Debt Deal Emerging

President Obama and Congressional Republicans have the outline of a deal to raise the debt limit past the 2012 elections.

President Obama and Congressional Republicans have the outline of a deal to raise the debt limit past the 2012 elections.

ABC’s Jonathan Karl:

Here, according to Democratic and Republican sources, are the key elements:

  • A debt ceiling increase of up to $2.1 to $2.4 trillion (depending on the size of the spending cuts agreed to in the final deal).
  • They have now agreed to spending cuts of roughly $1.2 trillion over 10 years.
  • The formation of a special Congressional committee to recommend further deficit reduction of up to $1.6 trillion (whatever it takes to add up to the total of the debt ceiling increase).  This deficit reduction could take the form of spending cuts, tax increases or both.
  • The special committee must make recommendations by late November (before Congress’ Thanksgiving recess).
  • If Congress does not approve those cuts by December 23, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare. This “trigger” is designed to force action on the deficit reduction committee’s recommendations by making the alternative painful to both Democrats and Republicans.
  • A vote, in both the House and Senate, on a balanced budget amendment.

Democrats won’t like the fact that Medicare could be exposed to automatic cuts, but the size of the Medicare cuts is limited and they are designed to be taken from Medicare providers, not beneficiaries.

Two sources briefed on the framework say the automatic cuts would hit Defense spending harder than Medicare.  A Republican briefed on the framework says this will be unacceptable to many Republicans because it could force them to face a choice between accepting tax increases (if that is what the committee recommends) or automatic cuts that would gut the Pentagon’s budget.

National Journal‘s Major Garrett has somewhat different details:

In many respects, the deal will, if approved by all parties, resemble the contours of a short-lived pact negotiated last weekend by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority LeaderHarry Reid, D-Nev. Obama rejected that deal, forcing Congress to wrestle with other inferior legislative options throughout the week.

Among the newest wrinkles, according to informed sources, is an agreement to extend the current $14.3 trillion debt ceiling very briefly to give the legislative process time to work without resorting to emergency, hurry-up measures.

President Obama has said he would only sign a short-term extension (days, not weeks) if it were linked to an extension of borrowing authority that lasts beyond the 2012 election.

According to sources, the Senate would use the military construction appropriations bill, one currently available for action, as the vehicle for the short-term extension. This element of the arrangement, like everything else, is subject to modification. But those close to the negotiations expect Congress to slow things down without jeopardizing the nation’s full faith and credit. A debt extension of days would achieve that goal.

Other component parts of the tentative deal include:

  • $2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years and the remainder determined by a so-called super committee.
  • The Super Committee must report precise deficit-reduction proposals by Thanksgiving.
  • The Super Committee would have to propose $1.8 trillion spending cuts to achieve that amount of deficit reduction over 10 years.
  • If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification. If that doesn’t happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.
  • No net new tax revenue would be part of the special committee’s deliberations.

Most of us have presumed from the outset that a disaster-averting deal would be struck, although the inability of Republican leaders to get their own caucuses to agree to seemingly slam dunk deals brought that into question. It’s always possible that the combination of defense and Medicaid cuts will cleave off enough Republican and Democratic votes, respectively, to kill the compromise. But it’s looking like people are ready to get this over with.

As is always the case in tense negotiations, one wonders why the deal couldn’t have been struck long ago. Most of these issues have been agreed to in principle for quite some time. But, as with labor deals, impending deadlines that impose dire consequences are usually necessary to get people to swallow bitter concessions.

FILED UNDER: General
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Ben Wolf says:

    This is a disaster. A damned Super committee so Congress can try to avoid voters’ wrath by saying they had no choice but to approve whatever cuts it recommends? This doesn’t help at all, it just formalizes Washington’s utter dysfunction and inability to govern effectively.

    The same goes with ridiculous “automatic” cuts, so once again our politicians can do an end run around their voters’ wishes while claiming they were forced into it. And we wonder why the people have completely lost faith in the system.

  2. Rock says:

    A debt ceiling increase of up to $2.1 to $2.4 trillion (depending on the size of the spending cuts agreed to in the final deal).
    They have now agreed to spending cuts of roughly $1.2 trillion over 10 years.

    I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

    Also known as kicking the can down the road.

  3. superdestroyer says:

    This is a total win for the Democrats. Spending is maintain with a committee proposing cuts that will occur after the 2012 elections.

    If Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House in January 2013, this deal is not worth 0.02$, Spending will be maintained and taxes will be going up.

    Idiotic budget deals like this is a clear message that private business should find a better country to move to in order to avoid the idiots who are in charge.

  4. Ben Wolf says:

    @superdestroyer: Maybe they could move to Germany, France or the Netherlands, which far exceed the U.S. in numbers of small businesses per capita. The pro-union, high-tax environments there seem to be more favorable to economic opportunity.

    Oh, wait . . .

  5. superdestroyer says:

    @Ben Wolf:

    France has immigrant problems because it is so hard to start a new business there. Considering that France is not 12% black and 15% Hispanic like the U.S., it has the same unemployment rate.

    Germany has little immigration and does not support open borders and unlimited immigration. Germany appears to base policies based on what is good for Germans instead of running a government that decides that a good policy is what is best for illegal aliens.

    Most internal corporations will leave their HQ in Manhattan so that their management can live the elite lifestyle but will move everything else outside of the U.S. to avoid our idiotic government.

    Progressives appear to have adopted the idea of Paul Krugman who believes that any white who cannot get admitted to Princeton has no reason to exist and should be replaced by a third world immigrant.

  6. Hey Norm says:

    I suspect that neither party is going to be happy…which tells me it’s a good moderate compromise.
    We’re still going to have a demand crisis on Wednesday morning.

  7. OzarkHillbilly says:

    France has immigrant problems because it is so hard to start a new business there. Considering that France is not 12% black and 15% Hispanic like the U.S., it has the same unemployment rate.

    superdestroyer never fails, any argument about anything can be reduced to race.

  8. A voice from another precinct says:

    @Rock: And you are surprised at this outcome because…?

    And, Superdestroyer, I’m glad to see that you finally figured out how to blame this on Mexicans. (BTW, is your screen name some kind of tribute to professional wrestling or something. Your threads have a really credible “heel” tone to them–not really rational, but seemingly logical enough to explain the anger.)

  9. A voice from another precinct says:

    @superdestroyer: All I can ask you to do is remember the words of Carlos Santana in an ABC News special on Hispanics many years ago:

    “If Mexicans (sic) were to decide that they were never again going to bus a dish or change a motel sheet, Los Angeles would have to close.”

  10. superdestroyer says:

    @Hey Norm:

    The Democrats have to be happy. The Democrats get all of the borrowing authority they want and do not have to deal with it again until after the 2012 elections. All the Democrats gave up was a promise to make cuts after the 2012 elections. If Nancy Pelosi (or Steny Hoyer) if the Speaker of the House in 2013, those cuts will never be made.

    The Republicans have completely failed. No control of spending, no lowering of the debt, and almost no cuts in the 2011-2012 time frame. There is nothing is this deal for fiscal conservatives. Promise that are made with no intention of ever being kept are not worth anything.

  11. john personna says:

    @superdestroyer:

    This is a total win for the Democrats. Spending is maintain with a committee proposing cuts that will occur after the 2012 elections.

    That’s an interesting comment. Leaving aside the future cuts, the deal does have the $1.2T in immediate cuts. Have we ever actually had cuts that large?

    So how should I interpret your comment …. do you think Democrats are the party of immediate cuts … or do you think $1.2T is nuthin’?

  12. john personna says:

    @superdestroyer:

    The Democrats have to be happy. The Democrats get all of the borrowing authority they want and do not have to deal with it again until after the 2012 elections. All the Democrats gave up was a promise to make cuts after the 2012 elections. If Nancy Pelosi (or Steny Hoyer) if the Speaker of the House in 2013, those cuts will never be made.

    The Republicans got the one big thing they wanted. They wanted revenue increase to be a (THE!) 2012 campaign issue.

    By cutting revenue increase out of the deal, they make it a fresh issue. The camel did not get his nose under the tent with a small increase. The 2012 vote is what to do with the camel standing outside.

  13. Hey Norm says:

    Superdestroyer…
    1) The debt ceiling is about money the republicans already spent.
    2) in a recession or weak recovery we should be spending. Interest rates are near zero, there is excess labor available, and construction costs are highly competitive. Republicans have spent our surpluses, and are now forcing us to cut during lean times…the exact opposite of what should be going on…saving during boom times and spending during lean times.
    Starting the minute this compromise takes effect unemployment will go up, and growth will go down. This is what republicans wanted and it is what we will have.

  14. superdestroyer says:

    @john personna:

    David Axelrod is way ahead of you. The 2012 election will be about whether “the rich” (who blacks and Hispanics will interpret was whites) pay more taxes or whether the Repulbicans are protecting the rich from paying more taxes. Since less than 50% adults pay any income taxes, they will automatically support any push to tax the rich.

    If the 2012 election is about taxing others than giving money to themselves, the voters will support the Democrats.

  15. Hey Norm says:

    Look…I don’t mind opposing views…in fact I am afraid this blog is becoming too homogenous… But there is no room for the continuing racist comments from Superdestroyer. I would hope that the moderators would take some action to limit this.

  16. Comment test. Someone please reply to this comment. Testing comment reply email system.

    Thanks. (and sorry for the thread interruption)

  17. superdestroyer says:

    @Hey Norm:

    The U.S. is a very diverse country where racial and ethnic identity are powerful forces in politics. To refuse to discuss how race, gender, or ethnicity affect politics is no refuse to discuss reality. Refusing to discuss how demographic, culture, race, ethnicity, immigration, and living patterns affect politics, the economy, education, or the overall culture just means that one is refusing to discuss those topics.

    Blacks and Hispanics vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party. Every black or Hispanic based political group supports higher taxes and a separate and unequal view of governance. In addition, those demographic groups are growing relative to the core groups of the Republican party.

    The political planners of the Democratic Party know that every demographic trend is in their favor and know that the Democratic party will benefit from open borders, unlimited immigration, and the growth of a large, poor underclass. The Democratic Party also knows that it does not benefit from growth in private sector employed middle and upper middle class whites. That is one of the reaons that the Democrats take the policy positions that it does and it also explains why the Democratic Party is so uninterested in appealing to middle class, private sector employed whites.

    if you refuse to even think about such issues, why are you interested in politics?

  18. john personna says:

    @superdestroyer:

    David Axelrod is way ahead of you.

    What makes you think I just got here? 😉

    The 2012 election will be about whether “the rich” (who blacks and Hispanics will interpret was whites) pay more taxes or whether the Repulbicans are protecting the rich from paying more taxes. Since less than 50% adults pay any income taxes, they will automatically support any push to tax the rich.

    We can go there.

    The people who pay no federal income tax do so because they are in poverty. Their income is so low that it is judged they cannot support themselves and their children with even $1 less. Many of them are receiving assistance of one kind or another, because they are poor.

    Now, how high exactly would you tax them? And what would that really fix?

    After you answer those, we can move on to “the rich.”

  19. john personna says:

    From the Christian Science Monitor:

    The roughly 45 percent of Americans who owe no income tax are heavily weighted in certain groups based on income and family status, according to the The Tax Policy Center, the nonpartisan research group that has run the numbers. More than half the tax-return filers in each of these groups owe no taxes: Those who earn less than $30,000, those who are elderly, and those who are single with children.

  20. James in LA says:

    stardestroyer complains, “The political planners of the Democratic Party know that every demographic trend is in their favor and know that the Democratic party will benefit from open borders, unlimited immigration, and the growth of a large, poor underclass. ”

    No one benefits from a “large, poor underclass,” and democrats know this much better than republicans, who are working tirelessly to bring it about with reckless know-nothing policies, all so some master of theirs can make far more bucks than they actually need.

    My conservative friends have trouble with the word Enough. Your boundless greed and your insistence on making the dollar the pornographic centerpiece of our society is very near the core of the actual problem.

    As you say, demographics assure your whining ways will dry up soon enough.

  21. James in LA says:

    @john personna:

    In other words, those who can least afford it. And no amount of temper-tantrums from my conservative friends is going to budge that fact one iota. Many more will be joining these ranks soon enough.

  22. WR says:

    @superdestroyer: And SD’s real problem with the deal — it doesn’t make it illegal to have dark skin.

  23. Ebenezer Arvigenius says:

    superdestroyer never fails, any argument about anything can be reduced to race.

    And he apparently knows squat about either Germany or France. Both have immigrant populations of about 20% in all. This is just veiled by the fact that a) a large percentage of those obtain citizenship quickly and b) France prohibits the acquisition of statistical data on ethnicity.

    But since his argument is based on ethnicity, not citizenship, he can’ simply argue with the statistics about foreigners (which are based on citizenship).

  24. User 1 says:

    @ed@Blogrescue: Test reply

  25. superdestroyer says:

    @Ebenezer Arvigenius:

    According to Wikipedia, around 8% of the population of France (around five million people) are foreign born immigrants. What is amazing that 8% of population accounts for about 28% of the births in France. Cite

    If you have a reference for your 20%, it would be nice if you could have given it. I thought progressives were the reality-based.

  26. James in LA says:

    @superdestroyer: The point you are missing, whether it’s 8% or 20% is this:

    So what?

    What about it?

    What actual point are you trying to make that does not make you sound like you are afraid of those who are different than you are?

  27. superdestroyer says:

    @James in LA:

    the point should be for progressives is to stop saying that the U.S. which is a country of more than 330 million people with a population that is 12% black, 15% Hispanic, 4$ Asian, and 4% Jewsih and comparing it to small northern European countires that are all over 805 white.

    the countries to compare the U.S. with are India, Brazil, Indonedia, Pakinstan, and Russia. Large countries with diverse populations. To argue that the U.S. can have the social welfare system as Finland (population five million), Sweden (population 9 million), or the Netherlands (population 17 million) is laughable.

    The non-white groups in the U.S. are powerful voting blocks that are much more uniform in their voting patterns than whites. To refuse to acknowledge that blacks vote 95% for Democrats and support high taxes is to refuse to face reality. To refuse to acknowledge that Hispanics vote over 75% for Democrats and support open borders and unlimited immigration is naive.

    Such issues have to be considered when developing policy in the U.S. Refusing to acknowledge diversity in the U.S. and its impact of policy is to refuse to acknowledge reality. That is why someone like David Axelrod is a much better political operation that a fool like Karl Rove. David Axelrod knows that demographics is destiny. Karl Rove refuses to believe the same thing.

  28. Tano says:

    FWIW –
    About 20% total of all French residents are of foreign descent -with Italians are Arabs being the largest groups. Around 8% of French residents are of Arab-Berber descent, with most of them being recent immigrants. Around 8% of all residents are foreign born.

  29. Ben Wolf says:

    In a thread about the debt ceiling deal SS begins ranting about racial issues, simultaneously insisting he isn’t a racist.

    How about this, SS: You’re just a mean drunk.

  30. superdestroyer says:

    @Ben Wolf:

    I just pointed out that democrats are the big winners with the proposed deal since all of the spending comes first and the spending cuts come in out years when the Democrats will have multiple opportunities to renege on the deal. I also pointed out that the core groups of the Democratic Party all benefit from the deal and that it will help the Democrats in the polls in 2012.

    I also pointed out that the proposed deal will be seen as another reason for multiple national corporations to move more operations outside of the U.S. and to find countries/areas where politicians are not so addicted to out of control spending.

  31. Tano says:

    comparing it to small northern European countires that are all over 805 white.

    The US is 72.4% “white”. so comparing us to a nation that is 80% “white” is not so absurd.

    To argue that the U.S. can have the social welfare system as Finland … is laughable.

    Why? What is about ethnic diversity that changes anything about the feasibility of a social welfare program?

    The non-white groups in the U.S. are powerful voting blocks that are much more uniform in their voting patterns than whites.

    Which speaks to the irrelevancy of the category “white” more than anything else. Most “white” people do not self-identify as white, unless prompted to do so, and even then often times, the concept is rather foreign. I qualify on racial grounds, and I check the box usually if I need to, but I don’t identify myself in any real way as “white” – and I am repelled by people who imagine that the category has some meaning. “White” has historically been synonymous with “the ingroup” in America – it is used only in distinction to black, or yellow, or red – i.e. the others who are not considered full members of society. Today, the only people who push a consciousness of whiteness are those who attempt to perpetuate racialist attitudes and values.

    Blacks were forced to self-identify as blacks, as a result of 400 years of racial oppression. Its not surprising that “black” remains a coherent interest group – it will take quite some time more before there can be real proof that the larger society no longer views public policy through a race filter. And the larger society – at least the entire right hand part of it – has proven to be entirely unsympathetic to the legacy of those 400 years. I imagine that is why you get the voting patterns that you see.

    Refusing to acknowledge diversity in the U.S. and its impact of policy is to refuse to acknowledge reality.

    Nobody who follows or practices politics is unaware of large-scale voting patterns. I don’t know where you get your nonsense from. Rove, for all his evilness, won two presidential elections for a pretty mediocre (at best) candidate. Its pretty absurd to claim he is a political incompetent. What have you ever done?

  32. James in LA says:

    @superdestroyer: “To argue that the U.S. can have the social welfare system as …. (insert favorite ‘welfare state’)”

    Not at the current tax rate. In fact the U.S. cannot afford its current, inadequate safety nets at the current tax rate, so they will be going up, because a majority does not want the hell-hole conservative policies would create.

    But the much larger problem is this: my conservative friends have had decades to make amends, seek out “them” and make “them” friends, and focus on issues of country instead me and my piggy-bank. Instead, you spent millions of dollars demonizing the exact people you now need to vote for your reckless policies.

    Luckily, we agree: that dog won’t hunt.

  33. James Joyner says:

    @User 1: Replying to test message as logged in user.

  34. James Joyner says:

    Replying to test @User 1: Replying to test message whilst logged out.

  35. michael reynolds says:

    Yet another potentially interesting thread hijacked by a Republican racist goon.

  36. OzarkHillbilly says:

    The Democrats have to be happy. The Democrats get all of the borrowing authority they want and do not have to deal with it again until after the 2012 elections. All the Democrats gave up was a promise to make cuts after the 2012 elections.

    I can not believe I am the only one who caught superD’s total ignorance of our constitutional form of governance as demonstrated by the above statement. I have heard this kind of stupidity on the radio time and again from various Republican pols and every time I hear it, it makes me want to scream.

    superD: Just exactly what is it you think Republicans do in the House (where they have a majority) or the Senate (where they have a controlling minority)? How in god’s name can the Dems do anything without Republican acquiescence?

    If the Republicans wanted to “control spending”, they could do so quite easily and forthrightly without holding the entire world economy hostage. They already have the power. The fact that they don’t use it can only mean one thing: They don’t want to make the actual hard choices in the open light of day that come with governing, because then people will know just exactly what they are doing. Therefor they take a gutless BBA stand that can not and will not ever pass, as they work to gut Medicare and SS in the shadowed hallways of Congress..

  37. Anonne says:

    I guess superdestroyer thinks we can’t compare to Finland because the minorities here are incapable of working to contribute enough to sustain the safety net? Read: all them lazy blacks and Latinos.

    Funny, we have crops rotting in the fields in Georgia because of a strict anti-immigrant law and there isn’t enough domestic labor to harvest them. What happened to all those dang lazy hispanics who work for slave wages?

  38. @Ben Wolf:

    The pro-union, high-tax environments there seem to be more favorable to economic opportunity.

    Largely because small business tend to be excluded from the union laws.

  39. @superdestroyer:

    The Republicans have completely failed. No control of spending, no lowering of the debt, and almost no cuts in the 2011-2012 time frame.

    The only sense the Republicans failed is that the only ended up with 1.2 trillion in cuts when they could have had three trillion.

    Oh, but guess who’s fault it is they turned down the better deal?

  40. michael reynolds says:

    Largely because small business tend to be excluded from the union laws.

    Unions still set the standards, much as they used to in this country before the GOP managed to demonize them. Now the unions are mostly gone. How’s that working out for middle class workers?

    We get beat on job creation, small business and living standards by countries with strong unions and sturdy government safety nets.

    For all the lip service to small business we favor big business. We let Wal-Mart crush small retailers, we let big banks absorb small banks, we allow the major corporations to flood the political market with very expensive “free speech” and buy special consideration.

    We have a lousy safety net and we’re told we need to do that in order to compete. To compete with Germany, France, the UK and Netherlands, each of which is in better shape than we’re in.

    Where I live, pretty much every car I see comes from a country where the government subsidizes health care for workers. They’re all unionized. They all pay as many or more taxes as we do. They all have environmental regulations.

  41. Ebenezer Arvigenius says:

    If you have a reference for your 20%, it would be nice if you could have given it. I thought progressives were the reality-based.

    I saw little need for that since your error is clearly visible without source: you compare ethnic background (Blacks, Hispanics) with nationality (your source clearly states “foreign born immigrants”) excluding second generation foreigners in France and including them in the US. If you had read the whole page you linked you would have found “An estimated thirteen million residents of France, or about one-fifth of the population, are of ethnic or national non-French origins.”. If you are fluent in French you can find more on this here: http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/docs_ffc/irsoc033.pdf.

    So you can keep your snark. “I thought progressives were the reality-based” my ass. Reading is pretty pointless if you drop the ball on understanding what you read.

    To argue that the U.S. can have the social welfare system as Finland (population five million), Sweden (population 9 million), or the Netherlands (population 17 million) is laughable.

    Given that the Netherlands have about the same GDP per capita, this is not a problem of “can’t” but a problem of “won’t”. The larger population you have is generating more wealth after all. That’s what “per capita” means.

  42. Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Did you know the US has invaded Libya? Must be true – Eric Florack said so, in the last thread.

  43. ratufa says:

    From the post, it sounds like a win for Republicans, because it doesn’t so much give them what they say they want, as it gives them what they really need in preparation for 2012

    – Nothing that could be turned into a “tax hike” soundbite that could be used against them.

    – None of the fallout from a possible failure to raise the debt limit, which they would get some blame for, and might wise up some of the marks.

    – No serious attempt to address the causes of our long-term fiscal problems, which means none of the cuts in politically popular programs which they would have to make if they agreed to a “grand bargain” deal.

    – The ability to keep the spending issue alive and portray themselves as the party of small government by advocating mechanisms such as not raising the debt limit and a balanced budget amendment, which allows them to avoid supporting specific, unpopular spending cuts.

  44. superdestroyer says:

    @Tano:

    You need to read a little farther down the list. The U.S. is less than 64% non-Hispanic Whites. Compare that to France that is 80% ethnic French, 8% ethnic Italian, and a couple of percent other European. That means that race is more almost 90% non-Hispanic white at the same time that the U.S. is 64% non-Hispanic white. That is why the U.S. will have real problems trying to adopt a social-welfare system that Sweden or the Netherlands has. The Scandinavian countries have basically given up having grandchildren in order to maintain a massive social welfare state for a couple of decades until the birth-dearth destroys it.

    Still, the U.S. will be a loser in the world economy as the U.S. veers into becoming a third world country like Mexico with a small number of very rich elites and a massive underclass.

  45. superdestroyer says:

    @michael reynolds:

    I was not the one who started with the comparisons of small, all white countries with the U.S.

    If progressives keep using the fallacy of comparing northern European countries to the U.S., I will keep pointing out that those countries have very different demographics than the U.S.

    If progressives want to keep race out of the discuss then do not bring it up or at least acknowledge now race/ethnicity really affects policy and account for it.

    Looking at the current budget deal, the Republicans are huge losers. The best that the Republicans get out of it are no tax increases until jan 2013 and no new spending programs until 2013. They would have gotten that anyway. So the Democrats get what they want, very little spending cuts in the next 18 months and a message in 2012 of vote for the party that will raise taxes on others.

  46. ponce says:

    If progressives want to keep race out of the discuss…

    Is “cracker” a race?

  47. michael reynolds says:

    Notice how the racism-deniers like Drew and Jay T. never seem to show up when SD is on one of his insane racist rants? Fascinating isn’t it?

  48. Gustopher says:

    So we contract government spending during a weak recovery, a move that even the Austerity Forever guys at the IMF think is stupid, and send the economy into a double dip recession by removing demand.

    We create another Simpson-Bowles type commission, even though the last one failed to agree to any recommendations. (Their “report” was just the chairs report, it had been rejected by the other members). Even if it manages to create something that can be voted on by congress, it will gore someone’s ox, and never be agreed to.

    We attempt to pass a balanced budget amendment (the crazy government must contract with GDP to ensure every coming recession is a double dip recession, or a more moderate one?) through congress, that fails.

    So, across the board cuts. For Christmas. Yey! If we are very lucky, the economy will be creeping up again after absorbing the first round of cuts, and we can get a triple-dip recession. Also, pink slips always look good in stockings.

    And then we get to next year’s budget fight. And the Republican demands to keep the Bush/Obama tax cuts that are most of the deficit (Obama owns them now, with the last crappy deal)

    We have enough coming in right now to pay the interest on the bonds that come due, so we won’t have an actual default. I’d rather we just shut the government down now, and forced a solution rather than kicking it down the road. Too much business uncertainty over the next few years.

    Also, SuperDestroyer is a racist troll and should just be banned. No one needs that crap, let him go back to Stormfront.

  49. WR says:

    @Ebenezer Arvigenius: Of course it’s a matter of won’t. The superdestroyers of the world can’t stand the thought of a safety net if any part of it goes to people who don’t look like him.

  50. An Interested Party says:

    In the recent past, weren’t some posters (ZR III, jwest, Southern Hoosier) warned and then banned from this site because of their inability to stay on subject and their frequent writing of outrageous (sometimes racist) comments? Now we have someone who has hijacked this thread about a possible debt deal to talk about his theories on race…

  51. An Interested Party says:

    So we contract government spending during a weak recovery, a move that even the Austerity Forever guys at the IMF think is stupid, and send the economy into a double dip recession by removing demand.

    Exactly right…I notice all the people who scream that we can’t raise taxes during a weak recovery want to cut, cut, cut spending instead…as if all that cutting won’t hurt the recovery? Perhaps they think that all the cuts will only affect deadbeats who don’t contribute to the economy while tax increases will stop all those fantastic businesses from spreading their magical eggs full of jobs…

  52. Tano says:

    @superdestroyer:

    That is why the U.S. will have real problems trying to adopt a social-welfare system that Sweden or the Netherlands has

    You still have a massive non-sequitor here. Why do you think that the ethnic makeup of a society, no matter what it is, has an impact on the workings of a social-welfare policy?

  53. Ebenezer Arvigenius says:

    You still have a massive non-sequitor here. Why do you think that the ethnic makeup of a society, no matter what it is, has an impact on the workings of a social-welfare policy?

    It’s even worse. Given an equal GDP per capita, the weakness of the European-Style welfare system is that it is “generational contract”-based. Its weakness is the low birthrate. The US has much less of a problem with this, mainly due to high birth rates in the groups SD riles against.

    So if we do not automatically assume that they won’t contribute anything, these groups would be an asset, not a liability for building a functional welfare system (For medical care and/or pensions. Doesn’t apply to unemployment etc. since that is based on running taxes).

  54. superdestroyer says:

    @Ebenezer Arvigenius:

    If you want to prove that government programs have the same affect on all demographic groups in the U.S., the you need to find an example. There are many examples that show that blacks, given the same or even more level of government support, perform different.

    A good example is to look at pubic schools in the U.S. Why do schools that are majority black (such as the schools in Prince Georges County Maryland) underperfomed versus majority whites schools in the poorest western counties in Maryland. If you get the same outcome from a government program for all ethnic groups, there would be no difference in white/black educational performance after parents education and income were accounted for.

    Also, I have never said that the U.S. should adopt different policies for whites and blacks. It is progressives who want different standards for whites and blacks. It is progressives who want to discriminate (against whites) with the use of 8a contracting, affirmative action, quotas, and set-asides.

    I guess these days, people want posters banned when all they want is for the government to treat everyone equally and to account for the differences in different subcultures in the U.S.

  55. reid says:

    @An Interested Party: Right on to both of you. The conservative position is no tax increases and big cuts to spending, and the “liberal” position is apparently no tax increases and even bigger cuts to spending. Since they agree on so much, it seems to have become obvious wisdom in the media and with the people that it’s the right thing to do now. What happened here?! Just as with health care reform, I guess we are too good to use facts, data, and results from other countries when deciding the best course of action to fix the economy.

  56. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @reid:

    Just as with health care reform, I guess we are too good to use facts, data, and results from other countries when deciding the best course of action to fix the economy.

    But, but, but but…. That would be so…. so…. Old Europe.

  57. Ebenezer Arvigenius says:

    If you want to prove that government programs have the same affect on all demographic groups in the U.S., the you need to find an example.

    It’s just that, you know, none of this has anything to do with anything I wrote. I argued that a) your minority numbers for the countries you mentioned were bogus since you compared apples to oranges and b) your idea that the US could not afford a welfare system due to minorities was based on both faulty numbers (GDP) and a bad understanding of the European welfare systems.

    Now you start talking about the effect of governent programs.

    I take that as I “I concede your point. Have some blah to muddy the fact.” 😀

  58. reid says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: Heh. Old Europe, New Europe, intelligent, reasonable, pragmatic… I know there lots of problems with that approach. I guess thinkin’ beyond shallow talking points is hard work, hyuk!

  59. Liberty60 says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Idiotic budget deals like this is a clear message that private business should find a better country to move to in order to avoid the idiots who are in charge.

    OK…Name that country. Name the country that you would recommend business move to, that would be beneficial to said business.

    Or is this just the conservative version of “I will move to CANADA if the Republicans win!” Complete with stomping of feet and hands on hips.

  60. Liberty60 says:

    @superdestroyer:

    U.S. will be a loser in the world economy as the U.S. veers into becoming a third world country like Mexico with a small number of very rich elites and a massive underclass.

    Well now THIS is interesting.

    A conservative bitching and moaning about us becoming a nation of haves and have-nots.

    The obvious solution for this terrible turn of events is clear isn’t it?

    MORE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!

  61. Ron Beasley says:

    Debt Deal Emerging

    Or maybe not! It looks like there is a lot of resistance on both the right and the left.

  62. superdestroyer says:

    @Liberty60:

    Having a high welfare state with a large amount of wealth transference means that the U.S. will require the U.S. to have very limited immigration and a system similar to CAnada’s where only educated affluent, educated people are allowed to immigrate. It would also mean closing the border with Mexico.

    Since progressives insist on open borders and unlimited immigraiton, they give up any claim to wanting to increase the wealth or even the income of the average American. In addition, wealth transference requires very high taxes. That means lower fertility since it just becomes to expensive to have children. See Manhattan or DC are good examples.

  63. superdestroyer says:

    @Ebenezer Arvigenius:

    France is about 90% ethnic European. The U.S. is less than 64% ethnic European. In addition, France does not have an equivalent to African-Amercians who have been here for decades but have a very different culture to the rest of Americans.

    Socialism seems to only work in small, ethnically non-diverse countries such as the Scandanaivan countries. It did not even work in the southern European countries such as Greece, Italy, or Spain. It a massive welfare state cannot work in Greece, what makes you think it will work in the U.S.

    Please explain how your idea of socialism would work in a place like Detroit or Baltimore? Are you going to march whites back into the cities by the use of armed force?

  64. Liberty60 says:

    @superdestroyer: I don’t get your point- were you responding to my question or someone else’s?

    I was asking you to name the country that is more beneficial to business than America- you know, that one they always threaten to move to when they Go Galt.

    Bonus question was what you envision as a solution to the yawning gap between rich and poor that you complained about.

  65. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Liberty60: You read him so we don’t have to…. (I do not remember the last time I got past the 3rd sentence of a superD post… (this time 2 sentences were enuf)

  66. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @superdestroyer: OK, I actually forced myself to read one of your posts…

    Having a high welfare state with a large amount of wealth transference means that the U.S. will require the U.S. to have very limited immigration and a system similar to CAnada’s where only educated affluent, educated people are allowed to immigrate. It would also mean closing the border with Mexico.

    Since progressives insist on open borders and unlimited immigraiton, they give up any claim to wanting to increase the wealth or even the income of the average American. In addition, wealth transference requires very high taxes. That means lower fertility since it just becomes to expensive to have children. See Manhattan or DC are good examples.

    WTF????? Did you make a point there? A coherent argument? Are you for open borders or against them? It has been a while since I actually read one of your posts, but I have to say, if this is the best you can do, you should be banned for incoherence, not all of the racist bile you spout, but simple incoherence.

  67. OzarkHillbilly says:

    PS: please dear lord, give me a hurricane along the gulf coast, not a big one, just one big enuf to stir up the atmosphere and bring a cold front down to the Ozarks…. 100 degree days with 88% humidity leaves my ass in a river and not accomplishing a whole lot.

  68. An Interested Party says:

    Thank you for tuning in to another thread hijack by superdestroyer where we have discussed why we shouldn’t let anymore dark people into this country as they will pollute the population, suck off the government teat, and only support the Democratic Party…

  69. anjin-san says:

    Thank you for tuning in to another thread hijack by superdestroye

    Why do people engage this idiot?

  70. ponce says:

    “Why do people engage this idiot? ”

    He saves them the trouble of creating straw men to rebut?

  71. Ebenezer Arvigenius says:

    In addition, France does not have an equivalent to African-Amercians who have been here for decades but have a very different culture to the rest of Americans.

    Mate, have you ever heard of Maghrebins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maghreb_people)? Honestly, you have no clue what you’re talking about. And, to be frank, I get somewhat tired of being lectured about countries I have lived in by someone who has probably never left his continent (or country).

  72. Hey Norm says:

    Let’s review:
    Reagan raised taxes, and while it helped unemployment, he left a huge deficit because the economy could not overcome his initial massive tax cuts.
    Bush 41 teamed with Democrats and produced legislation that raised revenues an reduced spending.
    Clinton in ’93 did essentially the same thing as Bush 41 and by the end of his two terms the economy was producing a SURPLUS.
    Enter Bush 43. Given an economic boom time he spent the surplus and created a structural debt. Growth and employment during his Presidency was anemic, in spite of promises of rapid growth as a result of tax cuts and trickle-down economics. For 8 years we spent our surplus, built up in the previous 12 years.
    Obama…handed the worst economy in 80 years tried to create some stimulus. But he was limited by Republicans. The amount of stimulus was limited by the Republicans, and tax cuts…known to be inefficient stimulus, was made to be some 50% of the package by the Republicans.
    Now, in the midst of a weak, but predictable, recovery the Republicans are forcing spending cuts.
    So during a boom we spent. During a recession and recovery we are now cutting. This is the opposite of what should be happening. The Republicans have turned economics on it’s head… And thus now own the economy. We are facing tough times. Its on the Republicans.
    Today we still have a DEMAND crisis.

  73. michael reynolds says:

    @Ebenezer Arvigenius:
    I don’t think he’s ever left his mom’s basement.

  74. sam says:

    Debt Deal Emerging .. and the beginnings of civil war in the asylum.

  75. Jeremy R says:

    In many respects, the deal will, if approved by all parties, resemble the contours of a short-lived pact negotiated last weekend by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority LeaderHarry Reid, D-Nev. Obama rejected that deal, forcing Congress to wrestle with other inferior legislative options throughout the week.

    It’s weird how Major Garret reports this as I’ve always seen it reported as disputed (GOP sources made the claim and Reed & Pelosi deny there was ever a Reed / Boehner deal that the President rejected). Just a lazy bit of writing perhaps.

  76. anjin-san says:

    I don’t think he’s ever left his mom’s basement.

    Well, without guys who live in Mom’s basement, there could be no far right…

  77. WR says:

    @Ebenezer Arvigenius: He’s never been in Manhattan, either, or he would know how many children there are there. My guess is he climbed under his bed in terror about fifteen years ago and hasn’t come out since.

  78. superdestroyer says:

    @WR:

    There has been s slight increase in the number of children under five for white families. However, once their children reach school age in Manhattan, whites face the choice of either paying very high tuitions for private schools, if they can even get their children admitted, or moving to the suburbs in search of good schools.

    The fertility rate for whites in the U.S. has continued to decrease. What is amazing is that the birthrate for blacks has also decreased. I guess the costs of living in urban areas in the U.S. is even having an effect of African-Americans who have normally been resisited to decreasing fertility.

  79. superdestroyer says:

    @Hey Norm:

    Before the end of the Clinton Administration, the government was running a deficit. The dot.com bubble had ended and the federal government along with the states were running budget deficits.

    If everything could be blamed on Republicans, then states like Mass, Illinois, Maryland, or NY should not be running budget deficits and having to make budget cuts.

    Besides, the reason that the Clinton Administration ran budget surpluses in the last two full budge years was that the Republicans refuse to approve any new spending program during the dot.com boom.

    The mistake made was in 2001, the Republicans started spending like drunken Democrats and gave the Bush Administration all the spending it wanted. That is why many of them were voted out of office. All of that spending did nothing but make liberals more powerful and destroyed the Republican Party.