Boehner agrees to smaller debt deal.

Source

House Speaker John Boehner, under pressure from the right and facing resistance from his own deputies, backed away Saturday from a bold $4 trillion deficit-reduction package that he once hoped would resolve the August debt ceiling crisis and give a shot in the arm to a lagging economy.

Tax policy disputes were at the center of the collapse, including differences with the White House over President Barack Obama’s demand that future tax reforms must maintain or increase the progressivity of the tax code. But for days Boehner has been under relentless pressure from conservatives to step away from the deal, which Saturday’s Wall Street Journal editorial writers dubbed “Boehner’s Obama Gamble.”

Note: After reading a little further into this it turns out a lot of the pressure came from the Conservatives in the party because the original larger deal had a lot of negatives in it relating to tax policies. This new deal loses a lot of the cuts but does not increase any taxes. My apologies for jumping on this without further reading.

This is still not good enough in terms of cuts. $2.4 trillion is nowhere near what we could and should have, perhaps more cuts can be made but right now it looks like we are stuck with just $2.4 trillion. I doubt the Tea Party Republicans will bee thrilled about such a small cut in the size of the ballooning deficit so hopefully without more concessions the hard-line Republicans will vote No or filibuster this bill.

reply to post by Misoir


I've always said that there is absolutely no way they were ever going to let the US default. Everyone knows you can't negotiate well if you know (and THEY know) that you won't hold to your threat. They were never going to allow the US to go into default.... now, they're running scared...

Not traitors, politicians (fine line). The only reps with guts are destroyed by the MSM and both political parties as dangerous extremists trying to kill the poor and babies with tax cuts for the rich.

They play on the weak souls that still function in the animal realm by feeding the fires of envy (one of the 7 deadly "sins") and the green eye of coveting thy neighbors goods (one of the "Big 10") Just like what the entire 2008 election theme was. The election of revenge for every stubbed toe, penny increase on gas, and sour look your boss gave you when you were caught sleeping on the job... again.

Originally posted by Misoir
This new deal loses a lot of the cuts but does not increase any taxes. My apologies for jumping on this without further reading.

What I read is that: from the left, they demand we not reign in spending...the right agreed to that only by demanding we also not provide income.

Who are we sending to make these deals?

Taxes for the wealthy need to be raised, and any social program not necessary should be slashed..thats compromise...not same ole same ole.

gah, I hate politics...

Next person we send in needs to either be serious about actually balancing budgets without crippling the economy...or buy everyone ferrari's...I mean, either it needs to be logical, or it needs to be supercool and overtly stupid to even the most simple of minds

From outside America you would think that the more right wing of posters here were all multi millionaires. I've seen posters on here recommend that the rich be taxed and that companies like GEC who are paying little or no taxes who were immediately shot down in flames by ideological zealots as if the fiscal changes brought about would dig in at their, just a guess here middle or working class incomes. The super rich protected like some form of invoiable god like beings. MSM working well again. If the poor and middle classes are taking the brunt of the fiscal hits surely it is incumbent on the rich to at least shoulder some of the burden. I know I'm outside America as I said but these rich corporations and patriotic super rich seem to exort patriotism in others but seem bereft of it themselves.

reply to post by Misoir


Did anyone really believe that this was anything other than a dog and pony show. They all eat out of the hand that feeds them and in their mind that certainly isn't the tax payer. No one can serve two masters and they have chosen theirs. I had as well as many have predicted that they would follow Greece in their handling of the budget woes. Keep borrowing and keep saddling the American people with something they can never pay. How could they ever keep their war machine operating? How could they ever transfer the peoples money into their own personal pockets? How could they ever implement their plans for Agenda 21? These people are determined to walk on water regardless the results. Everyone needs to look into a mirror and say sucker, sucker becffause thats is exactly what they see when they look at us. Our response is your absolutely right.

reply to post by goldentorch


Perhaps our beliefs seem odd to you because we do not believe in the class warfare that has been rampant among Liberals here and among almost everyone across the Western world. I do not care if your income is $100 a year or $100,000,000 you should have the right to keep the fruits of your labors and not be attacked as some villain for succeeding. Envy is so rampant among our society today it is disgusting. The only time I could understand taxes being raised is in the event of a war, then it is absolutely necessary so as to not run large deficit *cough*Bush*cough*.

It is the belief in individual rights and basic negative liberty which allowed us to prosper until the introduction of statism under Wilson, then repealed by the Republicans, and finally solidified under Roosevelt. There are a large segment of Americans who actually believe in such a revolutionary thing as… freedom and reject redistribution of wealth, class envy, and the mob mentality. That is the only reason the envious can demand the ridiculous things they do, because there are more of them than there are of those who they seek to steal from.

Oh and I forgot to add. I do not watch any MSM news nor am I wealthy, actually I have been in poverty my entire life. I go to college and work because I do not think government needs to give me a hand-out, I do take out student loans but those are -loans- and it is my obligation to repay them with interest. That will be top of my list when I graduate.

reply to post by goldentorch


Basically, you got a lot of corporatists perpetually spinning a ideological view that they run all things and the poor should be greatful.

I say..sure...you should get most of what you earn

Lets slap tariffs on imports though so we can make sure these corporatists are at least hiring local workers and buying local products verses ciphon the money from here and return nothing to the people beyond debt..

Its funny when you suggest the tariffs thing...then you see the clear split...the norma-cons cheer and agree, the corporatists get very confused and try desperately to come up with some strange ideology that forbids that...and they fall flat on their face every time.

If we had a booming economy, taxes wouldn't need to be so high overall...but a booming economy means companys and corporations hire locally and use local products...of course they don't and instead use 3rd world nation slave labor for max profit.

I would make that deal...you won't get a tax increase, but you will get seriously hammered for going off shore for labor or materials...brutally hammered to where you simply have to use local labor.

The argument: Corps will simply leave america
The counter: Good...then start up companys that do hire local will step in their place and make the profit.

Personally though, both need to happen..tax rates for the top 5% at the Clinton levels, and massive tariffs...one or the other is absolutely necessary, however the tariff thing has long term growth security...the raised taxes just keeps people afloat without any long term goal.

reply to post by Misoir


It's not envy, it is domination that naturally arises from amassed wealth
That I dislike. Royalty was literally the product of a limitless dominance system
Based upon wealth, which was used to leverage a self perpetuating state
Of servitude. It seems to me that base freedom entirely upon a system where you
Are free to oppress whoever you can is not a very noble system. What we have in the last thirty
Years is a loss of balance. While at the tip of your sentiment there
Is a moral imperative, below the surface exists a call to excess, abuse and
Servitude to the system which self serves it's own interests. You hold the gateway and
The key, in your box, there is no basis to question why hard work does not
Pay, where global scheming, the most lucrative and poisonous practice
Cannot be spoken to due to envy.

Consider to your student loans, what makes the feasibility of those loans
Stand??? What prevents from a series of escalation clauses from appearing
At will through the life of the loan??? envy and interference you vomit from
Give you a fighting chance, because they temper greed, because you cannot
Retain a lawyer finically speaking, because law recognizes the power of capital
And recourse. Hopefully you will realize
Some of the wisdom you abandoned for no good reason was good after all.

reply to post by Misoir


Yes that's why I stated that I am not in America. however your statement about agreeing to raise taxes while you are at war puzzles me for you are at war in a large and growing way. Which would mean surely that you would not oppose tax rises at the moment for the sake of some attempt to bring down the deficit.
I also notice the fire and ideology of youth in your argument. I don't know if it holds true for all of us of a few more years but this fire can be sometimes tempered a little in the light of experience.
So to sum up you seem, with all due respect, to come from the American political wing that says we want no taxes but the biggest goddam army in the world to defend that position.
No distribution of wealth. Well we've been through that in Europe many moons ago it's called fuedalism. As you must be able to read from my post I'm in the middle a certain amount of distribution of wealth gives corperations customers, a virtuous circle if you will. It enables them to predict patterns better and plan. I'm a supporter of giving entities huge tax breaks for R&D. Not all take you see.
What else do taxes do that can be seen to assist in the development of a nation. Well you as an individual with no taxes have just started a business and have a customer on the other side of the country. however you can't get things there because half a dozen bridges are down and most of the roads are in disrepair. Now the only available funds to fix them belong to company c whom by the way you are in direct competition with. Think they're gonna fix the roads and bridges for you.
So conversley taxes can pay for this infrastructure in a nuetral way and foster that atmosphere of opportunity for all that your arguments say cannot be true. That's just one hypothosis on where and how government can provide services and opportunities rather than just being seen as a burden.
Also don't forget that a country at war has the biggest government of all what is it now 51% of your spending on war and the defence budget with few calls for that to be cut. Instead attack the much smaller percentages you spend on other things as a way off attacking the deficit. Right wingers don't attack the size of the killing budget only the humanitarian side of the budget and call feeding the poor (miniscule %age of the government viz a viz the killing budget), as big government.
Another thing that makes me laugh about the yeah kill innocents nah don't feed the hungry side of Americam politic is they're all followers of the Jesus chap. Wonder what he'd make of it!
You're behind in Healthcare and Education your infrastructure is becoming a laughing stock. There's been panic with the floods because of lack of maintainance on your dams. Your bridges are falling down.
One of the things that surprises me on here is the number of Americans on dial up, and it sounds pretty slow to me. Expensive too apparently. Here in the UK I get nearly 7MB/sec free calls after six and weekends including mobiles and 24/7 tech support for around $18 per month all built round an infrastructure first put in place by a government communications platform.
So gubment improvements to the infrastructure can benefit all but this is only done through some level of distribution of wealth. What you are arguing against is that on the other hand some distribution of the debt may be required. All I have on that is that even your Libetarian Government of 1776 thought some taxation necassary in order to facillitate good government. Though as far as I know it was largely on tarrifs and accountable spending. Even they realised you can't have the American dream without some cost, there's expenses attached to persuing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and if you are all Americans and subscribe to that surely that cost should be divided as fairly as possible.
As a last note you go around the world killing people in defence of a dream it looks like, to the rest of us anyway, you sold out to the lowest bidder a long time ago.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Not all that easy to do when they've sneaked globalism upon us. Don't forget that producing many of the things we desire would be difficult in a corporate world so any tarriff punishments to create local producers and they would hammer the local producer for royalties upon their copyrights. Viscious circle as designed.

Originally posted by goldentorch
reply to post by Misoir

 

Yes that's why I stated that I am not in America. however your statement about agreeing to raise taxes while you are at war puzzles me for you are at war in a large and growing way. Which would mean surely that you would not oppose tax rises at the moment for the sake of some attempt to bring down the deficit.

I am not against raising taxes at the moment nor would I have been at the onset of these wars.

I also notice the fire and ideology of youth in your argument. I don't know if it holds true for all of us of a few more years but this fire can be sometimes tempered a little in the light of experience.
So to sum up you seem, with all due respect, to come from the American political wing that says we want no taxes but the biggest goddam army in the world to defend that position.

Wrong. I come from the American political wing that says we want as few taxes as possible and a military only large enough to defend ourselves. Ever hear of the Old Right? If not look it up. It is Non-interventionist foreign policy, states’ rights, and a small federal government.

No distribution of wealth. Well we've been through that in Europe many moons ago it's called fuedalism. As you must be able to read from my post I'm in the middle a certain amount of distribution of wealth gives corperations customers, a virtuous circle if you will. It enables them to predict patterns better and plan. I'm a supporter of giving entities huge tax breaks for R&D. Not all take you see. What else do taxes do that can be seen to assist in the development of a nation. Well you as an individual with no taxes have just started a business and have a customer on the other side of the country. however you can't get things there because half a dozen bridges are down and most of the roads are in disrepair. Now the only available funds to fix them belong to company c whom by the way you are in direct competition with. Think they're gonna fix the roads and bridges for you.

I never said that I hold any opposition to the general welfare of the country and its people, only against welfare for individuals and groups. Infrastructure, ports, canals, schools, military, fire departments, police, etc… are all for the public welfare and should be directly funded by all levels of government.

So conversley taxes can pay for this infrastructure in a nuetral way and foster that atmosphere of opportunity for all that your arguments say cannot be true. That's just one hypothosis on where and how government can provide services and opportunities rather than just being seen as a burden.
Also don't forget that a country at war has the biggest government of all what is it now 51% of your spending on war and the defence budget with few calls for that to be cut. Instead attack the much smaller percentages you spend on other things as a way off attacking the deficit. Right wingers don't attack the size of the killing budget only the humanitarian side of the budget and call feeding the poor (miniscule %age of the government viz a viz the killing budget), as big government.

I have been never ending in my calls to end the wars, close all foreign military bases, withdraw from NATO and all other supranational organizations, end foreign aid, and cap military spending at 2% of GDP, it is currently at 4.7%. With that money we could easily fix the welfare programs and fully fund them while we ease our way off of them.

Another thing that makes me laugh about the yeah kill innocents nah don't feed the hungry side of Americam politic is they're all followers of the Jesus chap. Wonder what he'd make of it!

He would tell those folks they are hypocrites and do not represent his moral teachings.

You're behind in Healthcare and Education your infrastructure is becoming a laughing stock. There's been panic with the floods because of lack of maintainance on your dams. Your bridges are falling down.

Exactly the problem, we spend all our money on welfare for individuals and wars to kill people in foreign lands for no good reason while our nation falls apart. It is completely ridiculous.

One of the things that surprises me on here is the number of Americans on dial up, and it sounds pretty slow to me. Expensive too apparently. Here in the UK I get nearly 7MB/sec free calls after six and weekends including mobiles and 24/7 tech support for around $18 per month all built round an infrastructure first put in place by a government communications platform.

I have no opinion on this.

So gubment improvements to the infrastructure can benefit all but this is only done through some level of distribution of wealth. What you are arguing against is that on the other hand some distribution of the debt may be required. All I have on that is that even your Libetarian Government of 1776 thought some taxation necassary in order to facillitate good government. Though as far as I know it was largely on tarrifs and accountable spending. Even they realised you can't have the American dream without some cost, there's expenses attached to persuing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and if you are all Americans and subscribe to that surely that cost should be divided as fairly as possible.

I never said that I was against all taxes, just income taxes. Import tariffs are the taxes we should collect first then whatever we need after that should be collected through other taxes. We need funds for schools, infrastructure, military, and other services that provide for the general welfare of the nation.

As a last note you go around the world killing people in defence of a dream it looks like, to the rest of us anyway, you sold out to the lowest bidder a long time ago.

You are thinking that all limited government types in the United States subscribe to the Southern Conservative ideas of forcing your cultural/political beliefs on everyone. It has been a center-piece of the long struggle between North and South here, the Southern culture has always believed in pushing its ideas of living on everyone, even those inside this country. But I am not a Southerner, all of my family is from the North and I definitely do not believe in spreading ‘democracy’ to anyone. If they want freedom they can achieve it themselves.

reply to post by Misoir


Sorry if I generalised but this reply paints a different picture to things I inferred from your first reply to me. It seems we agree about quite a few things but I feel your a little off in pursuit of 'not benefitting the individual', your grants funding your education greatly benefit the country but also you as an individual. Perhaps I am missing your point. However most of the money and luxury is in the South here so I'm just a thick Northerner in this country's culture.

reply to post by goldentorch


No worries as I can see how you may interpret what I originally said more quite different than it actually is. You are used to hearing the Neoconservative political argument that is made which is quite different than the argument I try and make. Even I can be flexible on the definition of what general welfare can mean. Here are just a few things I personally consider general welfare:

Ports, roads, bridges, dams, canals, schools, government buildings, parks, nature preserves, military, airports, public transportation, mail service, police, fire departments, hospitals, libraries, museums, and I am sure there is more that has been left out.

Other things, in my opinion, can be debated upon whether they serve the public rather than individual interests. I know that is a pretty good debate for Social Security, federal food aid, and college loans.

reply to post by Misoir


Cheers, yes I think you're right that I automatically presumed you one of the neoconservatives. Scary people. Scary for the whole world sort of scary people.

reply to post by goldentorch


I could not possibly agree with you more. That is why I and many other Americans are fighting to kick them out of the Republican Party so they no longer have a powerful political tool at their disposal.

reply to post by Misoir


I hope I'm not going off topic here but I would appreciate your views on the New Deal as a way out of the low economic activity of the time. Did it benefit America and does it have any lessons to teach you viz a viz the stimulous packages that are seen as part of the economic problems you stated in your OP. Where to spend and where to cut and the role of government in stimulating the economy. Do you think it has any relevance to the problems you face now.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by goldentorch

 

Perhaps our beliefs seem odd to you because we do not believe in the class warfare that has been rampant among Liberals here and among almost everyone across the Western world.

Calling only one side of the issue 'class warfare' while ignoring how the rich manipulate the entire discussion is transparent.

Class warfare is not pointing out the rich have all the wealth. Class warfare is denying this happens in the first place.

reply to post by goldentorch


"What's the Matter with America" by Thomas Frank is an interesting book that addresses just that question. (In the US it is sold as "What's the matter with Kansas")

It deals with how the GOP uses Social Conservative issues like Abortion to get people to vote for financial policies that actually harm them.

What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (2004) is a book by American journalist and historian Thomas Frank, which explores the rise of populist anti-elitist Conservatism in the United States, centering on the experience of Kansas, Frank's native state. In the late 19th century, Kansas was known as a hotbed of the left-wing Populist movement, but in recent decades, it has become overwhelmingly conservative. The book was published in Britain and Australia as What's the Matter with America?.

en.wikipedia.org...