Budget talks: This is getting nasty

If Boehner lasts as long as Speaker as Gingrich did, I'd be shocked.

 

BG, I do not care at all about the eligibility issue. It is meaningless and a distraction. You make some interesting arguments, but one of your statements is absurd...that we have a revenue problem as much or more than we have a spending problem. We, in this country, have never spent as much money as Obama has wasted. The whimsical stimulus alone wasted a trillion dollars and didn't accomplish anything measurable. In fact, it failed when discussing the numbers that were mentioned in the argument to pass it.

I also want to point something out that is basic, but the left is in complete denial over. The House passed Cut, Cap and Balance on a bi-partisan basis (there were five dems that voted for it. If the stimulus was "bipartisan, so was C,C and B). The Senate killed it without a vote. If the Democrats in the Senate were truly concerned with this situation they would have done what they always do when working on legislation...passed their own version. Then they could meet with the House leaders to reconcile the differences in the two bills, come up with the alternative legislation that is approved by both the House and Senate, and sent it to Obama's desk for either a signature or a veto. The fact that the Senate refused to even pass its own bill to keep the ball rolling makes it quite clear Harry Reid and the Senate Dems are not interested in fixing the problem. There is no other reason than political posturing.

And speaking of political posturing, Obama said initially that he would not sign a temporary extension...that he wanted something that would take us past the next election. Why would he do this other than for political purposes? What is so important about getting past the elections?

Tonight Boehner ate his lunch. He was ready to agree with Obama on a proposal, then Obama came in with $400 billion more in taxes at the last minute (to placate the far left). Boehner told him to pound salt and left. Obama crying about it on television and summoning Boehner and Canter to the White House at 11 Saturday morning made him look weak and stupid. First of all, who does he think he is demanding Boehner and company come to the White House? He is the President, not the King. He has no right to demand the Senate leaders, a co-equal branch of government, to do anything. Second, Boehner was the adult about it in their dueling pressers. Obama looked rattled and pissed, Boehner looked in control and grown up.

So tell me, Brian, if you have any criticism for Obama and how he behaved tonight. Or will you give excuses? You claim not to be a big Obama supporter, then say, in turn, that you "had to defend him" against arguments you found flaws with. Do you frequently have to defend people you aren't a big fan of?

 

Well, you should arm yourself with facts before ranting.

As a percentage of GDP (and that's what matters, because dollar figures are only relevant relative to the size of the economy), revenue (tax dollars) has declined sharply -- to the lowest point since around the mid-1970s (edited. I don't read charts well at 2 a.m. ;D). It did go up the last two years because of the stimulus package, but it's still far lower than it was, say, in 1990 at the end of the Reagan-Bush years.
See it here:
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1900_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=1280_645&title=Revenue%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s&show=

Now, until the bailouts, federal spending as a percentage of GDP was on a slow rise, meaning that as spending went up, revenue went down and revenue went down sharper than spending went up.

Here's the spending chart:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=1280_645&title=US%20Government%20Spending%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s&show=

So it's clear, revenue has declined FASTER than spending has risen and the gap has widened on that. We have a revenue issue. When you look in the early 2000s, it's clear that spending as percentage of GDP probably was largely due to new wars. Yet, revenues weren't raised to meet those new expenses.

It is what it is.

As far as today's negotiations, the Times reported that all of the compromises Obama agreed to today -- mainly the massive cuts to entitlements -- were conditional on increased taxes on wealthy. They had come up with $800 billion in new revenue that wasn't going to involve taxes (not sure on the details on that. I'm not sure how you raise that much without any tax raise, but I'm sure part of it involves closing loopholes initially intended to be temporary for a specific purpose).

When Obama proposed the actual tax increase, then Boehner walked out.

Sounds like Boehner wanted the $800 billion to be the tax increase and Obama wanted an actual tax increase.

Devil's in the details.

 

Carlton, I don't agree with your politics or with the neo-Nazi Tea Party . But you nailed this one. Boehner made the president look like a pussy. Just read the WaPo story where Obama couldn't get Boehner to return his calls. Unreal. Just unreal.

 

You know Carlton, you could drop the plays on "retard" from your posts and you wouldn't lose an inch of ground in this argument. I hate the teabagging sh*t, too, but there's no shame in taking the high road.

 

More than that, I think they believe that a default, and the subsequent economic disaster, will be blamed on Obama, not them, so they have no reason to give in.

 

If you think the political fight so far has been nasty, wait until you see what ensues if Obama plays this card.

1. The House would sue on the grounds that Obama is violating the Separation of Powers
2. The Supreme Court, given its current makeup, is at least 50-50 to reject Obama's 14th Amendment argument, and therefore rule against him
3. At best, Obama is left badly humiliated politically, and there is still no debt limit. At worst, the House has grounds to impeach him, which would be yet another political distraction in an election year.

Obama has never had the stomach for that kind of confrontation. He'll cave before he does something like that.

 

Exactly - MacGregor lede to his column is perfect:

"Sitting here in the corner with the wool pulled down over our eyes, listening to strangers whisper urgently about money and what desperate things they'll do if they don't get it, it's easy to feel like a hostage. Being held for ransom is now the normal state of things for the citizen-consumers of America."

 

I hate to agree with this but I do. Obama isn't tough enough to play the 14th amendment card. It would be a gamble if he did due to the Supreme Court makeup. Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas are conservative Republicans. No question how they would rule. Anthony Kennedy would be the wild card, being a moderate Republican. The Supreme Court is quite capable of behaving like a political body. Believe it.

 

The House is going to impeach Obama anyway. Just wait.

 

If Obama gets re-elected yet the GOP still retains its majority (as happened in 1996), you're probably right.

 

Well put.