Boehner needs toi go

• ts1227

  

  ccrunner609;1349445 wrote:Chicago style politics. When you dont know what to do either, blame the other guy.

  
  Also known as American politics because every one of those asses in Washington do it every day.
  
  I know it's not as sexy of a talking point, but I prefer to deal in the truth instead of buzz words
• sportchampps

  Don't tell me why we can't fix it, tell me how we're going to fix it. A presidents job is to bring the nation together. He needs to find a way for a deal to get done.
• Con_Alma

  Taxes are going up. Isn't that what the Democrats wanted?
  
  Spending is going down. Isn't that what the Republicans wanted.
  
  Seems like the solution was agreed upon long ago.
• BoatShoes

  sportchampps;1350067 wrote:Don't tell me why we can't fix it, tell me how we're going to fix it. A presidents job is to bring the nation together. He needs to find a way for a deal to get done.

  John Boehner is a republican and he can't reason with these people either. Steve LaTourette likened it to trying to reason with inmates at an insane asylum. :laugh:
• BoatShoes

  Con_Alma;1350229 wrote:Taxes are going up. Isn't that what the Democrats wanted?
  
  Spending is going down. Isn't that what the Republicans wanted.
  
  Seems like the solution was agreed upon long ago.

  Exactly....the deficit scolds should be happy! We were told for years that such deficit-reducting policies would inspire confidence in the minds of businesses, consumers and investors and any contractionary effect of people having less money to spend would be countered by confidence inspired spending and investment.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1350237 wrote:Exactly....the deficit scolds should be happy! We were told for years that such deficit-reducting policies would inspire confidence in the minds of businesses, consumers and investors and any contractionary effect of people having less money to spend would be countered by confidence inspired spending and investment.

  What inspires confidence in the private sector is policy certainty. We don't yet have that based on both parties still calling for a "deal" to get done.
• IggyPride00

  

  What inspires confidence in the private sector is policy certainty.

  They can kiss that goodbye. We are locked into a yearly battle about whether we are going to pay our bills or not (the debt ceiling) because it is a great political tool, the old days of the U.S being a bastion of stability are long gone.
• Con_Alma

  IggyPride00;1350254 wrote:They can kiss that goodbye. ...

  Agreed. It's not deficit reduction policies that create confidence. It's policy certainty.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1350237 wrote:Exactly....the deficit scolds should be happy! We were told for years that such deficit-reducting policies would inspire confidence in the minds of businesses, consumers and investors and any contractionary effect of people having less money to spend would be countered by confidence inspired spending and investment.

  Actually they said this about spending only. They never said it about spending cuts COMBINED with tax increases on EVERYONE.
• tk421

  

  Con_Alma;1350229 wrote:Taxes are going up. Isn't that what the Democrats wanted?
  
  Spending is going down. Isn't that what the Republicans wanted.
  
  Seems like the solution was agreed upon long ago.

  spending is going down? Yes or no, spending will be LESS in 2013 than in 2012? Not less percentage of an increase, spending will actually be LESS than the previous year? Yeah, didn't think so. :laugh::laugh::laugh:
• Con_Alma

  tk421;1350754 wrote:spending is going down? Yes or no, spending will be LESS in 2013 than in 2012? Not less percentage of an increase, spending will actually be LESS than the previous year? Yeah, didn't think so. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

  No... spending will be less than if we didn't go over the "Fiscal Cliff" due to the mandatory cuts.
  
  Not enough for my liking but yet when it comes to negotiating both sides get something.
• tk421

  

  So, both sides save face but the American public loses out? Pretty much same old same old, then.
• Con_Alma

  tk421;1350762 wrote:So, both sides save face but the American public loses out? Pretty much same old same old, then.

  Lol Did you really think it would be anything more than that?
  
  It's going to take a much greater ground swell from the people to get significant change and impact.
• tk421

  

  no, I pretty much knew it was always going to be that. That's the only thing that ever happens, Congress does nothing for the good of the public. That's not ever going to change, no matter the ground swell.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1350735 wrote:Actually they said this about spending only. They never said it about spending cuts COMBINED with tax increases on EVERYONE.

  No they did not and even if they did it would be incoherent. If a smaller deficit inspires confidence (which Con_Alma is claiming they never claimed that...but the deficit scolds did...the story changed often) there is no good reason why the method of deficit reduction matters if the story is really about "inspiring confidence."
  
  If you're worried about supply-side distortions that'll hurt over the long term and so you shouldn't be concerned about what's happening next year.
  
  If you're worried about lower aggregate demand like the CBO then you're a keynesian and should believe in fiscal stimulus.
  
  If you're worried about "policy certainty" you should've been clamoring for the last couple years for them not to try to form a deal so that way businesses, investors and consumers could rely on the certainty of what was going to happen.
  
  The whole story has always changed throughout and that makes sense because it's all a ruse and really just a cover for a moral opposition to taxes and a moral support for defense spending and a moral opposition to social spending. If we cross the fiscal cliff the moral mission to eliminate the welfare state and decrease taxes will have failed. The deficit, "confidence" "certainty" are all window dressing for the real mission.
• Con_Alma

  tk421;1350765 wrote:no, I pretty much knew it was always going to be that. That's the only thing that ever happens, Congress does nothing for the good of the public. That's not ever going to change, no matter the ground swell.

  This has a better chance of being true than most anything else posted on here.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1350767 wrote:No they did not and even if they did it would be incoherent. If a smaller deficit inspires confidence (which Con_Alma is claiming they never claimed that...but the deficit scolds did...the story changed often) there is no good reason why the method of deficit reduction matters if the story is really about "inspiring confidence."
  
  If you're worried about supply-side distortions that'll hurt over the long term and so you shouldn't be concerned about what's happening next year.
  
  If you're worried about lower aggregate demand like the CBO then you're a keynesian and should believe in fiscal stimulus.
  
  If you're worried about "policy certainty" you should've been clamoring for the last couple years for them not to try to form a deal so that way businesses, investors and consumers could rely on the certainty of what was going to happen.
  
  The whole story has always changed throughout and that makes sense because it's all a ruse and really just a cover for a moral opposition to taxes and a moral support for defense spending and a moral opposition to social spending. If we cross the fiscal cliff the moral mission to eliminate the welfare state and decrease taxes will have failed. The deficit, "confidence" "certainty" are all window dressing for the real mission.

  You are changing the story to fit your beliefs.
  
  The conservatives have NEVER said that only deficits matter regardless of how you get them.
  
  They have said over and over that spending needs cut and taxes need to stay low to stimulate the economy/confidence.
  
  NO ONE EVER said that spending cuts along with raising taxes on pretty much every tax payer was a good idea. You and I both know that but you are now trying to twist the story to make conservatives look bad (doesn't surprise me that you would though).
• jhay78

  

  tk421;1350765 wrote:no, I pretty much knew it was always going to be that. That's the only thing that ever happens, Congress does nothing for the good of the public. That's not ever going to change, no matter the ground swell.

  Yet when a vocal minority in one party tries to make a fuss for "the good of the public" they get called "knuckle-draggers", "hobbits", "chuckleheads", and worst of all, get threads started about them on the OC making fun of them.
  

  BoatShoes;1350767 wrote:The whole story has always changed throughout and that makes sense because it's all a ruse and really just a cover for a moral opposition to taxes and a moral support for defense spending and a moral opposition to social spending. If we cross the fiscal cliff the moral mission to eliminate the welfare state and decrease taxes will have failed. The deficit, "confidence" "certainty" are all window dressing for the real mission.

  Substitute "constitutional" for "moral" and you're close.
• BGFalcons82

  

  tk421;1350754 wrote:spending is going down? Yes or no, spending will be LESS in 2013 than in 2012? Not less percentage of an increase, spending will actually be LESS than the previous year? Yeah, didn't think so. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

  This
  
  According to this link, spending will GO UP 55% - http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/spending-increase-55-percent-under-obamas-plan_691133.html
  
  Therefore, we don't spend enough according to Our Dear Leader. The Keynesians have to be ecstatic. I wonder if all those college-aged children that voted for 4 more years of unprecendented spending understand that they are doomed to a lifetime of higher taxes, little growth, and fewer jobs? Nah....
• believer

  

  ccrunner609;1350980 wrote:I love how Boehner and the pubs are getting blamed for this mess. In reality they are the only ones trying to do anything. Obama and the senate have offered nothing. At least John has tried. Not his fault that Reid wont bring anything up in the senate

  In other words...status quo. Hope & change are wonderful things.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1350892 wrote:You are changing the story to fit your beliefs.
  
  The conservatives have NEVER said that only deficits matter regardless of how you get them.
  
  They have said over and over that spending needs cut and taxes need to stay low to stimulate the economy/confidence.
  
  NO ONE EVER said that spending cuts along with raising taxes on pretty much every tax payer was a good idea. You and I both know that but you are now trying to twist the story to make conservatives look bad (doesn't surprise me that you would though).[
  
  I think you're incorrect here. Go read articles from say the WSJ editorial page, National Review, Forbes, the Weekly Standard, etc. These economic arguments about deficits have been made multiple times by multiple offenders.

  Obviously, the wall street journal editorial page prefers low spending and low taxes. However, they nevertheless have argued that large deficits...however they're caused being clear...would cause the bond vigilantes to strike, destroy confidence and discourage private spending and investment.
  
  Of course the WSJ doesn't say "let's raise taxes to close the deficit!" but they blather on about how bad the deficit is in and of itself. You can't have it both ways and they indeed have tried to.
  
  You're acting like conservative publications have argued there is something inherently bad about a deficit caused by increased spending and lower tax revenue (as our current deficit is) that will bring about the bond vigilantes and deter confidence and deter private spending and investment unless spending is cut immediately.
  
  There is nothing special about a deficit caused solely by less tax revenue, a mix of lower tax revenue and higher spending, or higher spending and that claim was never made. A deficit is a deficit.
  
  It follows, that in some possible world where the deficit is closed by increased taxation or a mix of spending cuts + taxation or only increased spending cuts...that it would deter the bond vigilantes, inspire confidence and encourage private spending and investment if that is true a consequence of deficit reduction in any world...otherwise it is incoherent.
  
  It almost sounds like you're accepting this incoherence and just arguing that spending cuts only is correct despite it being incoherent.
  
  Either that, or you're conflating the economic arguments against deficits with the philosophical/ideological arguments for low taxes and low spending.
  
  Obviously they prefer it be done with low taxation and only spending cuts and not raise taxes to close the deficit...but that is philosophical/ideological. If we take the economic arguments at face value...the fiscal cliff achieves their desired economic result of reduced deficit from which is supposed to yield great things.
  
  A pragmatic conservative who genuinely cares about the supposed economic casualties of large deficits more than philosophical purity of lower taxes and lower spending that are hard to achieve with a democratic president would welcome the fiscal cliff. And some have like John Cochrane from U of Chicago who doubts the CBO's keynesian projections for recession from the fiscal cliff.
  
  But, the reason that is not happening by and large is because really folks like yourself are just clamoring on about philosophical things it seems. Because, the economic arguments being made about the harm of deficits were just window dressing for a philosophical and moral opposition to taxes and spending.
  
  If I am wrong here in my analysis of your post which I think incorrectly sums up the arguments that conservatives have made over the last couple of years please explain why a conservative might believe coherently the following at the same time;
  
  1. Deficit reduction by means of spending cuts only deters bond vigilantes, inspire business, consumer and investor confidence in the short run and thereby increase gdp in the short run
  
  2. Deficit reduction by means of tax cuts only does not deter bond vigilantes, does not inspire business, consumer and investor confidence in the short run and thereby does not increase gdp in the short run.
  
  3. Deficit reduction by means of a mix of tax cuts and spending cuts does not deter bond vigilantes, does not inspire business, consumer and investor confidence in the short run and thereby does not increase gdp in the short run.
  
  You can't tell a story about aggregate demand because that's just keynesianism, a story about incentive effects is a medium to long run story and not a short run story. Veronique De Rugy has made arguments about spending cut austerity only but she still acknowledges the truth of the other scenarios althoug they're not her philosophical preferences.
  
  Believing one and not the others appears to be incoherent and that is why I say this is all about philosophical issues. If you're so inclined please tell me where I am wrong.