including all the discretionary spending (e.g. "wars") that somehow doesn't get included. Reaching that means resolving two problems, both of taxation and of spending, and neither party has been in a position to do so. Republicans in general have been unwilling to take a realistic look at taxation, and Democrats in general have been unwilling to take a realistic look at spending. As I said, any specific proposal other than "less taxes" means pissing off some politically connected group.

The fiscal cliff isn't going to lead to any revelation or moment of clarity about the federal budget, much like the debt ceiling crisis didn't. Everything that makes up the fiscal cliff is on legal autopilot: unless Congress changes those laws everyone's taxes will go up December 31st and about $100 billion of federal spending will disappear on January 1st.

Actually fixing our little debt problem is something that I think is virtually impossible. And that's largely because of human nature. As a species humans are greedy little f*ckers who know nothing about delayed gratification. And while we're absolutely fabulous when faced with an immediate problem, such as a predator who wants to munch on us, we are evolutionarily unsuited to dealing with complex problems that require a long time to solve. Layer politics on top of that and you can see why we have a problem.

An "actual budget" wouldn't just be one that only balances spending with tax revenues. No, a real debt-reduction budget would require us to run an annual budget surplus in the range of hundreds of billions of dollars and do so continuously. Just look at the numbers.

Our current national debt is $16 trillion and change. Considering that it would take several years for any real change to go into effect and factoring in our projected deficits, our shiny new debt-reduction budget would have to deal with around $18 trillion in debt (assuming we could get the deficit to zero in a few years).

But we don't have to technically pay back all that debt. People would be very happy if we got our debt to GDP ratio down to about 60%. Our GDP will be approaching $16 trillion in a few years, so that means that our debt-reduction budget would have to pay back $8.4 trillion.

Now we can simply calculate how long that would take. Say we ran a modest $100 billion surplus. It would take us 84 years to pay down the debt. A $200 billion surplus? 42 years. A $500 billion surplus? 16.8 years.

What do you think are the odds that Congress and the White House could diligently stick to that debt reduction plan for one election cycle let alone a politician's entire career and possibly their life? I mean two years of tiny surpluses was all the excuse Bush needed to push massive tax cuts through Congress arguing that we had to give the surplus back to the taxpayers.

What's going to happen to that debt-reduction budget when the next economic downturn hits? Hell, if we take the slow route we'd have to stay the course through multiple recessions. Which politician would really be able to resist the lure of the budget surplus, especially when diverting all those billions of dollars to new spending or tax cuts would help them immediately?

And that's the real problem. Human nature and two-, four-, and six-year political terms virtually guarantees that any debt-reduction budget would fail (and likely fail very quickly).

Actually thinking about the scope of the problem gives us too much of a headache. So instead we just argue over whether or not we should allow the Bush era tax cuts to expire for the richest 2% of Americans.

Keithustus wrote:

As for the deficit / debt...it is misleading to discuss the deficit not growing while not also acknowledging that the debt is simultaneously increasing. We have simply shrunken the amount we are growing in debt each year, which is an improvement but hardly worth celebrating.

The word deficit literally means an excess of expenditures over revenues during a certain period. That means anytime we're talking about deficits, we're talking about going deeper into debt. How can anyone possibly construe that as misleading?

And I wholeheartedly disagree that shaving $200 billion from the Federal budget deficit is a something that's hardly worth celebrating. That's a 15% decrease in a single year. Besides that, the CBO is showing that the deficit numbers are quickly moving in the right direction. The baseline projections are that fiscal year 2013 will have a deficit of only $640 billion (nearly half of 2012's deficit), FY 2014 will be $387 billion, FY 2015 will be $213 billion, and FY 2016 will be $187 billion.

If you actually want a balanced budget, you had best celebrate when the numbers move in the right direction, and do so quickly.

I love the comment section on this one, they're nice and respectful to each other.

OG_slinger wrote:
Keithustus wrote:

What do you mean by this? We are insolvent now. That's why we have a huge and growing deficit.

A couple of things.

One, the US is not insolvent. Being insolvent means that you are incapable of paying your debt. As it stands now, the US has absolutely no problem servicing its debt: six cents of every tax dollar goes towards the debt. Whether or not this amount is too high or not is a different discussion, but the US is most certainly not insolvent, nor are we in any immediate danger of becoming insolvent.

Two, goman was correct when he said that insolvency is impossible for the US (technically). That's because whenever Congress passes a budget they legally authorize the Treasury to 1) spend money on stuff, and 2) borrow said money if there's not enough tax revenues to cover the previously authorized spending on stuff. As long as there's a market for US debt the nation technically can't default. We can always borrow more money to pay off our old debt.

Can this continue forever? Absolutely not. But as the past couple of years have shown, the world's investors seem to think Treasury bonds are a solid investment even with all our problems. Until the EU gets its collective act together or China becomes the dominate economy of the world, the US will always be able to borrow money.

Three, debt and deficit are two different things. Get them straight. Our national deficit is large, but it is most definitely not growing. In fact, it's been actually shrinking by a couple hundred billion dollars each year under Obama, the fastest rate since the US demobilized after WWII. From 2009 to 2012, the deficit as a percentage of GDP shrank from 10.1% to 7.0%.

Keithustus wrote:

That is a worthwhile value discussion and may be true, but the issue this month and into next year is how to balance the budget, first, not how best to balance different economic interests, which is a praiseworthy goal but not one that necessarily would resolve our budgetary woes.

No one is really talking about balancing the budget over the next couple of months. Balancing the budget would require us to make over a $1 trillion in spending cuts or increased revenues now. Not over the next decade, but next f*cking year. What that means is that 1/3 of all federal spending would simply vanish come January 1st. That's why no one is actually talking about balancing the budget. To do so would push us into another recession.

Hell, even the vaunted Republican budget plans didn't talk about balancing the budget. The Ryan Plan kicked that can down the road about 15 or 20 years (meaning we'd still be running deficits each year and increasing our national debt) and the Romney plan required about a decade of some wildly optimistic economic growth to happen before the country was back in the black.

Again, goman is right. Taxes need to be raised because all that the tax cuts since Reagan on have done is concentrate wealth into the hands of the rich, not grow the economy.

The Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of the Library of Congress, published a report in September 2012 that concluded that there was absolutely no correlation between cutting taxes on the wealthy and economic growth. However, what it did find was that there was a correlation between those tax cuts for the wealthy and growing levels of income inequality.

The response of Republicans to this refutation of their economic policy for the past 30 years was measured and thoughtful. Ah, who am I kidding? Rather than admit they were wrong, Senate Republicans simply forced the CRS to "unpublish" the report.

More importantly, economists are now recognizing that high levels of income inequality is damaging our economy. Not only is it slowing economic growth since more money is ending up in the hands of rich people rather than being spent, but it is also causing financial instability because all those rich people want "innovative financial products" that give them high rates of return...the same "innovative financial products" that brought us mortgage-backed securities, CDOs, and the financial meltdown.

How unequal are we? Well, the US's Gini coefficient, the statistical measure of inequality, rivals that of African dictatorships. There's even been studies that have shown that income was more evenly distributed in the US when we had slavery than it is today...

This probably deserves its own thread, but I have to take umbrage at the whole "our society is far less equal than during slavery times." There's no comparison between today and the late 18th Century. Being poor back then meant you were often just a few meals away from starvation, and that one bad winter could very well mean you froze to death. Very few modern Americans are in that boat now. And while the ultra rich have certainly grown their fortunes, average Americans enjoy more conveniences and luxuries than almost any other society in history.

I'll be happy to have a debate about whether the elites in America have gained too much power or are cheating the rest of us (and I'd agree btw with both those statements to a point). But Im really tired of the income inequality trope, especially if you're not going to look at other factors like education, talent, consumption, etc.

Wonderful post, OG_slinger! My only points of contention are that I think, if economists are right, especially in historical, end-of-superpower terms, that we must face the debt issue, impossible or no, relatively soon and that we will only have an done so once we follow an "actual" budget that actively pays down our debt, as you say. We've done so before. It would silly to believe it possible to do overnight, but with a goal of reducing the debt to 50% or 60% of GDP within a reasonable number of years (15? 25?), we should be able to keep our house of cards in order. ...Or we could just cancel the debt as we have before, but that has certain downsides best unexplored.

OG_slinger wrote:

If you actually want a balanced budget, you had best celebrate when the numbers move in the right direction, and do so quickly.

Celebrate is far too strong of a term. Does one celebrate when one's fatally obese relative has lost 2 pounds for the first time? I think I'll wait until some better results are reached for that much expression.

jdzappa wrote:

This probably deserves its own thread, but I have to take umbrage at the whole "our society is far less equal than during slavery times." There's no comparison between today and the late 18th Century. Being poor back then meant you were often just a few meals away from starvation, and that one bad winter could very well mean you froze to death. Very few modern Americans are in that boat now. And while the ultra rich have certainly grown their fortunes, average Americans enjoy more conveniences and luxuries than almost any other society in history.

OG's quote (and the study he links to) simply point out that the distribution of income was more equal during slavery. It doesn't make any claims about overall quality of life, or equality in general.

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that we should return to slavery because income was more evenly distributed then.

OG_slinger wrote:
Greg wrote:

I guess Democrats should have elected more Representatives to get around this pesky divided government issue. Spare me the mandate whining.

That more Democrats weren't elected to the House wasn't because voters didn't want them, it was because the Republicans gerrymandered the hell out of Congressional districts to make sure their boys were safe.

Voters rejected Democrat House of Representatives candidates in Ohio.

Even with the redistricting, the independents had to vote more for republicans than democrats to get the outcome 12 of 16 districts going for republicans. And the majority of those same voters had to vote for Obama for Obama to win the state.

And I wholeheartedly disagree that shaving $200 billion from the Federal budget deficit is a something that's hardly worth celebrating. That's a 15% decrease in a single year. Besides that, the CBO is showing that the deficit numbers are quickly moving in the right direction. The baseline projections are that fiscal year 2013 will have a deficit of only $640 billion (nearly half of 2012's deficit), FY 2014 will be $387 billion, FY 2015 will be $213 billion, and FY 2016 will be $187 billion.

If you actually want a balanced budget, you had best celebrate when the numbers move in the right direction, and do so quickly.

.

You do realize that those projections are based on falling off the fiscal cliff source? If we want these projections to materialize, the republicans must reject the Democrats proposal to increase taxes, spend stimulus money, and put off the budget cuts. Otherwise, mitigating the fiscal cliff continues to increase the deficit problem as a percentage of GDP - same source.

So before the election

“What I’ve said in reducing our deficits — we can make sure that we cut 2.5 dollars for every dollar of increased revenue,” Obama said.

And now the actual proposal on the table

The White House is asking for $1.6 trillion dollars in new taxes. This would include the president's campaign pledge to raise tax rates on families who make $250,000 a year and more. It would bring in additional money by closing loopholes, limiting deductions, raising the estate tax rate to 2009 levels and increasing capital gains and dividends taxes.

So roughly $4 trillion in specific spending cuts? I can live with that. But then -

In return, according to multiple sources, the Obama administration is offering to find $400 billion in new cuts to Medicare and other entitlement programs, with the specifics to be hammered out next year.

The real kick in the teeth is that we all know what "specifics to be hammered out next year" means.

I will agree, Norman, that the proposal put for by Obama does not cut spending as much as I would like to see. That said, this is supposed to be a negotiation. Republicans still need to put forth something before compromise can be had. Besides, if Obama had come out with a proposal closer to what you indicated above, the GOP would just claim that that proposal was the "Original stance" and that Obama would need to reduce spending even more before the GOP budges. I would like to see an actual proposal from the GOP, then we can look into meeting somewhere in the middle.

Seth wrote:

Every couple months someone brings up the "need" for a balanced federal budget. I need to just find one of goman's countless posts and favorite it for situations like this.

Haven't done it in a while but remember this....

The deficit didn't cause the recession. The recession caused the deficit.

Actually the recession happened because there was too little deficit spending.

Tkyl wrote:

I will agree, Norman, that the proposal put for by Obama does not cut spending as much as I would like to see. That said, this is supposed to be a negotiation. Republicans still need to put forth something before compromise can be had. Besides, if Obama had come out with a proposal closer to what you indicated above, the GOP would just claim that that proposal was the "Original stance" and that Obama would need to reduce spending even more before the GOP budges. I would like to see an actual proposal from the GOP, then we can look into meeting somewhere in the middle.

I am glad it doesn't because if it did that means the economy would tank even that much more.

jdzappa wrote:

This probably deserves its own thread, but I have to take umbrage at the whole "our society is far less equal than during slavery times." There's no comparison between today and the late 18th Century. Being poor back then meant you were often just a few meals away from starvation, and that one bad winter could very well mean you froze to death. Very few modern Americans are in that boat now. And while the ultra rich have certainly grown their fortunes, average Americans enjoy more conveniences and luxuries than almost any other society in history.

I'll be happy to have a debate about whether the elites in America have gained too much power or are cheating the rest of us (and I'd agree btw with both those statements to a point). But Im really tired of the income inequality trope, especially if you're not going to look at other factors like education, talent, consumption, etc.

It is my assertion the high deficits is partly a function of income inequality.

Part of the fight now is to not make it more like the past but keep our earned benefits (or as those Wise people like to say entitlements).

You want it to be more like the past make Medicare and Social Security weaker.