The President is Missing

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The details of the budget deal...

Why am I not surprised that there is less here then meets the eye once you look at the details of the budget deal. This is Washington after all where the Dems say that tax cuts = spending.
When the Repubs were taking control of the House, John Boenner (tearfully?) made a Pledge To America. Included in that was a promise to not hold votes on legislation for 72 hours after it was introduced. This would allow members and staffers time to actually read the bill. At some point, though "72 hours" was quietly changed to "3 days." Boenner claims the two phrases are synonymous.
But it certainly could lead to a situation where legislation could be introduced at 11:59 pm Monday (Day 1) followed by 24 hours on Tuesday (Day 2), and be voted on at 12:01 am on Wednesday (Day 3).
The House was scheduled to vote on the 2011 budget on Wednesday, but that has now been pushed back to Thursday.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

Quote:

Why am I not surprised that there is less here then meets the eye once you look at the details of the budget deal. This is Washington after all where the Dems say that tax cuts = spending.

They're right to say that. Tax cuts DO equal spending when you are running a deficit. You might quibble over the definitions of the two but the bottom line to the ledger is exactly the same, and the Dems are correct to point out the hypocrisy of those who push tax cuts, yet claim to be deficit hawks.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

That's good to hear, cyclops.

Just to expound on my previous point, Republicans aren't just angry, they are furious over the final deal. Lots of vitriol flowing out there in right-wing web land today.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You are correct, Cyclo, about the impact on the economy. But why not just use the phrase "tax increases?"

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

hey're right to say that. Tax cuts DO equal spending when you are running a deficit. You might quibble over the definitions of the two but the bottom line to the ledger is exactly the same, and the Dems are correct to point out the hypocrisy of those who push tax cuts, yet claim to be deficit hawks

Worse is when we have a one time allotment of $x dollars last year for something but this year they agree that the amount will be 1/2 $X so they say they have cut spending.....the X was never argued to be a cost of running government, it was a one time charge to deal with the Great Recession or some such thing. Also, we have with the victims assistance savings a straight up accounting trick.

I guess this works for them though, the REPUBs get to claim that they went to the mat to cut government, and the Dems get to claim that government is still funding the laundry list of programs. The constituents can be pacified, all while they never had to make any real choices or actually do anything.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

You are correct, Cyclo, about the impact on the economy. But why not use the phrase "tax increases" instead of "spending cuts?"

I guess I'm a little confused now. Who was using those phrases incorrectly?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
hey're right to say that. Tax cuts DO equal spending when you are running a deficit. You might quibble over the definitions of the two but the bottom line to the ledger is exactly the same, and the Dems are correct to point out the hypocrisy of those who push tax cuts, yet claim to be deficit hawks
Worse is when we have a one time allotment of $x dollars last year for something but this year they agree that the amount will be 1/2$ X so they say they have cut spending.....the X was never argued to be a cost of running government, it was a one time charge to deal with the Great Recession or some such thing. Also, we have with the victims assistance savings a straight up accounting trick.

I guess this works for them though, the REPUBs get to claim that they went to the mat to cut government, and the Dems get to claim that government is still funding the laundry list of programs. The constituents can be pacified, all while they never had to make any real choices or actually do anything.

Well, the Dems didn't want to cut the budget at all, so it's a win for them to keep meaningful cuts out of the budget. That's a real choice....

Obama's budget - which we will supposedly hear about tomorrow - will focus on tax increases as well as spending cuts in order to overcome our deficit gap to a certain extent.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Obama's budget - which we will supposedly hear about tomorrow - will focus on tax increases as well as spending cuts in order to overcome our deficit gap to a certain extent.

I will be shocked if Obama comes up with anything real....normally he does the two hands trick, as in he says loudly "we will take this , but then we see that he uses regulation or tax code changes to give it all back more or less under the table. I see zero chance that he will be willing to piss off the corporate class by demanding more from them..I figure that a deal that makes it look like they are paying more but where in reality they are not inconvenienced at all has already been struck.

I would like to be wrong.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Okay, you got me. I was trolling around and found an article in an "inside the beltway" newsletter. It started with the line about (some unidentified) Dems claiming that tax cuts were actually spending increases.
It was a set-up line about how language works amongst the politicos in D.C. and was followed by the 72 hours morphing into 3 days thing. It was not a tirade by any means.
I can't find the article anymore.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Just to expound on my previous point, Republicans aren't just angry, they are furious over the final deal. Lots of vitriol flowing out there in right-wing web land today.

It's nice to see the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments on the Republican side of the aisle, but let's keep in mind that they think they got a raw deal largely because they're delusional. Obama pretty much gave away the store -- and, when that wasn't enough, he gave away some of the store's employees, too. Of course, all of this would have been moot if the Democrats actually had the testes to pass a budget when they had majorities in both houses of congress.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Just to expound on my previous point, Republicans aren't just angry, they are furious over the final deal. Lots of vitriol flowing out there in right-wing web land today.

It's nice to see the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments on the Republican side of the aisle, but let's keep in mind that they think they got a raw deal largely because they're delusional. Obama pretty much gave away the store -- and, when that wasn't enough, he gave away some of the store's employees, too. Of course, all of this would have been moot if the Democrats actually had the testes to pass a budget when they had majorities in both houses of congress.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Yes on that. I still like Obama but am rather worn down on the relentless reasonableness instead of leadership in the face of, uh, bulging stupidity. Tactically he may have been right on some of his choices. On our military choices, he was always to the middle re my views, and is so recently again.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

If you'd told me two years ago, though, that we'd, today, be involved in yet a 3rd military action in yet another Muslim country, I'd have called you crazy.

Irish(glad I didn't bet the ranch)K

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Yeah - most of my posts have been at the level of "I just can't believe we're doing this".

0 Replies

We have got to eventually quit spending all our capital in endless ground wars.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

We have got to eventually quit spending all our capital in endless ground war

It is not our capital.....1/3 of federal spending is financed by borrowing money from other nations or people...When you do that at your house do you think you are spending YOUR money?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

How that does not constitute spending our capital, I don't get.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I depends on how you define things, but when I used to buy things on credit because I did not have the money in my accounts to pay I always thought that I was spending money that I did not have.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Well, to me it is an excuse for not funding help for the ordinary man or woman living in our society without a padded wallet or with a very slim one -

by means of helping those with mortgage failures at least in comparison to the robber baron banks;
help the many downsized get back on their feet;
helping whole talented groups - construction guys for example - get back in gear;
help our increasingly futzed infrastructure;
making a sane healthcare system (I agree with Robert's pov, re actual funded hospitals/clinics, no link to where he said that);
and then there is education, I'm rad on that, having started at UCLA for $19.00 a semester and graduated from there when it was $76.00, excluding books, bus fare, housing, yadda yadda. I know there are questions re states being able to do that, I'm saying the feds should back them up. I was watching when that all changed.
It's not entitlement, it's enrichment of our community society.

Instead, we have to make do with huge cuts in these areas because of the massive imbecility of wall street and banks and the continuous billion dollar poppings for naught of the military industrial complex.

Rests from rant.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

You always end paying, one way or another.

0 Replies

The President is Missing

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know