President Obama announces that an eleventh-hour debt deal has been reached

Because it is percieved as a Tea Party win. That's why it sucks.

Alternative explanation: Because Krugman said so.

 

I was clear.

1) There is no emphasis on revenue (taxes)
2) It does not cut at DoD enough.

I would add

3) It's kind of silly that no one mentioned/addressed the $1.3 trillion elephant of our nonsensical and neverending wars.

 

You dismiss replies that give you reasons why this is a bad bill and bad policy, and why it will have a negative impact on economic growth, the markets, and the disadvantaged, to name a few. You keep harping on the next 12 months, or the next 18 months. Tell me something, Major. Who is going to be affected by this bill going forward? Give me specifics and no, not who will be affected over the next year, but who will be affected over the next decade, if this mess actually plays out and isn't stopped by a future Democratic congress and either a different Democratic President, or the current one, after he's grown a pair. I want specifics. Thanks in advance.

 

I think this bill, Major, is tackling the problem from the wrong side. Even from the standpoint of "we have fundamental structural problems with medicare and SS" it does not have the appropriate impact.

Politically you may have a point. As policy, I'm less than impressed.

Here's Bernstein's take, and I think he's spot on:

 

1. There IS emphasis on revenues. Nothing in the original $900B, but it gives the Dems all the leverage for that for the big $1.5T cut and came with a commitment to kill the Bush tax cuts - which, again, Dems have 100% of the leverage, whether they win or lose in 2012.

2. It cuts DoD by potentially $1 trillion over 10 years, and certainly $350B. That's might be the biggest cut EVER in defense, and more than anyone ever thought possible. What more did you want?

3. Again, this was not a "fix everything in the world" bill. I'm not sure why you'd be looking for a resolution to Iraq or Afghanistan in a debt ceiling bill.

 

Of course I do - because they things people are stating are factually wrong. I asked for specifics. Here were your first two responses:

1. Out of curiosity, for those happy with the deal, what specifically are you happy about? (which I gave very specific answers to).

2. I've yet to read the details. In a general way, what don't I like about this "deal?" I thought the thrust of Klugman's column, that slashing spending during a depressed economy is a terrible idea, was on target.

So in other words, you absolutely hate the bill you don't know anything about based on Krugman's hack column - which is also factually inaccurate. Yeah, that's a quality response.

I dismissed your response because you couldn't name a single thing in it you didn't like.

As it stands, the defense industry and the health care industry bear the vast majority of the cuts - of the $2.5 trilllion, those two cover nearly $2 trillion. Defense cuts have been a Democratic priority for years. Medicare cuts to providers was part of the Dem strategy for cutting costs (vs GOP's philosophy of targetting recipients). It's possible the wealthy will pay in tax hikes if the Dems trade defense spending for increased revenues. No cuts to Social Security, Medicaid, or Medicare recipients. There are no cuts to the poor in any form.

So there are your specifics - which I already posted multiple times earlier in this thread, by the way. Tell me - what in there do you have problems with? Are you now opposed to things Dems have been pushing for for years?

 

He's wrong on the first point you bolded - "no revs" is not a part of the deal. It's what Boehner stated in his Powerpoint presentation to convince GOPers to vote on the deal. What Boehner referred to is a concept called "Current Law" - that is, that revenues are measured relative to current law. The problem is that current law includes a ton of tax hikes - the expiration of ALL the Bush tax cuts and it doesn't account for the annual AMT fixes ($500B+ over 10 years). So if the Dems negotiated the expiration of ALL the tax cuts and an extra $500 Billion that you get from annual AMT fixes, the CBO would not score it as a tax increase.

So Boehner wins the messaging war of "no tax increases" in that scenario - but in reality, Dems would have raised a ton of taxes. Of course, no one is suggesting that all the tax cuts expire - the Dems are only talking about it being on the wealthy. So in any tax reform, the GOP would simultaneously argue that the CBO is scoring it as a tax cut, while the reality would be that revenues would increase. That's what makes the tax reform a very real possibility and a very real part of the solution. Boehner was on board with this when Obama and he were talking about a Grand Bargain, but the Tea Partiers weren't (and they didn't have the time to work out the details). But it's a very real possibility with the trigger mechanism in place now.

 

Dude - payroll tax breaks expiring and unemployment benefits ending - those are both essentially spending cuts THIS YEAR.

What doesn't compute for you? This bill is about fiscal policy. And we adopted a terrible fiscal policy that will put our economy in jeopardy at a time when it doesn't need it.

We may actually have passed a bill that increases the deficit more than decreases it if we damage the economy enough that tax revenues decline.

 

"Democrat", "leverage", and "effective" are three things I'll have to see to believe. I beg your pardon Major, but theoretical predictions don't do anything for me regarding either of the asshat collectives that dominate Washington.

Let's assume 1 trillion over 10 years. Assuming a 650 billion range for the DoD budget/yr, that's about 15%. I honestly think we should be at the 50% cut level. It's a good step, I don't deny that (never have) - it just did not go far enough.

It's speaking the absurdity of the whole thing.

 

Come on, that's an absolute piss in the bucket. Meanwhile, we can keep paying Boeing $7,684 for metallic spray paint instead of their previously invoiced $10,877.

 

This is great info. I doubt your optimism is warranted however, based on the recent past.

 

And both of them are irrelevant and separate issues outside of the scope of the debt ceiling bill. Both can be passed in their own bills, as they have been in the past.

Except this bill doesn't do any such thing. This bill has NO IMPACT on whether those tax breaks expire or unemployment benefits end.

 

Fair enough - but then that's a topic for November. As of yet, that 2nd batch of cuts are certainly not final. But then you can't say it's bad either. The only thing we know about the $1.5T in future cuts is that there's a trigger that benefits the Democrats and that the Democrats have all the leverage. Compared to 2 weeks ago, that's a win for the Democrats. They may still grasp defeat from the jaws of victory, but you can't argue this was a bad deal for the Dems based on that.

A 15% cut in ANYTHING is staggering and virtually unprecedented. Not even Democrats want a 50% cut in defense spending in a 10 year period - that would cause total chaos to our defense setup.

 

Major if I could I would rep you.

There's a bill in committee right now that would designate one city a year as a ceremonial "World War II city." This bill is a failure and puts us on the path to economic ruin because it does not extend payroll tax cuts.

 

Completely irrelevant. I don't care about "unprecedented" and I really don't care what the democrats want and I really really don't care about how any of this impacts our "defense setup".

 

Come on Rhad, you think the bill is a failure because it doesn't cut DoD by 50%? You sound like a tea partier with that kind of rhetoric.

"If the bill doesn't include what I want regardless of whether that has any legitimate chance of passing then it is a failure and a joke!"

50% cut to DoD in one bill is more unlikely than a balanced budget amendment and it's not JUST the Republicans who would oppose such a large cut.

 

Agree with Rhad and Major. I do think more cuts need to be made to defense but Major and others do make a good point that it really isnt plausible to just cut it by 50% in one bill. Glad to see we are moving in the right direction though. But it really is a tiny step when you look at charts like these

 

Major asked why I was displeased with this bill. (I don't think I've ever said I hated it or lamented it or whatever)

I answered. That is all. And I really don't give a flying **** about what will or won't pass through our nebulous corporate-congress when determining my political positions. There's a place for that, of course, but it's a different argument.

 

Ah sorry - I understand not liking it in terms of the grander picture or whatever. My question was more for people who felt that Dems got rolled over in the deal. Dems were never fighting for 50% defense cuts, so in that context, I don't think that's a failure on the part of the Dems.