My God, you are an idiot.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I really don't understand all the belly-aching. We are reducing the growth of spending by a ridiculously small amount over a 10 year period. Yet the sky is falling? I actually think Obama got a pretty good deal here.

Best case scenario is that this deal does limited harm. I guess that's a "good deal" in comparison to a deal that would have done a lot of harm, and yes, things could have been much worse. But that doesn't add up to doing much good.

And, as GGG says, it's worrying from a process perspective.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Oh wise and great Hank, how do you get the economy going from Washington?

it's all consumer confidence. Unfortunately for Obama and the Dems the country has decided they cannot "fix it."

and by the way, Obama won a good number of midwest states by promising to bring back manufacturing jobs, so whether or not things can be fixed "from Washington," we were told they can be.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

And the most recent continuing resolution (as we have no passed budget).



One of the strangest things is that everyone's okay with this being thought of as some sort of check on spending. It isn't. It's a short cut to avoid congress having to vote on every debt issue. Only Congress can authorize borrowing. It used to vote on each bond. Finding that tedious, it decided to say, "okay, Treasury, you do what you need to do up to X."

That makes perfect sense, but it's hardly meant to be a break on the spending the Congress duly authorizes (e.g., the spending in the most recent budget/continuing resolution).

Which is a long way of saying that raising the debt limit as needed should have been including in each past spending bill.

There was a bit in the New Yorker saying that the ceiling is an anachronism, from a time with the Pres had more control over spending and Congress wanted some check on it. So, it had a point but doesn't anymore.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

seriously? you don't understand why ggg or sidd or adder or ty isn't posting from a standpoint that accepts a position that isn't biased by their bias? really? after all these years of seeing them unable to have the least bit of compromise or criticism of the Dem position?

Go check what I've been saying. I'm not the person who has been railing against any cuts. I wanted more cuts, particularly to entitlements, and I wanted tax increases.

Sorry for suggesting that you should take facts into account before making a personal attack on me -- I know you hate that sort of thing.


eta: I echo GGG's points on the process, which is the other part I've been complaining about. Once again, Boehner should have negotiated with Obama and forged a compromise that the center could support.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Go check what I've been saying. I'm not the person who has been railing against any cuts. I wanted more cuts, particularly to entitlements, and I wanted tax increases.

Sorry for suggesting that you should take facts into account before making a personal attack on me -- I know you hate that sort of thing.

Why discussions among dems are often more interesting than those with Tea Party Trolls like Hank.

I disagree with the more cuts position (at least net cuts - there's some rejiggering I'd like to do) and would back more stimulus (hey, it was good for my clients - I saw the impact) instead. But there are rational discussions to be had on both fronts, and I see little rational about the cuts being made other than culling programs with the least current political support.

As an example, attempting to argue that cutting payments to providers is not cutting "benefits" is sort of cute, but then suddenly Gramma's nursing home lays off a quarter of the staff and we'll see what happens to care.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

it's all consumer confidence. Unfortunately for Obama and the Dems the country has decided they cannot "fix it."

and by the way, Obama won a good number of midwest states by promising to bring back manufacturing jobs, so whether or not things can be fixed "from Washington," we were told they can be.

So your hope for a government that understands how to get the economy going after 2012 is futile?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Go check what I've been saying. I'm not the person who has been railing against any cuts. I wanted more cuts, particularly to entitlements, and I wanted tax increases.

Sorry for suggesting that you should take facts into account before making a personal attack on me -- I know you hate that sort of thing.


eta: I echo GGG's points on the process, which is the other part I've been complaining about. Once again, Boehner should have negotiated with Obama and forged a compromise that the center could support.

Boehner should have said "the ceiling is something that we have to adjust upwardly, because we have already committed those funds. the need for raising it shows we need to get spending under control. We will do that next budget cycle." We all agree that doing this hijack was harmful to the process, that's not a "point."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

So your hope for a government that understands how to get the economy going after 2012 is futile?

no. i think if there is a change the economy will pick up because the new guy will tell us he will fix it.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Why discussions among dems are often more interesting than those with Tea Party Trolls like Hank.

2.

I disagree with the more cuts position (at least net cuts - there's some rejiggering I'd like to do) and would back more stimulus (hey, it was good for my clients - I saw the impact) instead. But there are rational discussions to be had on both fronts, and I see little rational about the cuts being made other than culling programs with the least current political support.

I remain deeply concerned about the level of public debt. And while I understand the argument for stimulus spending, the environment over the past few years -- starting with inheriting massive deficits even during good years (back in late 2008 I raised the concern here that W's spending/tax cutting binge left us unable to stimulate our way out of recession without incurring dangerous levels of debt), a fed govt so deeply divided that they cannot make decisions on any basis other than political support and pandering (you echo that concern as to how cuts are allocated, and I agree), and weak leadership (Obama has failed to use the Presidency to press for well-targetted spending, and the Dems have failed to support him in his efforts to do so) -- leaves me believing that the feds just aren't up to the task right now.

As noted, I agree about the way cuts are decided. Pathetic.

Also, note that my view for more cuts is not so much that they need to be immediate, but that they need to be more structural. Particularly with respect to entitlements, which Obama had the balls to put on the table and Boehner had the stupidity to slap off.

As an example, attempting to argue that cutting payments to providers is not cutting "benefits" is sort of cute, but then suddenly Gramma's nursing home lays off a quarter of the staff and we'll see what happens to care.

How is our favorite former fiscal conservative these days?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Boehner should have said "the ceiling is something that we have to adjust upwardly, because we have already committed those funds. the need for raising it shows we need to get spending under control. We will do that next budget cycle." We all agree that doing this hijack was harmful to the process, that's not a "point."

Way to dodge the fact that you lied about my position about cuts in order to make a personal attack.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Also, note that my view for more cuts is not so much that they need to be immediate, but that they need to be more structural. Particularly with respect to entitlements, which Obama had the balls to put on the table and Boehner had the stupidity to slap off.

Is there any conclusion other than Boehner chose political expedience over accomplishing a purported goal?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

2.



I remain deeply concerned about the level of public debt. And while I understand the argument for stimulus spending, the environment over the past few years -- starting with inheriting massive deficits even during good years (back in late 2008 I raised the concern here that W's spending/tax cutting binge left us unable to stimulate our way out of recession without incurring dangerous levels of debt), a fed govt so deeply divided that they cannot make decisions on any basis other than political support and pandering (you echo that concern as to how cuts are allocated, and I agree), and weak leadership (Obama has failed to use the Presidency to press for well-targetted spending, and the Dems have failed to support him in his efforts to do so) -- leaves me believing that the feds just aren't up to the task right now.

As noted, I agree about the way cuts are decided. Pathetic.

Also, note that my view for more cuts is not so much that they need to be immediate, but that they need to be more structural. Particularly with respect to entitlements, which Obama had the balls to put on the table and Boehner had the stupidity to slap off.




How is our favorite former fiscal conservative these days?

The place where it's pretty clear something structural needs to be done is Medicaid/Medicare, and the problem causing that structural imbalance is actually in part its own success: we live longer, which means we linger with more expense at the end. And part of the problem is that we are increasingly solving this problem institutionally, by growing the hospital and nursing home industry.

I'm a big fan of doing this through reallocation rather than cutting, triggering, one hopes, savings in out years: I'd like to see more focus on support for keeping people at home as they age, including things like tax credits or medicare support payments for people caring for elderly in their home. There are elements of these alternative approaches in ACA, but I think the best bet is to see what starts happening after 2014 when payments will be increasingly outcome based. Accelerating ACA may do more to help here than anything else, since we'll accelerate key datapoints.

As to our favorite former fiscal conservative, I'm not talking to him until he finds me a nursing home that offers hookers and blow.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

Is there any conclusion other than Boehner chose political expedience over accomplishing a purported goal?

A decade of virtual contact with Hank has taught me that it's very difficult to identify a person's motivation for behavior that is divisive, intellectually dishonest, counterproductive and obnoxious.

[Gattigap]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

They're going to keep taking hostages. By dealing with each crisis as a one-off, he's encouraging more crises.

McConnell to Larry Kudlow: Why yes, yes we will.

“What we have done, Larry, also is set a new template. In the future, any president, this one or another one, when they request us to raise the debt ceiling it will not be clean anymore. This is just the first step. This, we anticipate, will take us into 2013. Whoever the new president is, is probably going to be asking us to raise the debt ceiling again. Then we will go through the process again and see what we can continue to achieve in connection with these debt ceiling requests of presidents to get our financial house in order.”

Or, as Jonathan Chait has put it recently, it's like someone taking your child hostage and as ransom asking for $100,000 plus your other child.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

As an example, attempting to argue that cutting payments to providers is not cutting "benefits" is sort of cute, but then suddenly Gramma's nursing home lays off a quarter of the staff and we'll see what happens to care.

But no one will agree with me that we need less Grandmas (or as you actually admit later on, less expensive care for Grandma).