Are republicans willing to let the economy fail to win an election?

You need only look up ten posts to #249. Thanks for the props.

 

What left?

Seriously, other than random citizens, about 5 Senators and about 50 (out of 435) House member and blogs, where is this "left" you speak of?

The left was mortally wounded going back to the formation of the DLC which resulted in Clinton's election. It died completely several years hence.

 

Yes, because we all know that wars are paid for with Monopoly money and therefore don't really cost anything, which is why Republicans decided it was cool for those costs to be off-budget. That is, until it was convenient to count them toward our outrageous debt and yet somehow still not count the removal of those costs.

I swear to god you haven't posted a single thing worth a damn here in, quite literally, 10 years. 9/11 turned you into a ****ing idiot.

 

It's against the law here to lie every day for 10 straight years and call someone else a liar. Check the FAQ.

 

Major, I'm not trying to blow you or anything, but I think you and rimrocker should start a kind of Snopes meets "Ask Jeeves" Q&A blog, indexed according to topic. You guys always seem to know the damn answer and you're both top-notch writers. Your posts remind me some of Nate Silver, only more comprehensive and responsive to every question. And I hold Nate Silver in high esteem. It is very impressive and I think we're lucky to have you both spending so much time posting here.

Your ability, both of you, to remain calm while discussing these issues is remarkable as well. (I quite obviously do not have that gift.) My hat's off to you.

 

What a classy response. I'm certainly not lying, as this is what I've read in several places (for example, here). If this is not true, you could always try to not be an ass and provide a link disputing the point instead of calling me a liar.

 

Thanks! One of the benefits of having gone to policy school and being surrounded by friends who are policy people on both sides of the political spectrum is that you get to have educated discussions and see things from their points of view. I love having discussions with rational GOPers - I wish there were more of them here instead of all the basso type stupidity. So anyone who even attempts to present a rational argument, I'm happy to discuss with.

 

If you guys would quit quoting him, it would sure be a lot more interesting and informative for the other 99% of us lurkers. Just sayin.

 

it's really quite easy to find.

so, since it's been in the news for days, one can only assume you are either woefully misinformed, or, a liar.

which is it?

 

Well, great. If reports of the "new" deal are close to true, we should amend this thread title by changing "Republicans" to "Democrats" and "to win an" to "so they can try and appeal to a small sliver of independents by totally screwing over their base and country in the hopes they might maybe scrape by in the next."

 

Do you think the deal will cause the economy fail?

 

lol typical.

 

From what I've read, the new deal seems to be essentially the same as the original plan, except that if the promised cuts can't be agreed to by both parties, defense will be cut and Medicare payments to providers will be cut (nothing to beneficiaries). Are you reading something different?

 

Here's the simple version...

The people who ran up the deficits and debt are now the holy warriors against it, holding everything hostage and trying to push through massive spending cuts that they would have no prayer of getting under normal legislative procedures. The people who took the deficits and debt seriously and actually had us on a good path at one time have decided it is best to ignore their historical constituency and go along with the blackmail to the detriment of the country in the hopes of maybe appealing to a small part of the independent electorate. Because of this, we're about to go austerity in a big way when every reputable (read: not ideologically blind) economist says we should be doing just the opposite to get people back to work and get the economy moving again. The deal that seems to be going down will do nothing but harm the shallow recovery, driving down the economy and by extension tax receipts that affect the deficit/debt that one side pretends to care so much about. So, in times of economic instability, the solution our wise hands in DC have picked for us is to take money out of the economy, put more pressure on the job market, and hamper economic growth... all of which means we're going to be worse off in the deficit/debt arena by choice.

So yes, I really do think this deal will lead to more economic failure )as well as a diminished quality of life). It's basic Macro Econ 101.

 

I get what you are saying and I think in the long run you are right but if the country were to go into default now that imo would bring out economic failure much faster. To me a deal now at least forestalls failure for awhile and gets us a chance to make more changes.

So while making a deal might very well lead to economic failure not making a deal would do so also and much sooner.

 

Of course. But is what's being floated the best possible deal given you have an insane cabal with intractable positions based on faith instead of reason?

I think not.

 

Are you sure about that? I'm not sure the details of the Reid plan, but the original Boehner plan actually only cut a net of $1 billion from this year's budget. Most of the cuts were backloaded, which is what most economists agree should be done if we're trying to not hurt the recovery.

 

Rimrocker, an excelllent post and right on target. You almost sound like a (gasp!) "bizarre" liberal.

Judo, this is exactly the path Obama took with the Republican blackmail over the extension of the "temporary" Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy. Instead of standing up to blackmail and using the bully pulpit to lambast the radical Republicans, while checking the ink in his veto pen, he caved, and the radicals running the Republican Party have been sharks circling the White House ever since, smelling blood.

 

Neither deal has any revenues side. That was lost a week ago. That's wrong. The American people knew who to blame if no deal was passed because one side wouldn't compromise on revenues while the other side was willing to compromise big time on spending cuts.

Now it's all muddled, and while the GOP have been moving their goalposts on what they would accept, and are still more unreasonable in this whole mess, it isn't as clear cut.

Sometimes it's better to suffer, in order to shine a spotlight on the problem and then get rid of that problem, so that an actual fix can be implemented.

I'm so sick of the idea that revenues don't need to be addressed, and that supposed job creators(wealthy) can't have their taxes hiked a little.

Instead that places all of the sacrifice on the working and middle class who will have their programs cuts. The Wealthy sacrifice nothing.

In any business or home budget when there are problems, revenue is increased, whether that means someone takes a second job, or a spouse goes to work when they had been staying at home, or businesses try new marketing etc. There is always an element of increasing revenues. Yes, spending should be get as well. But to leave off revenues is a huge mistake. The polls show that the public wanted that. But congress didn't listen. Instead the Dems gave in to the GOP.

The idea that the wealthy are going to create jobs is BS. They have the lowest tax rates in 60 years and haven't been creating jobs. Nobody who's a good business person is going to expand unless there is a need. A business that is barely getting by won't go out and hire more people because their taxes don't go up. They will only go out and hire more people when they need to because consumers are buying their products and services.

It's all pretty much common sense, but nobody is doing the right thing.

 

The true radicals in the GOP weren't in power during the extension of the tax cuts - a good chunk of those tea partiers didn't come into office until this year. And those people were never in the mood for compromise - they thought the GOP caved in those negotiations and were pissed about that too. If you believe the GOP is willing to destroy the economy to win elections - as I assume you do - then what makes you think Obama was going to benefit by vetoing anything? You'd have higher middle class rates, and in an era of blogging and 24/7 news channels where every voice gets to be heard, the bully pulpit is not what it was 20 or 30 years ago. Any slowdown to the economy would be put squarely on Democrats because "raising" taxes fits the image of Democrats, right or wrong.

If not for Obama extending tax cuts for the wealthy for two years, you also might have had to wait another generation for DADT repeal, because that was never going to pass the current House or Senate - and who knows when Dems would have big enough majorities to pull it off again.