Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
... many important Democrats are open to a truly large budget deal. President Obama has a strong incentive to reach a deal so he can campaign in 2012 as a moderate. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has talked about supporting a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or even $4 trillion if the Republicans meet him part way. There are Democrats in the White House and elsewhere who would be willing to accept Medicare cuts if the Republicans would be willing to increase revenues.
If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred billion dollars of revenue increases.
A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.
The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary. ...
But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.
The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.
The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.
The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.
The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.
But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol. ...
If the debt ceiling talks fail, independent voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.
And they will be right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=4&ref=davidbrooks
Thoughts?
*shrugs*...
so mr brooks is now an economist?I wonder if mr. brooks realizes that say green initiatives in the way of rebates etc. ( and which he sppts) would be cut as well, in that they are expenditures, counted by the Treasury as tax reductions ( which in effect they are spending) . BUT, true reductions in tax expenditures would piss off a great many many across both aisles, so the devil is in the details, there by making this whole screed
very premature ( see; sock puppet for the Dems) .
The pres. again, did another 3 minute precis on Television this morning, we are meeting and gonna prepare for the BIG meeting Sunday....sounds to me like they are not even sure were everyone stands yet beyond the major major.
And, I would add that if they committed re-write the tax code, I am all for chasing out deductions/loopholes etc. for a lower rate.
frankly, I want a balanced budget amend. they can get there just about anyway they like as long as they don't play the phantom borrow against themselves game.
Oh, and the usual sky is falling default on the debt. regurgitation is tiresome and noted.
*shrugs*...
so mr brooks is now an economist?I wonder if mr. brooks realizes that say green initiatives in the way of rebates etc. ( and which he sppts) would be cut as well, in that they are expenditures, counted by the Treasury as tax reductions ( which in effect they are spending) . BUT, true reductions in tax expenditures would piss off a great many many across both aisles, so the devil is in the details, there by making this whole screed
very premature ( see; sock puppet for the Dems) .
The pres. again, did another 3 minute precis on Television this morning, we are meeting and gonna prepare for the BIG meeting Sunday....sounds to me like they are not even sure were everyone stands yet beyond the major major.
And, I would add that if they committed re-write the tax code, I am all for chasing out deductions/loopholes etc. for a lower rate.
frankly, I want a balanced budget amend. they can get there just about anyway they like as long as they don't play the phantom borrow against themselves game.
Oh, and the usual sky is falling default on the debt. regurgitation is tiresome and noted.
Where does it say Brooks is an economist? He does site them though.
The point he is making is that Republicans in Congress are not willing to move one iota from their position. I think that is probably incorrect. Cantor and others are signaling that they are willing to move. And they should. Rejecting a deal where you get 80% of what you ask for because you don't get 100% is the definition of unreasonable.
*shrugs*...
so mr brooks is now an economist?I wonder if mr. brooks realizes that say green initiatives in the way of rebates etc. ( and which he sppts) would be cut as well, in that they are expenditures, counted by the Treasury as tax reductions ( which in effect they are spending) . BUT, true reductions in tax expenditures would piss off a great many many across both aisles, so the devil is in the details, there by making this whole screed
very premature ( see; sock puppet for the Dems) .
The pres. again, did another 3 minute precis on Television this morning, we are meeting and gonna prepare for the BIG meeting Sunday....sounds to me like they are not even sure were everyone stands yet beyond the major major.
And, I would add that if they committed re-write the tax code, I am all for chasing out deductions/loopholes etc. for a lower rate.
frankly, I want a balanced budget amend. they can get there just about anyway they like as long as they don't play the phantom borrow against themselves game.
Oh, and the usual sky is falling default on the debt. regurgitation is tiresome and noted.
Where does it say Brooks is an economist? He does site them though.
The point he is making is that Republicans in Congress are not willing to move one iota from their position. I think that is probably incorrect. Cantor and others are signaling that they are willing to move. And they should. Rejecting a deal where you get 80% of what you ask for because you don't get 100% is the definition of unreasonable.
I should have realized Brooks was writing comedy when he talked about Obama running as a Moderate.
Mitt Romney went from being the conservative alternative to McCain in 2008 to the current moderate alternative to a host of rightwing nuts in 2012.
That's the ongoing evolution of the GOP.
Mitt Romney went from being the conservative alternative to McCain in 2008 to the current moderate alternative to a host of rightwing nuts in 2012.
That's the ongoing evolution of the GOP.
lol
how far left are you that you would even dream Mitty baby is a conservative?
Hugo is that you? Did they give you a computer?
Mitt Romney went from being the conservative alternative to McCain in 2008 to the current moderate alternative to a host of rightwing nuts in 2012.
That's the ongoing evolution of the GOP.
lol
how far left are you that you would even dream Mitty baby is a conservative?
Hugo is that you? Did they give you a computer?
Mitt Romney went from being the conservative alternative to McCain in 2008 to the current moderate alternative to a host of rightwing nuts in 2012.
That's the ongoing evolution of the GOP.
lol
how far left are you that you would even dream Mitty baby is a conservative?
Hugo is that you? Did they give you a computer?
Romney was supported by the likes of Limbaugh in 2008. Now that same crowd has him labeled a RINO.
Mitt Romney went from being the conservative alternative to McCain in 2008 to the current moderate alternative to a host of rightwing nuts in 2012.
That's the ongoing evolution of the GOP.
lol
how far left are you that you would even dream Mitty baby is a conservative?
Hugo is that you? Did they give you a computer?
Let's face it, compared with the far right, a majority of the population looks liberal, even neocons.
*shrugs*...
so mr brooks is now an economist?I wonder if mr. brooks realizes that say green initiatives in the way of rebates etc. ( and which he sppts) would be cut as well, in that they are expenditures, counted by the Treasury as tax reductions ( which in effect they are spending) . BUT, true reductions in tax expenditures would piss off a great many many across both aisles, so the devil is in the details, there by making this whole screed
very premature ( see; sock puppet for the Dems) .
The pres. again, did another 3 minute precis on Television this morning, we are meeting and gonna prepare for the BIG meeting Sunday....sounds to me like they are not even sure were everyone stands yet beyond the major major.
And, I would add that if they committed re-write the tax code, I am all for chasing out deductions/loopholes etc. for a lower rate.
frankly, I want a balanced budget amend. they can get there just about anyway they like as long as they don't play the phantom borrow against themselves game.
Oh, and the usual sky is falling default on the debt. regurgitation is tiresome and noted.
Where does it say Brooks is an economist? He does site them though.
The point he is making is that Republicans in Congress are not willing to move one iota from their position. I think that is probably incorrect. Cantor and others are signaling that they are willing to move. And they should. Rejecting a deal where you get 80% of what you ask for because you don't get 100% is the definition of unreasonable.
I should have realized Brooks was writing comedy when he talked about Obama running as a Moderate.
*shrugs*...
so mr brooks is now an economist?I wonder if mr. brooks realizes that say green initiatives in the way of rebates etc. ( and which he sppts) would be cut as well, in that they are expenditures, counted by the Treasury as tax reductions ( which in effect they are spending) . BUT, true reductions in tax expenditures would piss off a great many many across both aisles, so the devil is in the details, there by making this whole screed
very premature ( see; sock puppet for the Dems) .
The pres. again, did another 3 minute precis on Television this morning, we are meeting and gonna prepare for the BIG meeting Sunday....sounds to me like they are not even sure were everyone stands yet beyond the major major.
And, I would add that if they committed re-write the tax code, I am all for chasing out deductions/loopholes etc. for a lower rate.
frankly, I want a balanced budget amend. they can get there just about anyway they like as long as they don't play the phantom borrow against themselves game.
Oh, and the usual sky is falling default on the debt. regurgitation is tiresome and noted.
Where does it say Brooks is an economist? He does site them though.
The point he is making is that Republicans in Congress are not willing to move one iota from their position. I think that is probably incorrect. Cantor and others are signaling that they are willing to move. And they should. Rejecting a deal where you get 80% of what you ask for because you don't get 100% is the definition of unreasonable.
Rejecting a deal where you get 80% of what you ask for because you don't get 100% is the definition of unreasonable
Where does it say Brooks is an economist? He does site them though.
The point he is making is that Republicans in Congress are not willing to move one iota from their position. I think that is probably incorrect. Cantor and others are signaling that they are willing to move. And they should. Rejecting a deal where you get 80% of what you ask for because you don't get 100% is the definition of unreasonable.
I should have realized Brooks was writing comedy when he talked about Obama running as a Moderate.
If you think that's funny, you should read this book about Hoover causing the Depression because he was a statist! Damn, that's hilarious stuff!
Mitt Romney went from being the conservative alternative to McCain in 2008 to the current moderate alternative to a host of rightwing nuts in 2012.
That's the ongoing evolution of the GOP.
lol
how far left are you that you would even dream Mitty baby is a conservative?
Hugo is that you? Did they give you a computer?
Romney was supported by the likes of Limbaugh in 2008. Now that same crowd has him labeled a RINO.
Actually? The fucking Author thinks mediocrity at the hands of the Gubmint is the new norm...and we should just lay down, shut the fuck up... accept it.First thought: Overspending by $1.6 Trillion must be the new Normal
Second thought: Yes, we need to raise revenues and only a Failed Leader would even suggest raising taxes on a struggling economy. In the USA a growing economy raises revenues: cut taxes and spending, regulations and increase energy supply.
Where does it say Brooks is an economist? He does site them though.
The point he is making is that Republicans in Congress are not willing to move one iota from their position. I think that is probably incorrect. Cantor and others are signaling that they are willing to move. And they should. Rejecting a deal where you get 80% of what you ask for because you don't get 100% is the definition of unreasonable.
I should have realized Brooks was writing comedy when he talked about Obama running as a Moderate.
If you think that's funny, you should read this book about Hoover causing the Depression because he was a statist! Damn, that's hilarious stuff!
I see The Economist seems to agree with Brooks.
Shame on them
The Republicans are playing a cynical political game with hugely high economic stakes
IN THREE weeks, if there is no political deal, the American government will go into default. Not, one must pray, on its sovereign debt. But the country will have to stop paying someone: perhaps pensioners, or government suppliers, or soldiers. That would be damaging enough at a time of economic fragility. And the longer such a default went on, the greater the risk of provoking a genuine bond crisis would become.
There is no good economic reason why this should be happening. America’s net indebtedness is a perfectly affordable 65% of GDP, and throughout the past three years of recession and tepid recovery investors have been more than happy to go on lending to the federal government. The current problems, rather, are political. Under America’s elaborate separation of powers, Congress must authorise any extension of the debt ceiling, which now stands at $14.3 trillion. Back in May the government bumped up against that limit, but various accounting dodges have been used to keep funds flowing. It is now reckoned that these wheezes will be exhausted by August 2nd.
The House of Representatives, under Republican control as a result of last November’s mid-term elections, has balked at passing the necessary bill. That is perfectly reasonable: until recently the Republicans had been exercising their clear electoral mandate to hold the government of Barack Obama to account, insisting that they will not permit a higher debt ceiling until agreement is reached on wrenching cuts to public spending. Until they started to play hardball in this way, Mr Obama had been deplorably insouciant about the medium-term picture, repeatedly failing in his budgets and his state-of-the-union speeches to offer any path to a sustainable deficit. Under heavy Republican pressure, he has been forced to rethink.
Related topicsBarack ObamaRepublican Party (United States)United States
Now, however, the Republicans are pushing things too far. Talks with the administration ground to a halt last month, despite an offer from the Democrats to cut at least $2 trillion and possibly much more out of the budget over the next ten years. Assuming that the recovery continues, that would be enough to get the deficit back to a prudent level. As The Economist went to press, Mr Obama seemed set to restart the talks.
The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical
For more go to: America's debt: Shame on them | The Economist
