David Brooks says it all; The Republican party has gone off the deep end

• I Wear Pants

  I was actually curious as to what it would entail.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;827221 wrote:I was actually curious as to what it would entail.

  It's been made public.
• Con_Alma

  http://campaignforliberty.com/materials/RandBudget.pdf
  
  Let your curiosity be fed!
• I Wear Pants

  Oh, I didn't notice you had said it was the Rand Paul Budget.
• jhay78

  

  Writerbuckeye;827017 wrote:An interesting take on what could happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised -- and it isn't default.
  
  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58678.html

  I mentioned something like that back on the first page and BoatShoes blasted me for it.
  

  jhay78;823830 wrote:Maybe I'm missing something, but is he trying to say the Republicans would be the ones deciding to default on the debt, and not Treasury Secretary Geithner? Isn't $2+ trillion in revenues more than enough to pay the debt?
  
  If the debt ceiling isn't raised, and the US defaults, it will be because the Treasury Secretary decided not to pay on the debt, and chose to use the money elsewhere.

  BoatShoes;823856 wrote:This statement is absurd...if Congress authorizes more spending than Federal Revenues by definition 2 trillion is not enough to cover the federal outlays...Are you suggesting that the Treasury Secretary ought to freely usurp powers?

  jhay78;824335 wrote:I was suggesting that he could choose to pay the interest on our debt (sorry I didn't make that clear), not that it would be his fault everything else isn't covered.
  
  I don't think Republicans are saying defaulting on other debts would be desirable or necessary. But they are saying that there needs to be consequences in the form of spending cuts, etc. in order to raise the "ceiling" yet again.

• Writerbuckeye

  

  After reading that piece, I'm now of the opinion that if the ceiling isn't raised -- the only reason we go into default is if the administration CHOOSES to do so. The money will be there to cover the most essential things, including paying the interest on the debt.
• tk421

  

  Of course it will be by choice, with the liberals screaming the whole time that it's the Republicans fault. The public is too stupid to understand that the government will take in plenty of money, they will just see that we defaulted and that the news blames the right.
• fan_from_texas

  I Wear Pants;827168 wrote:I would just like a loophole less code. If we say the rate for businesses should be 40% (fake numbers, overly simplistic example before you go nuts) I think that's the rate it should be. If we have a bunch of loopholes and other things that make almost all businesses end up paying 25% and that's the level we're actually okay with then I'd like the rate to just be set at 25%. Having a top level that no one pays is stupid.
  
  That's my point.

  Serious question: what constitutes a "loophole" in your mind? Are all deductions loopholes? When I think of a loophole, I think of something having an unintended and unforseen consequence that people take advantage of (e.g., the black liquor tax credit). But if Congress says, "We want people to give to charity. We believe there is value to giving to charity. Therefore, we determine that people can deduct their charitable contributions." Is that a loophole?
  
  I'm just trying to figure out if you're wanting to eliminate all deductions, or if you just want to eliminate some of them. If so, which ones?
• fish82

  

  Writerbuckeye;827294 wrote:After reading that piece, I'm now of the opinion that if the ceiling isn't raised -- the only reason we go into default is if the administration CHOOSES to do so. The money will be there to cover the most essential things, including paying the interest on the debt.

  Agreed. This has been my position the entire time...it functions like a de facto Balanced Budget Amendment. I say bring it.
• BoatShoes

  fan_from_texas;827341 wrote:Serious question: what constitutes a "loophole" in your mind? Are all deductions loopholes? When I think of a loophole, I think of something having an unintended and unforseen consequence that people take advantage of (e.g., the black liquor tax credit). But if Congress says, "We want people to give to charity. We believe there is value to giving to charity. Therefore, we determine that people can deduct their charitable contributions." Is that a loophole?
  
  I'm just trying to figure out if you're wanting to eliminate all deductions, or if you just want to eliminate some of them. If so, which ones?

  
  "Loophole" is a bad term to use. Some are worse than others as you point out as there can be real traps for the unwary, etc. and I think that's what you mean. I don't mean to speak for I wear pants but I think he's talking about general types of deductions which may deviate from tax norms. The correct economic term is tax expenditure and they are embedded throughout the code and distort economic activity. The definition of a "tax expenditure" is "government spending through the tax code." In effect they are really just an inefficient form of government spending. I'm sure you know all of this.
  
  You're right, there are some tax expenditures that are desirable such as perhaps the charitable deduction. But, you're a reasonable conservative and not all government spending or subsidies or tax expenditures are always and forever bad and of course you know this. But, much of the Republican Party has taken the approach that nearly all government spending is always and forever bad and therefore if they cared for coherence they would feel the same about tax expenditures but they do not. The reason we have so many in the first place is because democrats never found something they didn't want to spend money on and republicans have never found a "tax cut" they didn't like and they only have to pass through two committees unlike direct appropriations spending.
  
  But, the point is, if indeed we're going to make austerity the national approach as both democrats and republicans have chosen (incorrectly in my view as interest rates are still in the basement and unemployment is disastrously high and contracting demand through both tax raises and spending cuts now will only make things worse and Moody's essentially said as much but that's another topic...), if you're going to say that you want to "cut spending" as the Republicans have chosen, it is incoherent from a tax neutrality norm perspective; which is generally the conservative approach to tax policy; to declare the elimination of certain tax expenditures that deviate from tax neutrality and income tax norms as "off the table" and use them as reason not to agree to trillions of dollars in spending cuts, and storm out of the room like Eric Cantor did when from an economic perspective they are essentially the same.
  
  Republicans talk about getting rid of non-essential spending...it is not essential to preserve the tax expenditure subsidizing the expensing of intangible drilling costs when we could more align with pure income tax norms and allow such costs to be recovered over their useful lives just like every other company does and save $8 billion dollars over ten years. Yet, even though this is more like targeted government spending and would be a perfect nonessential to be cut and eliminate inefficiencies in our tax code....they throw up their hands and say "don't tax the job creators" even though if they were to cut a block grant to firms incurring intangible drilling costs would be essentially the same and would be lauded because it's a "cut in spending."
  
  The thing about Private Jets that BHO is talking about is that they've offered to have private jets be depreciated over a 7-year schedule (as is the case with general aviation) instead of a 5 year schedule changing the distortion created in 1987...make them be depreciated just like every other plane...it only saves $3 billion dollars but "every little bit counts" as the Tea Party always says and Conservatives draw a line in the sand even though it causes a real economic distortion by encouraging firms to invest in private rather than commercial airfare even if it might not be a good business decision. If a firm chooses to invest in a private jet they shouldn't do so because of depreciation schedules but because of a genuine business reason.
  
  Those are just a couple examples but in my mind it's not about what tax expenditures to cut right now because before you can even get to that you have to get to the point where republicans will acknowledge their inconsistent worldview....it's more so in my opinion about the totally incoherent normative foundations of nearly everyone with political power and an R next to their name in that all they care about is cutting spending but refuse to cut the worst and most inefficient kinds of government spending...they same kind of inefficient government spending that Obama riddled his garbage of a stimulus bill with...yet they call them "tax cuts" in this context but "spending" in that stimulus context. The dems are wrong in my view for trying to cut the deficit now but at least they seem to understand that government spending in the tax code is still government spending.
• BoatShoes

  jhay78;827283 wrote:I mentioned something like that back on the first page and BoatShoes blasted me for it.

  
  As I mentioned before the Treasury Secretary would have to arbitrarily usurp the will of the People and the Congress and no true foe of big government would support such action. Even if he did so...there's no way we should be consider to have triple A when we are picking and choosing between what government outlays to honor. And the hike in interest rates "if we fail to get government borrowing under control" is a myth that we have been hearing about for 3 years.
  
  
  
  But sure I have no doubt that Writer and Jhay are Undoubtedly convinced beyond all argument by that piece.
• jhay78

  

  BoatShoes;827453 wrote:As I mentioned before the Treasury Secretary would have to arbitrarily usurp the will of the People and the Congress and no true foe of big government would support such action. Even if he did so...there's no way we should be consider to have triple A when we are picking and choosing between what government outlays to honor. And the hike in interest rates "if we fail to get government borrowing under control" is a myth that we have been hearing about for 3 years.
  
  
  
  But sure I have no doubt that Writer and Jhay are Undoubtedly convinced beyond all argument by that piece.

  
  Why should we be considered to have triple A when the President proposes budgets that exceed revenues by $1.3 Trillion? I'm not a genius, I don't claim to be an expert- I'm just asking.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;827450 wrote:...
  But, the point is, if indeed we're going to make austerity the national approach as both democrats and republicans have chosen (incorrectly in my view as interest rates are still in the basement and unemployment is disastrously high and contracting demand through both tax raises and spending cuts now will only make things worse and Moody's essentially said as much but that's another topic...), ...

  I agree. either approach will lead to a slower economy. We will see an impact. It needs to happen. As the ability to service the debt lessens we are in long over do need to swallow our medicine and start the healing process.
  
  

  BoatShoes;827450 wrote:...if you're going to say that you want to "cut spending" as the Republicans have chosen, it is incoherent from a tax neutrality norm perspective; which is generally the conservative approach to tax policy; to declare the elimination of certain tax expenditures that deviate from tax neutrality and income tax norms as "off the table" and use them as reason not to agree to trillions of dollars in spending cuts, and storm out of the room like Eric Cantor did when from an economic perspective they are essentially the same. ...

  It is not the Republicans nor Eric Cantor's approach that's of interest to me personally. It is the reduction of overall spending and having a plan in place that is adhered to and which targets a balanced budget. What we spend is not based on "basic needs" but rather to garner favor and support from those who benefit. Since these buffoons can't balance the checkbook I am ready to not be satisfied with anything less than mere basics, only the things that can't truly be done at the State level and are a must for the survival of the Country.
  
  I was never for a balanced budget amendment but am coming very close to buying in, sadly. It's coming time to quit letting the idiots posture for position and power as opposed to rational practice.
• cruiser_96

  

  Con_Alma: Back around page 6 I stated, "Eff politics." Your last post is the fuller version.
  
  Drunken sailor syndrome at it's best! Swing from one end of the extreme to the other without any thought to the correct way to handle things. Figure out what is RIGHT and get there!!! THAT is what I want.
  
  Nice work, Con_Alma.
• Con_Alma

  cruiser_96;827516 wrote:...Figure out what is RIGHT and get there!!! THAT is what I want.
  
  ....

  That's really not too much to ask, is it?
• cruiser_96

  

  You'd think. But instead we get people more worried about reelection than doing their job!
  
  I wonder what kind of world my two kids are going to be living in.
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes;827453 wrote:As I mentioned before the Treasury Secretary would have to arbitrarily usurp the will of the People and the Congress and no true foe of big government would support such action.

  Boat is right on this point. The executive branch has no authority to decide how federal funds are allocated. When it comes to the allocations of federal funds the executive can only execute the will of the legislature. The power to allocate federal revenues lies in the legislature. The constitution gives the House specific power concerning the generation and allocation of federal revenue. It must originate in the House.
  
  I have heard conservative commentators drooling over the possibility of Obama having to choose between servicing the debt and cutting spending on social programs. In other words cut social spending or default. He has no power to choose. If the president assumes the authority to take funds allocated by the legislature for say defense and transfer them to the servicing of the debt or any other federal liability, he could effectively kill or prop up whatever program he so chooses. Effectively the president would hold dictatorial powers concerning the allocation of federal funds.
  
  Now congress can vote to not raise the debt ceiling and pass a budget to allocate funds accordingly. Or temporarily pass a supplemental budget directing the allocation of funds from one federal liability to another in order to service the debt until a long term solution is reached. Thus temporarily avoiding default.
• Con_Alma

  majorspark;827601 wrote:...
  Now congress can vote to not raise the debt ceiling and pass a budget to allocate funds accordingly. Or temporarily pass a supplemental budget directing the allocation of funds from one federal liability to another in order to service the debt until a long term solution is reached. Thus temporarily avoiding default.

  ...and so it continues. The two party leaders, instead of working to right the ship, are currently debating whether the debt increase will be $2 trillion or $4trillion.
  
  
  Ho hum.
• gut

  Writerbuckeye;827294 wrote:After reading that piece, I'm now of the opinion that if the ceiling isn't raised -- the only reason we go into default is if the administration CHOOSES to do so. The money will be there to cover the most essential things, including paying the interest on the debt.

  
  Yeah, Obama said yesterday he will NOT sign an extension for them to get a deal done. That is the most laughable political bullsiht I have seen in sometime and you'd have to be an idiot to not see right through it. What an incredibly foolish thing to say. Of course, I'm a little scared he may actually mean it.
  
  The problem the Repubs have here is you don't want to play chicken with people who don't understand or appreciate what's at stake.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Well, if the above is correct and the House would be deciding what gets paid, even better.
  
  Let the ceiling remain unchanged, and the House can simply vote to make the cuts needed and decide which items need to be paid first.
• Con_Alma

  Writerbuckeye;827762 wrote:Well, if the above is correct and the House would be deciding what gets paid, even better.
  
  Let the ceiling remain unchanged, and the House can simply vote to make the cuts needed and decide which items need to be paid first.

  This is very much acceptable to me.
• majorspark

  

  Con_Alma;827652 wrote:...and so it continues. The two party leaders, instead of working to right the ship, are currently debating whether the debt increase will be $2 trillion or $4trillion.

  
  Like the Titanic people scoff at the idea our ship could actually sink. Iceberg dead ahead!
• jhay78

  

  majorspark;827601 wrote:Boat is right on this point. The executive branch has no authority to decide how federal funds are allocated. When it comes to the allocations of federal funds the executive can only execute the will of the legislature. The power to allocate federal revenues lies in the legislature. The constitution gives the House specific power concerning the generation and allocation of federal revenue. It must originate in the House.
  
  I have heard conservative commentators drooling over the possibility of Obama having to choose between servicing the debt and cutting spending on social programs. In other words cut social spending or default. He has no power to choose. If the president assumes the authority to take funds allocated by the legislature for say defense and transfer them to the servicing of the debt or any other federal liability, he could effectively kill or prop up whatever program he so chooses. Effectively the president would hold dictatorial powers concerning the allocation of federal funds.
  
  Now congress can vote to not raise the debt ceiling and pass a budget to allocate funds accordingly. Or temporarily pass a supplemental budget directing the allocation of funds from one federal liability to another in order to service the debt until a long term solution is reached. Thus temporarily avoiding default.

  
  Well then I stand corrected, but the argument is the same: the debt can be serviced, and those throwing around the word "default" like there's no tomorrow need to check themselves.
• I Wear Pants

  fan_from_texas;827341 wrote:Serious question: what constitutes a "loophole" in your mind? Are all deductions loopholes? When I think of a loophole, I think of something having an unintended and unforseen consequence that people take advantage of (e.g., the black liquor tax credit). But if Congress says, "We want people to give to charity. We believe there is value to giving to charity. Therefore, we determine that people can deduct their charitable contributions." Is that a loophole?
  
  I'm just trying to figure out if you're wanting to eliminate all deductions, or if you just want to eliminate some of them. If so, which ones?

  Not all deductions, just there are a lot of them especially ones designed for large businesses that I feel probably don't need to exist. There's no reason large companies should be paying 0% income taxes and quite a few of them do.
• majorspark

  

  Writerbuckeye;827762 wrote:Well, if the above is correct and the House would be deciding what gets paid, even better.
  
  Let the ceiling remain unchanged, and the House can simply vote to make the cuts needed and decide which items need to be paid first.

  Pat Toomey actually proposed such a bill in the senate back in February. It never saw the light of day.
  

  With his “Full Faith and Credit Act,” Toomey is arguing that Treasury could delay default by simply &#8220rioritizing” payments from available funds and ensuring that bondholders get the principal and interest payments due them

  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48825.html
  
  If I were the House I would have passed a bill governing the priortizing of debt outside of the debt ceiling being raised. That would let them know we are not fucking around here. Send it to the senate and let them and the president choose default.