Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Better check in with Penske on that.

Let's hope none of us have to rely on social security for our retirement.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

This difference is much smaller than most pols make it out to be. Life expectancy for people who make it to 65 isn't that much longer than it was when the program was adopted, even though overall life expectancy at birth has lengthened. And, of course, more affluent people live longer poorer people, so just raising the retirement age may involve taking benefits from poorer workers.

But that doesn't mean you can't do it in combination with means testing of some sort.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Obama isn't worried about support from the left and wants independents to support him for re-election. Reid and Pelosi have much less of an interest in meeting the GOP. Obama is the one proposing entitlement cuts, not them.

I'm not going to argue the merits again. I'll just say that there is massive public support for Social Security and Medicare, and that cutting them is not popular. This is so obvious that I can't believe anyone is arguing about it. The GOP understands this, and scored gains from Democrats with seniors in the last election by running against the Medicare cuts in HCR.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

There's so much support for Medicare that all of the current R leadership voted FOR the last big expansion of it.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

True. Try just putting that one on the table for cutting, as a solo bill, and see what happens.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I don't remember the Secy of Defense, for example, saying that.

Hell, it took days or weeks just for most Republicans to figure out that they were opposed to the bombing that they had been advocating for weeks before.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Eye-roll.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

No can do. Hank is closing in on explaining all the proactive steps W took to deal with the obvious al Qaeda problem. Which is impressive, because in Hank-land W was only president for six minutes before 9/11.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I don't think that Ty was arguing that, by saying that cuts to entitlements are unpopular. He was just pointing that the masses are, well, the masses.

We need to cut benefits programs, and we also need to raise taxes. Neither thing is very popular. Nor is cutting military spending, which we also need. Being a grown-up is hard. As Obama said, there are tough choices that we need to make.

The Rs played this to a point that forced those hard choices -- but then refused to make any of their own, because they are slaves to ideological purity, like the Norquist pledge. In taking that course, I think they've seriously overplayed their hand.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

How dare you say that? You're suggesting governing, and compromise -- with socialstalinhitlermaoists!!!!

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Please, baby baby baby, please.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I agree. Most people don't want to concede any benefits. (Some people do, but not nearly as many who don't.)

So what's your point? The GOP's taking advantage of the moment to run through an unpopular policy? If that's all you're saying, I have to wonder, Why did you bother writing it? It's obvious.

If by extension you're suggesting we should not consider unpopular policies, and always Give the People What They Want,* I have to wonder, as someone else did earlier, How high are you?

*A great Kinks record, BTW.

Are they turning into us or are we turning into them
 

Probably all the result of ObamaCare, right?
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...n1-blog480.jpg

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

His point seemed a bit odd. He usually doesn't state things so obvious. It took me a bit by surprise.

Agreed. I think precise tax increases, in concert with similarly surgical cuts, each of which can be presented as the sort which will not raise unemployment, would send a strong message that we are serious about the debt. Both is better than one or other other alone. The argument to the public ought to be:

"For the better of the country long term, we need to demonstrate a willingness to raise some revenue and cut. If we just raise revenue, we'll send the message that we can't control spending, and we'll probably slow the economy. If we merely cut, we'll send the message that we are willing to tolerate a huge portion of the country falling further and further into impoverished conditions, which will destabilize the country in many ways, and cause our borrowing costs to rise. To maintain our rating, and our position as the world's most stable developed large economy, we need to address both sides of the debt problem."

The difficulty with this argument is, to come full circle, the masses would never understand it. As simple as it is, it's not tribal. It's not taking one of the deceloped sides in the debate. And it's not as immediately understandable as, "When ya spend too much, ya gotta stop spending immediately," or "They're gonna take urrr benefits!"

I don't think either side has overplayed its hand. The details of the competing proposals and sticking points have been so well shrouded and confused the masses won't be able to figure out who was the bigger problem in the end. In that vacuum of understanding, they'll just buy whatever the party they support tells them.

Until the independents stand up and push the tribe minds to the fringe where they belong, this shit will persist. Problem is, most independents long ago decided to vote for this candidate: Me. We take care of our own shit, hedge against what DC might do, and don't engage. In our absence, the nuts and nihilists have taken the wheel.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Sometimes there is a real need to state the obvious. Like the day after the Speaker of the Tea Party makes a speech ignoring or denying almsot every obvious point.

Remember, the entire national debate is being held under an apparently broadly shared illusion that we can assume (a) that raising revenue is not necessary to solve the problems and (b) that employment and jobs are not a high public policy priority today.

Ignoring the obvious appears to be the goal of all of DC right now.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Merely voted for it? The GOP drafted the fucking bill! It was their giant wet kiss to grandma to keep her in their pocket.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I'd settle for a mea culpa from Cantor, Ryan, et al.

But until they say *something* about it, all of the "we must cut spending" shit from them is disingenuous. And I think we *need* to make structural adjustments to reduce future spending and eliminate the deficit. Course, that puts me to the "right" of the R caucus who love the idea of a budget with a $400B deficit in 2021, made smaller b/c of many assumptions of doubtful accuracy.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Yeah, but Ryan, Cantor, et al didn't draft it. I'm trying to be fair to the fucking weasels.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I heard nothing obvious from either man. There were no specifics given by design. They don't want anyone to know exactly what the sticking points were. What you saw last night was:

1. One of the most cynical displays in political history;
2. A waste of airtime better used for Mob Wives;
3. Two men verbalizing ad nauseum this simple argument: "Please believe it's not me, it's him. He's the bad guy."

They're both the bad guy. Even when they can meet on specifics, they can't agree because neither will take the political damage that comes with looking like the guy who blinked.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

There's a tendancy to say this, but Obama has publicly come out for cuts that drive his base apoplectic, and that even alienate some of the independents he has attracted (if you follow any beloved former generally republican posters who suck off the medicare teat, for example, you'll see some signs of distress). He has taken on some of the pain.

Has any Republican taken on any similar pain at this point? Boehner is just playing to the Tea Party, and until he decides he's actually Speaker of the whole House, it's fuck America time.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Gold.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Boehner agreed to $800bil in new revenue. But as Ty noted earlier, he couldn't get the votes. When he realized that, he pulled back to the only position he could: Refusal to compromise.

Sadly, it's only logical. If his party isn't going to let him compromise at all, the only move he has is to see if Obama will concede further.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

And Obama's only logical move is to make sure the R Caucus *OWNS* the aftermath.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

How high are you? One has reportedly offered to take the political damage of compromising on his party's core principles ("we can talk SS and Medicare cuts if you want, John"). The other hasn't.

Re: Fine, you guys win
 

Yeah, there's no real recovery on the horizon until there is from some sector or other (which then becomes the next bubble after a few years, but that's capitalism for ya and we love it). And I understand that 10s of thousands of construction workers aren't going to go back to their jobs building new single family detached houses in Arizona any time soon. Maybe what you're saying is that 10% unemployment is a fact of life forever, and we just have to get used to it. But right now the pain from that level of unemployment is spreading everywhere, and the actions being discussed on all sides (which are all, ostensibly, about creating jobs, right? I mean that's why Rs and Ds are fighting so hard on things like debt ceilings, for the working families out there, right?) are just wrong.

I know you hate Krugman, but over the years he's been more right than wrong on substance, and he's right about the fact that cutting spending and, yes, raising taxes is the worst possible course to take when you're looking at levels of unemployment we haven't seen since the opening acts of the Great Depression.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Tax Rasputin has mystical powers.

Think the bomb threat was real, or a decent hoax?

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

That's not his only move. He could also make the case for compromise being the right choice, and look to build enough support for it over both sides of the aisle.

If anything gets past, my bet is that it will have more D votes and R votes in the House.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

So Obama was willing to piss off his base, and work to get the votes needed. And Boehner wasn't.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

He supposedly is speaker of the house, not the party. He needs to start acting like it.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

2, except for the overplaying their hand part. If you noticed, the debate has now shifted and even Reid's plan does not include tax increases.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

And apparently it doesn't matter. Despite holding the speaker hostage, Cong. Jordan says they'll deny Boehner the votes to pass his own plan.

God, the Republican Party is more fucked up than the Catholic Church.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Great, shifting the debate so realistic solutions are off the table. Leadership!

Today in colossal stupidity
 

Tyler Cowen concluding that given the liquidity trap theory (which he rejects), default could have some stimulus effect. Sounds familiar somehow.

ETA: DeLong weighs in too.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

The Reid proposal also doesn't include reductions to entitlement programs.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Sweet. They are insisting on a balanced budget amendment that requires a 2/3 vote for any tax increase.*

Because, you know, that has worked out so well in California.



*Presumably defined in Norquist-terms, so that even a reduction of subsidies constitutes a tax increase.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Negotiation. None of the plans on the table are realistic solutions. That ship passed months ago.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

That's because a portion of his "cuts" are assumptions that we will spend less in the middle east due to the troop pull out. I"m not so sure about that.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

One way to turn an assumption into a reality is to not appropriate for troops to be in the middle east.

I'd like to buy an argument
 

Raising your middle finger in the air is not negotiation.

Re: I'd like to buy an argument
 

Oh, but it is.