Budget Things

[carlfense]

You second set of reasons differs significantly from your first.

 

From the first post:

 

Wrong:

1 - $3T in spending cuts. From the article I can find numbers close to half that that were somewhat agreed upon

2 - GOP didn't agree to tax increases. Basically every paragraph talks about the $800B in added tax revenue that seems to have been agreed upon for some time before the deal fell apart

 

Misleading/Unprovable:

You insinuate that the GOP killed the deal. Could be. Maybe not. That's what we don't know. Did Boehner panic or did Obama change the deal? Obviously no one knows for sure - other than those present and I doubt any of them are posting on this board.

 

So, as I said, you post was inaccurate.

No.

 

1. Your "agreed upon" hedge is particularly interesting since no agreement was reached. Obama's administration said that they were aiming for $4 trillion in deficit reduction. "Somewhat agreed upon." Heh.

2. "The deal fell apart." Like I was saying . . . the GOP refused to agree to tax increases. What do you think killed the deal? Obama wanting to cut more spending than the GOP would agree to cut?

Boehner's quote:

Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes.

 

Still accurate.

[carlfense]

Link to Obama bemoaning? Also . . . it's still a fact.

<snip>

Obama urges Congress to boost public sector jobs

<snip>

So where's the bemoaning?

[lo country]

Here is what is happening from both sides. Party A throws out and idea to reduce the deficit through cutting program 1, knowing that this is the "sacred cow" of the other party B. Now Party B also wants deficit reduction, but not at the expense of their "sacred cow" so they vote against it. Party A knows this and looks like the noble champion of the people for putting forth a plan that the evil Party B refused.

 

My point, is party A really concerned about deficit reduction, reigning in spending, taxes, medicare etc or are they just posturing and pandering to their respective bases? You can say grand things knowing that your opponents will balk at the idea as their "cow" is on the hook. Noble or smart enough to realize most Americans are too stupid to realize this? I think if either party really wanted change, there would be more concessions and more plans that didn't include the others "cows".

 

To use a football analogy, the SEC says we propose a plan to limit over signing recruits. That caveat, we would like to have an open time all year in which coaches can contact players throughout the year and have unlimited visits (their goal is to continue to over sign). They know that there is no way in hell, any conference will agree to this. They look "noble" as they tried to stop the position of over signing. Then when people complain, they say hey, we offered a solution, other schools balked. Not our fault.

 

Maybe I naively think that change can be effected and I give politicians to much credit about actually caring about the AMERICAN people and not serving their own interests. We need statesman, not politicians.

[Mavric]

You second set of reasons differs significantly from your first.

 

From the first post:

 

Wrong:

1 - $3T in spending cuts. From the article I can find numbers close to half that that were somewhat agreed upon

2 - GOP didn't agree to tax increases. Basically every paragraph talks about the $800B in added tax revenue that seems to have been agreed upon for some time before the deal fell apart

 

Misleading/Unprovable:

You insinuate that the GOP killed the deal. Could be. Maybe not. That's what we don't know. Did Boehner panic or did Obama change the deal? Obviously no one knows for sure - other than those present and I doubt any of them are posting on this board.

 

So, as I said, you post was inaccurate.

No.

 

1. Your "agreed upon" hedge is particularly interesting since no agreement was reached. Obama's administration said that they were aiming for $4 trillion in deficit reduction. "Somewhat agreed upon." Heh.

2. "The deal fell apart." Like I was saying . . . the GOP refused to agree to tax increases. What do you think killed the deal? Obama wanting to cut more spending than the GOP would agree to cut?

 

Still accurate.

We're talking about two different agreements. Obviously the entire package was not agreed upon (your point). That doesn't mean that some of the issues were not (my point):

 

Boehner was saying that he was willing to accept $800 billion more in tax revenue.

 

Maybe the GOP backed out. Or maybe Obama made changes to a figure that, at least to Boehner, seemed to be agreed upon:

 

 

To the $800 billion figure, he said he now wanted to add an amount equal to the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid — an additional $360 billion, at least — for a total of $1.16 trillion in total revenue. Aside from increasing the sheer amount, what Obama was doing, for the first time in the negotiation, was explicitly linking the amount of new revenue to the cuts Boehner wanted in entitlement programs. In other words, Obama’s new formula meant that for every additional dollar in savings Boehner wanted to negotiate from Medicare or Medicaid, he was going to have to add a dollar of revenue.

This in itself was certainly enough to throw the deal into jeopardy.

[Mavric]

Link to Obama bemoaning? Also . . . it's still a fact.

<snip>

Obama urges Congress to boost public sector jobs

<snip>

So where's the bemoaning?

Do you actually read the articles?

 

The big challenge we have in our economy right now is state and local government hiring has been going in the wrong direction.

[carlfense]

The big challenge we have in our economy right now is state and local government hiring has been going in the wrong direction.

That's it? He was fired up that day. Constantly bemoaning?