Republicans reject their own deficit-reduction report

In about a month, if nothing is done, the federal government will hit its legal debt limit. There will be dire consequences if this limit isn’t raised. At best, we’ll suffer an economic slowdown; at worst we’ll plunge back into the depths of the 2008-9 financial crisis.


Last December, after Mr. Obama agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts — a move that many people, myself included, viewed as in effect a concession to Republican blackmail — Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic asked why the deal hadn’t included a rise in the debt limit, so as to forestall another hostage situation (my words, not Mr. Ambinder’s).





Bear in mind that G.O.P. leaders don’t actually care about the level of debt. Instead, they’re using the threat of a debt crisis to impose an ideological agenda. If you had any doubt about that, last week’s tantrum should have convinced you. Democrats engaged in debt negotiations argued that since we’re supposedly in dire fiscal straits, we should talk about limiting tax breaks for corporate jets and hedge-fund managers as well as slashing aid to the poor and unlucky. And Republicans, in response, walked out of the talks.



Republicans believe, in short, that they’ve got Mr. Obama’s number, that he may still live in the White House but that for practical purposes his presidency is already over. It’s time — indeed, long past time — for him to prove them wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/opinion/01krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I read several economists every week and so far haven't found one that thinks it's a good thing to not raise the limit. Schumer is right, they prefer beating Obama to helping the country.

As a liberal, I hope the president remains strong.
Of course no economist in his right mind would favor a sudden 1.4 trillion dollar cut in spending. That would bring on the biggest fall in the GDP since the Great Depression.
 
The GOP was for the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles Commission before they were against the recommendations.
As much as the GOP flip-flops, they must think they are John Kerry!

Of course Obama incorporated the Simpson-Bowles Commission recomendations in the budget he submitted to Congress. Is that why it was voted down in the Senate 97-0?
 
Republicans reject their own deficit-reduction report

By the end of the debt-ceiling negotiations, the Obama administration had agreed to a deal that would reduce the deficit by $2.4 trillion, with $2 trillion of the total coming from spending cuts and $400 billion coming from tax increases. Taxes, in other words, would be about 17 percent of the final deal. Republicans rejected it. But as little as four months ago, it was the Republican ideal.

Mike Konczal points us to “Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy,” the March 2011 report released by the Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee. The report, which tried to argue that fiscal austerity would lead to short-term growth, was as methodologically unsound, and quickly forgotten. But for our purposes, that’s irrelevant. What is relevant is the report’s golden ratio: “successful fiscal consolidations averaged 85% spending cuts and 15% revenue increases, while unsuccessful fiscal consolidations averaged 47% spending cuts and 53% revenue increases,” it concluded. There was even a graph:

republican%20jec%20graph.jpg


So when the GOP’s economic policy team sat down to make the strongest case they could for growth-inducing deficit reduction, they recommended a mix an 85:15 mix, not a 100:0 mix. And then, when the Obama administration agreed to an 83:17 mix, the Republican leadership walked out of the room and demanded that taxes be excluded from the deal altogether. How do you negotiate with that?

Republicans reject their own deficit-reduction report - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post

It almost looks like some people are starting to pay attention.

Total BS! Here is what the article said:


The agreement was on "around $1 trillion" in spending cuts." $400 billion is 40% of the package, not 17%. I say that the Republicans walked out because they couldn't get the other $1.4 trillion that they were allegedly "making good progress on."
Talk about bullshit. You posted from another article and then have the balls to talk nasty to me. This is so typical rightwing it's just breathtaking. Have you never heard of negotiations?

It's almost not worth going into the details on those particular tax changes because the Republican position has held that the details don't matter: well-designed tax increases won't be looked at any more favorably than poorly designed tax increases. The point, Republicans say, is that there can't be any tax increases, full stop.

Here is a link to the full article. It is well worth reading and if Too Tall had been honest it's possible we could have had a decent conversation. But oh, no, he was so eager to "get" me that he acted like a dumb shit and didn't post the link.

Wonkbook: The debt-ceiling deal so far - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post

Enjoy the article, there's some interesting timeline info in it I hadn't seen.

Here is the quote that I used from the Klein link you posted. Perhaps you will note that it is the exact same quote that I useD to make my calculations.

Both sides, as they often said, were shooting for about $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. They'd already agreed on around $1 trillion in spending cuts and were making good progress on the rest of it. But Democrats insisted that $400 billion -- so, 17 percent -- of the package be tax increases. And that's when Republicans walked.

Wonkbook: The debt-ceiling deal so far - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post

"Making good progress" on $1.4 trillion is an assumption I am not willing to concede to a left wing mouthpiece like Klein. I could do the math again for you but it is probably well above your level of comprehension.
 
In about a month, if nothing is done, the federal government will hit its legal debt limit. There will be dire consequences if this limit isn’t raised. At best, we’ll suffer an economic slowdown; at worst we’ll plunge back into the depths of the 2008-9 financial crisis.








[/b]


Republicans believe, in short, that they’ve got Mr. Obama’s number, that he may still live in the White House but that for practical purposes his presidency is already over. It’s time — indeed, long past time — for him to prove them wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/opinion/01krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I read several economists every week and so far haven't found one that thinks it's a good thing to not raise the limit. Schumer is right, they prefer beating Obama to helping the country.

As a liberal, I hope the president remains strong.
Of course no economist in his right mind would favor a sudden 1.4 trillion dollar cut in spending. That would bring on the biggest fall in the GDP since the Great Depression.

Who is proposing a $1.4 trillion dollar cut in spending 'suddenly'?
 
The worst part is the base.

The people on here will accept any lie in place of facing the facts

Two projection alerts in a row! We are going for a record!

Bush was called a liar before he was even elected President, because Clinton got caught in a lie.

A very old playbook. But I guess when nothing else works...run with it.

Bush was not elected the first term
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top