[Livewire713]

America went belly up in 2008. George Bush was able to kick the can off to Obama who gave it one hell of a big kick in 2009. Not only in stimulus and securities but also on false hope that everything would eventually get better. I find it amusing that people blame the Government for the job situation when they also admit that those lost jobs were fluff and we still have more fluff to get rid of. I dont see Washington letting a default happen but in every game there are winners and losers. If there was a default who would come out ahead and who would lose?

[Sixstrings]

I wouldn't be too awful happy about the Republicans caving on the debt ceiling talks Sixstrings unless you want to live in a 21st century Zimbabwe.

Republicans haven't caved. But neither are they serious about the deficit. Cog, deficit is 1.5 trillion per year. The "grand bargain" was 200 billion per year, the new "bargain lite" is a cut of 100 billion per year. Neither one makes a hill of beans difference if the deficit is 1.5 trillion annually.

And another thing, Obama and Boehner are both full of it because their cuts are all on the backend like ten years from now. They assume there will be economic recovery by then. All kinds of assumptions that won't pan out.. they'll all be out of office when the cuts are due to hit, so most likely a future Congress will just change it.

It's all kabuki, enjoy the dancing and the rice wine..

From a Libertarian point of view, this just reinforces our point of view that the two parties behave exactly the same. No hard choices will ever be made until circumstances leave no other choice. At that point the economic ponzi scheme comes apart and you are faced with absolute financial chaos. Course Peak Oil is going to create that circumstance regardless. And the Repubs and Dems are both in denial on that one.

I agree with all that.

This is not entirely unexpected since I never really thought the Republicans were serious about cutting the deficit. Even cutting $400 billion a year for the next 10 years leaves you with +1 trillion dollar annual deficits for the forseeable future.

Ah, so I didn't need to write the above you do realize that either cut wasn't going to make any difference on the deficit.

A more serious approach would have been to cut $400 billion from next years budget and increase the cuts every year until we reach a balanced budget..

From what I've read, all these cuts they're talking about are on the back end like ten years from now. Every scenario has these fictional cuts scheduled for some fictional future robust economy where Obama and lots of congressmen are long gone.

Coupled with this, is a record breaking $649 billon DOD budget which the Republicans pushed through.

You get some honesty points, at least you see the absurdity of supposed deficit hawks passing a defense bill like that. They didn't cut a penny, budget went up like $17 billion.

You can't have a serious deficit reduction unless defense, social security, and medicare are all on the table. The Republicans and Democrats have now put the country on a path to eventual bankruptcy.

But.. what does "bankruptcy" even mean? The world's central banks are running it all you know. Ok so let's say your Tea Party gets the budget balanced.. then the economy crashes.. well the Federal Reserve will just print a mountain of cash and loan it out at negative rates. It's the Federal Reserve that's really in charge here.. if they're not removing liquidity, why would Congress? Doesn't make any sense Cog.

[ohanian]

Republicans haven't caved. But neither are they serious about the deficit. Cog, deficit is 1.5 trillion per year. The "grand bargain" was 200 billion per year, the new "bargain lite" is a cut of 100 billion per year. Neither one makes a hill of beans difference if the deficit is 1.5 trillion annually.

And another thing, Obama and Boehner are both full of it because their cuts are all on the backend like ten years from now. They assume there will be economic recovery by then. All kinds of assumptions that won't pan out.. they'll all be out of office when the cuts are due to hit, so most likely a future Congress will just change it.

It's all kabuki, enjoy the dancing and the rice wine..

The way I see it. USA is up human manure creek without a canoe. Even if they pay the debt, even if they pay every single cent of it. There is the crumbling infrastructure which would cost them, what , 2.2 trillion ADDITIONAL dollars to fix. No way they can do this in the next 10 years.

PS: My mistake. It's 2.2 trillion not 1.5 trillion as I mentioned earlier. See http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=us-infrastructure-crumbling-2009-01-28

[Sixstrings]

You know it's funny, here Boehner has walked away from gutting Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and veterans but Obama won't let up. They had another meeting and Obama is still pushing the "Grand Bargain," Obama really really really wants to gut these programs.

Here's an article out today, Obama is telling us we've got to "eat our peas:"

Obama On Deficit Talks: Time To "Pull Off The Band-Aid, Eat Our Peas"

"I will not sign a 30-day or a 60-day or a 90-day extension. That is just not an acceptable approach. And if we think it's hard now, imagine how these guys are going to be thinking six months from now in the middle of election season when they are all up. It's not going to get easier, it's going to get harder. So, we might as well do it now. Pull off the band-aid. Eat our peas. Now is the time to do it. If not now, when? We keep on talking about this stuff, and we have these high-minded pronouncements about how we've got to get control of the deficit, how we owe it to our children and our grandchildren. Well, let's step up. Let's do it," President Obama said at his press conference today.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/11/obama_on_deficit_talks_time_to_pull_off_the_band-aid_eat_our_peas.html

Bizarre. This man does not sound like any kind of Democrat I've ever heard. He wants big cuts on entitlements. Why can't he tell the military industrial complex or folks in the Hamptons to go eat some peas?

Good God, how did Hope and Change morph into Eat Your Peas.

In other news, I don't have a link now but Gheitner on Meet the Press said that "some" Americans will be "hurting for a very long time" and basically it ain't gonna get better.

[Sixstrings]

This whole thing stinks, it's embarassing.. Obama's throwing everything and everyone under the bus trying to at least get some corporate loopholes closed. We're going to end up with a debt deal with just cuts to seniors, vets, the jobless and poor.. no tax increase on the rich, corps, not even corp loopholes.

According to Huffpost, Obama offered up raising eligibility age for Medicare:

Obama Offered To Raise Medicare Eligibility Age As Part Of Grand Debt Deal

According to five separate sources with knowledge of negotiations -- including both Republicans and Democrats -- the president offered an increase in the eligibility age for Medicare, from 65 to 67, in exchange for Republican movement on increasing tax revenues.

The proposal, as discussed, would not go into effect immediately, but rather would be implemented down the road (likely in 2013).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/obama-medicare-eligibility-age_n_894833.html

We all know that's coming anyway, but it's still not right to take healthcare away from people in an economy that isn't creating jobs anymore. It's very hard for a lot of sixty-five year olds to find work in this economy -- they're competing with everyone, from displaced mid-career types down to recent college grads on down to teenagers.

As if an out of work 65 year old can go out there and get a job that offers health insurance.

(also you gotta love how all the President's ideas are scheduled to hit AFTER the next election.. isn't that an old time-honored trick .. )

[Novus]

Obama could up with some big cuts if he just ended the wars.

[AgentR11]

I don't think I've seen anyone suggest it anywhere, but since the Republican resistance to tax increases is largely based upon the belief that the cuts written, will never happen; how about attaching tax increase authorizations to demonstrated reductions in total government outlays. IE, Tax increase X self-repeals, and refunds prior year, if sum of all government expenditures in all areas exceeds $Y.

I think there is real suspicion on the right, that if tax increases happen; spending would just be increased despite promises and the annual deficit level would stay the same. Basically, the 2011-2012 congress can not bind the actions of the 2013-2014 congress; but if there was an auto-repeal function in the tax language of 2011; the 2013 congress would have to also vote and pass removal of the auto-repeal and thus take the hit for "tax increase" legislation; making the spending caps set in 2011 more likely to be realized.

[Serial_Worrier]

Grandma better go get an Engineering degree and bust ass competing against 20year olds.

[Sixstrings]

Obama could up with some big cuts if he just ended the wars.

Senate Democrats have a plan that cuts the deficit $4 trillion. They'd do it with Defense cuts and taxes on millionaires:

Senate Democrats have drafted a sweeping debt-reduction plan that would slice $4 trillion from projected borrowing over the next decade without touching the expensive health and retirement programs targeted by President Obama. Instead, Senate Democrats are proposing to stabilize borrowing through sharp cuts at the Pentagon and other government agencies, as well as $2 trillion in new taxes, primarily on families earning more than $1 million year, according to a copy of the plan obtained by The
Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/senate-democrats-draft-debt-reduction-plan/2011/07/08/gIQAFQbS4H_story.html

But no.. rather than tax millionaires or cut Defense one red cent, Obama wants to take it out of Social Security and Medicare. That's what Boehner wants too, all they're arguing about is whether the super rich should keep a few loopholes.

[the48thronin]

and where do you think the millions of dollars necessary to campaign for office come from, working stiffs and ss recipients? Which President since Harry Truman left office as a middle class American and not part of the super rich?

[careinke]

[quote="Sixstrings

But no.. rather than tax millionaires or cut Defense one red cent, Obama wants to take it out of Social Security and Medicare. That's what Boehner wants too, all they're arguing about is whether the super rich should keep a few loopholes.[/quote]

Would you agree to doing both?

[Keith_McClary]

and where do you think the millions of dollars necessary to campaign for office come from, working stiffs and ss recipients? Which President since Harry Truman left office as a middle class American and not part of the super rich?

I read somewhere that it will cost over a $billion in campaign contributions to buy the next POTUS.

[Sixstrings]

Would you agree to doing both?

I'm against any cuts to these programs.

By all rights benefits should be raised, they're already too low as compared to other first world nations. Republicans and Wall Street Democrats are out to destroy SS and Medicare. What's really spooky is the chained CPI COLA talk, because nixing that COLA is the precursor to inflating the dollar (that's the real plan here, stop inflation-adjustments to benefits, inflate the dollar and debase the fixed amount benefits).

A solid majority of Americans are against any cuts to SS, Medicare, or Medicaid:

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/07/07/mr-president-you-are-out-of-touch-on-debt/

Tell you what Careinke.. if Brits and Germans and French throw their elderly under the bus with privatized / zero healthcare, then I'll accept we have to as well. But until then, as long as other nations treat people decently, I ain't buying what you're selling.

[Cog]

So Sixstrings, you have proved that 60% of the American people are stupid enough to believe in a free lunch. I'm not surprised at them as much as I am you in joining in to that delusion thinking.

[vision-master]

Cog, what kind of retirement program do you offer your employees?

[Cog]

Cog, what kind of retirement program do you offer your employees?

I offer them the "perform your job or get the fuck out the door" retirement program. As long as they perform, they are welcome to help me make money and ride into the sunset of free market capitalism.

[Sixstrings]

So Sixstrings, you have proved that 60% of the American people are stupid enough to believe in a free lunch. I'm not surprised at them as much as I am you in joining in to that delusion thinking.

If these are your convictions Cog, why don't you go to a nursing home and give a presentation. Talk to the bed-ridden elderly there, tell them how "there's no free lunch," how they're "freeloaders" and need to get out in the globalist free market economy and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

The ones with alzheimers won't understand what you're saying, but I guess you don't care about them either.

Maybe this will get your attention. A chained CPI would not only stick it to oldsters, it will also raise your taxes:

Chained CPI: A Stealth Tax Increase

If the tax code was indexed to chained CPI instead of CPI, the government would receive an automatic tax increase relative to current law every year until the end of time.

Switching to chained CPI is a very bad idea for two reasons:

It would create a large tax increase over the long run. And it would be an invisible annual tax increase on families and voters because there would be no obvious changes in their tax forms.

It would be an anti-growth tax increase because it would push families into higher tax brackets more quickly over time, subjecting them to higher marginal tax rates. The chained CPI proposal is essentially a proposal to increase marginal tax rates slowly and steadily over time.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/chained-cpi-a-stealth-tax-increase/

[Cog]

Its called paying for the program Sixstrings. I know this concept might be a bit strange to you having grown up on the idea of printing and borrowing money all your life.

But of course my ideas are much more radical. I would end Medicare and Social Security and let you take care of your own parents. That is, if they haven't disinherited you yet.

[Sixstrings]

Wow.. Obama says if the debt ceiling isn't raised, he won't send out Social Security checks:

President Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3 if Democrats and Republicans in Washington do not reach an agreement on reducing the deficit in the coming weeks.

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.

The Obama administration and many economists have warned of economic catastrophe if the United States does not raise the amount it is legally allowed to borrow by August 2.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html

This is getting pathetic, it's not just Republicans even Obama wants to stick it to oldsters. If the debt ceiling isn't passed, there are lots of options other than holding up checks -- emergency cuts to all levels of government, INCLUDING OBAMAS PAY and congressional pay and all their gazillions of overpaid staffers.

Emergency cuts to Defense, go into lockdown mode, bare bones.

And lastly, after slashing all levels of government he should reduce social security checks and pay what can be paid but not hold up the checks entirely.

This is jut more political theater of course, but it would be cool if this really happened.. the oldsters would wake up and be hopping mad. Lots of young war vets getting benefits too, maybe we'd have another veteran march on Washington just like the last Great Depression.

EDIT: wait a sec.. it may be a formality but SS is technically separate from the general fund. SS buys special treasury notes and that's how the general fund has access to it. Technically, these treasury notes are how SS "invests" its money. But in a debt crisis, how can it be legal for Obama to force Social Security to not only invest but stop paying out benefits and instead buy more special treasury notes?