Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

Gasbandit said:
I don't think the republicans will win the chicken game on this one. The debt ceiling will be raised, the only question is if it will happen before or after we miss a payment on something (which will, of course, only happen because we absolutely refuse to reduce spending).
Fail. What you meant to say was "we absolutely refuse to increase revenue". He's already agreed to an incredible amount of reduction of spending. Of course, we can just gloss over that, eh?
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Fail. What you meant to say was "we absolutely refuse to increase revenue". He's already agreed to an incredible amount of reduction of spending. Of course, we can just gloss over that, eh?
Not even the republicans are agreeing to an "incredible amount of reduction of spending." They like to bandy about big numbers and then whisper (over ten years) really quietly so nobody realizes that they're only talking about really cutting a few hundred billion a year.
 
Of course the Republicans don't want to make the cuts. It makes them look bad. But they got out in public whining and saying that cuts needed to be made and when the President said "Yeah, you're right" they started pissing themselves over how to get out of it. That's what led to the story Ash just posted.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Of course the Republicans don't want to make the cuts. It makes them look bad. But they got out in public whining and saying that cuts needed to be made and when the President said "Yeah, you're right" they started pissing themselves over how to get out of it. That's what led to the story Ash just posted.
Obama said he wanted to cut spending to the levels of Dwight Eisenhower (17% of GDP as opposed to the current 25%) That works out to be around 10 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. That's more than the republicans even suggested! Sounds great, let's see the numbers as to where exactly those cuts would come from.

Barack Obama may be the most surprising President in the history of the Republic. In his two-and-a-half years in office, no matter what has happened, it seems to have come as a surprise to him.

Herman Cain is generating a lot of press over his recent comments about a mosque in Tennessee. Herman says that communities have a right to ban Islamic mosques. One columnist says Herman Cain's remarks disqualify him for the office of president.

A government-funded electric car company folds .. I guess that’s what you call supply and demand.

Did Obama really use the phrase “job killing tax cuts”?

Being "poor" in America sure ain't what it used to be.

It's this kind of stuff right here that is why I am not a Republican.

 

GasBandit

Staff member
I read the full John Adams "Innocence vs Guilt" quote today, and thought I'd repost it.
John Adams said:
It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, “whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,” and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.
I have a couple jokes this afternoon, too!

There would still be a Soviet Union if they'd been smart enough to have two communist parties that agreed about everything except abortion.

Democrats : Republicans :: Getting stabbed : Getting shot. Why aren't you enthusiastic about getting stabbed? WOULD YOU RATHER GET SHOT?
 

GasBandit

Staff member
"How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes? That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors? They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it. Democrats won’t be making argument to supper this legalization, which will weaken our country. .”

- Harry Reid, 2006, grumbling about Bush's $246 billion deficit.

Why Obama's obsession with tax hikes?

Two trillion in cuts isn't enough.

Healthcare in Massachusetts is a mess.

Want some taxpayer waste? How about $300 million for two Navy ships that have never been used and are now headed for the scrap yard.

Hackers may have gained access to News Corp's email, threatening to release.

Is Herman Cain dooming his campaign?
 

GasBandit

Staff member
MSNBC Comeuppance of the day: Contessa Brewer vs Rep Mo "Why yes, I do have a degree in economics" Brooks.

The White House indicated yesterday that Barack Obama may be open to a short-term debt-limit hike, if it includes concrete plans for a future grand bargain.

Harry Reid has the gonads to tell John Boehner that he is waiting for the House response, when the House already passed a bill and the Senate hasn’t even drafted their own bill?

Rep. Paul Ryan breaks down his view of the Six Pack proposal.

Steny Hoyer : balanced budget amendment to the Constitution it would make it “virtually impossible” to raise taxes. .. Wha?

Word is Boehner's called an all-hands meeting for house republicans at 9am tomorrow. A deal may have been made.
 

Dave

Staff member
Why are the Democrats against the Balanced Budget Amendment? Serious question. Wouldn't that be a good thing or would they just use "creative accounting" to fudge numbers?

Correlated question, in states where balanced budget amendments exist, have they proven to be good or bad?
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Why are the Democrats against the Balanced Budget Amendment?
I can't make an answer to this that wouldn't be interpreted as the grumblings of a jaded, cynical libertarian. But I'll try. They oppose most anything that places constraints on the powers of the federal government. They believe that a large, powerful government is how you fix things. In this particular case, a balanced budget amendment would remove some flexibility.
 

Dave

Staff member
What about the second part of the question about states who already have them? I realize that they have issues with BBAs and constraints placed on them by the federal government, but the feds wouldn't have these issues.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
What about the second part of the question about states who already have them? I realize that they have issues with BBAs and constraints placed on them by the federal government, but the feds wouldn't have these issues.
This is kind of interesting - I went to look up which ones have one, and it turns out EVERY STATE has some sort of BBA except vermont. I guess that answers how well they work...
 

Dave

Staff member
So they may be a terrible idea. Question is, are they a bad idea because they don't work or do they not work at the state level due to constraints put on them by the federal government?
 

GasBandit

Staff member
So they may be a terrible idea. Question is, are they a bad idea because they don't work or do they not work at the state level due to constraints put on them by the federal government?
I'm of the opinion they don't work because politicians don't want them to work and the populace is more concerned about who gets voted out off the island weeknights at 7.
 
Colorado actually follows theirs, leading to politicians crying and trying to convince voters to repeal it all the time. Suckers. (Really they want to repeal the idea of tax payers getting back the excess money so that can "save" it. Right)
 
In Mn we just pretend to balance the budget by delaying payments to schools and borrowing against the tobacco settlement. No way that can come back to bite us in the ass.
 
Why are the Democrats against the Balanced Budget Amendment? Serious question. Wouldn't that be a good thing or would they just use "creative accounting" to fudge numbers?
As a bit of an aside from me...

As I've understood it, according to keynesian economic theories, a balanced budget might not always be a good thing. During economic downturns, as government revenue falls they need to slash spending to keep expenditure in line. The problem is that since the private sector is also cutting expenses at the same time, aggregate demand will fall and make the problem worse; since nobody is bying, nobody will be able to sell either. Keynesians usually see government fiscal policy as something of a moderating factor: frugal finances during good times, deficit spending during bad times. Balanced budgets over the business cycle, not over a given fiscal year.

I'm no economist and it's been awhile since my last uni course on the subject, but I think that's by and large the big idea behind the keynesian approach to these things. There are other approaches, of course.
CNSNews.com said:
This plan would increase the federal debt limit by $2.4 trillion in exchange for cutting federal spending by $111 billion next year and for congressional passage of a balanced budget amendment that, if ratified, would require supermajority votes in Congress to increase taxes, increase the debt limit, or spend more than 18 percent of GDP in a given fiscal year.
I don't know if that is there to allow the kind of keynesian deficit spending during bad times. It might be enough, or it might not be.
 
Since Michigan is not Vermont, we have a game of "budget chicken" about once a year. One side threatens deep cuts to schools and the like, the other threatens taxes, they go and forth, then suddenly compromise.
 

Dave

Staff member
Man, republicans are funny, their plan actually reduces the deficit by less while cutting health care and other social programs: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14286606

And they want the debt limit to be raised just enough so they can do it again in 6 months...
You mean so they can do it again before the elections so they can try and use it against Obama. They don't care about the deficit or the debt ceiling. They don't care about what's best for America - only what's best for them to get Obama out of office while keeping their fatcat friends in the money.
 
Top