And the melodrama continues. Six days away from the August 2 deadline and Republicans are still locked in their no taxes mindset imposed upon them by Tea Party Republicans. John Boehner finds himself in a position with little wriggle room available. In saner times, the Speaker would have been only too happy to accept the package offered to him by the President, one which contained massive cuts and changes to Social Security and Medicare. But the last word you would use to describe the current climate in D.C. is sane. Not only does Boehner face daily threats from teabaggers in Congress who refuse to vote for any bill containing an increase in revenue (aka tax increases for top wage earners), Eric Cantor is doing all he could to make Boehner’s job a living nightmare. Cantor is dead set on becoming the next House Speaker and if that means taking the country into default, he is more than willing to lend a helping hand.
The NY Times posted a chart over the weekend which sets the entire debt ceiling crisis into perspective.
James Fallows over at the Atlantic explains:
A few lessons can be drawn from the numbers. First, the Bush tax cuts have had a huge damaging effect. If all of them expired as scheduled at the end of 2012, future deficits would be cut by about half, to sustainable levels. Second, a healthy budget requires a healthy economy; recessions wreak havoc by reducing tax revenue. Government has to spur demand and create jobs in a deep downturn, even though doing so worsens the deficit in the short run. Third, spending cuts alone will not close the gap. The chronic revenue shortfalls from serial tax cuts are simply too deep to fill with spending cuts alone. Taxes have to go up.
What the chart clearly shows is that the Bush tax cuts, the number one contributor to the national debt over the last decade, is the very item which Republicans refuse to budge on. Could their motives be any clearer? For Republicans, it’s not about spending cuts nor is it about fighting tax increases for the rich. It’s about winning in 2012. Most Republicans would not be as forthcoming as to actually admit their true intent. But then, Donald Trump is not most Republicans.
“Frankly the Republicans would be crazy unless they get 100 percent of the deal that they want right now to make any deal. If this happens, for instance if this stuff is going on prior to an election, he can’t get reelected. He possibly can’t get elected anyway. … The fact is, unless the Republicans get 100% of what they want, and that may include getting rid of Obamacare, which is a total disaster, then they should not make a deal other than a minor extension which would take you before the election which would ensure Obama doesn’t get elected, which would be a great thing.”
Whatever the outcome of this artificial, self-induced crisis, the question becomes to which party blame gets assigned to in 2012. The presidency lies in the balance. If facts and truth were the determining factor in deciding who the evildoer is in this sad tale, then it should be a no-brainer. Clearly, Republicans are the villains twirling their mustaches as they gleefully strap the economy, domestic and global, to the railway tracks. Simply look at the chart above if you’re not entirely sure on that one.
But if we’ve learned anything from watching Republicans perform in the age of Obama, truth and the well-being of their country does not factor in much in what they do or say. Much like a sociopath lacking the ability to feel shame for their actions, reason and honesty play no part in who and what they are. With the able help of conservative media, Republicans will lie and manipulate their way through this one in much the way they’ve done for the last three years.
And once again, politics and the fate of a nation comes down to little more than a game of public relations. To the party which best tells their side of the story goes the spoils of victory.
.
Hi Mario, in my newest post (in which I’ve included this graph), I’ve attempted to breakdown all of the information I could on the debt ceiling crisis. And the evidence is obvious:
Tax increases are the obvious answer (along with cuts) and tax increases are more important to the GOP than reducing the deficit: http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/7/26/us-politics-economy-explaining-washingtons-dangerous-game-of.html
“Bush tax cuts, $1,812″
I’m amazed when someone thinks it’s an expense when we let people keep their own money. That thought presupposes that everyone’s money is actually public money, and that keeping it, is taking something away from the government.
It amazes me that nobody has come forward and made a case against military spending. Since the end of World War II, 1945…The United States of America has been involved in some sort of military action around the globe. Approx. 60 years ! KOREA,VIETNAM,BOSNIA,IRAN,IRAQ,AFGHANISTAN…TAKE A MINUTE AND TRY TO FATHOM THE PRICETAG ASSOCIATED WITH THESE CONFLICTS? Both from an economic and human perspective. Not one of the conflicts mentioned was necessary! Generations of americans were lost because the PENTAGON wanted to play WARGAMES around the world with real money & real lives! Fast forward to today and the DEBT CRISIS this country has…there would be NO DEBT…NO DISCUSSIONS…WE would have a SURPLUS to take care of the IMPORTANT ISSUES in the country…INFRASTRUCTURE,EDUCATION,TECHNOLOGY, to name a few critical areas. However, we know different! It would be nice if we had leadership that could SAY NO TO THE PENTAGON…NO TO ANY MILITARY INVOLVEMENT IN ANY FOREIGN LAND UNLESS OUR SHORES HAVE BEEN ATTACKED. NO TO FRIVILOUS MILITARY CONTRACTS & YES TO RETURNING ALL MILITARY PERSONNEL TO THE UNITED STATES. Then & only then can we realize some sense of fiscal responsibility.
@Tommy, from an accounting perspective, tossing aside revenue = expense. In other words, if I could collect $20 from you and decide to forgo it, I just spent $20. It’s not a value judgment, it’s basic accounting. So enacting a big tax cut is, in fact, an expense for the Federal Government.
You didn’t take any accounting classes, did you?
If it was only THEIR OWN MONEY, your argument might have some (??) logical validity. I can only believe you are a part of the Top 1-2%.
Or some advertising firm pays YOUR expenses.
John Chambless
Raymore, Missouri
Frank – I agree with you.
Jethro – I don’t have to be an accountant to count money, just like I don’t have to be a woman to know when someone’s screwing me.
John Chambless – If it isn’t “their” money, whose money is it?
Tommy,
Your argument is a giant arm waving distraction. No matter how you call it, Bush cut 1.8 trillion in revenue that he didn’t budget for, and is the first President in US history to go to war without RAISING taxes. I really suggest you read my article, you’d learn something.
Also, it’s actually not just their money. I suggest you reconsider the writers of the enlightenment. Government serves as part of the social contract, a social contract that also ensures that the rich don’t eat the poor. As nations throughout history have discovered, the nation that best manages their social contract is successful, the government that allows society to break its contract falls apart. Let’s take wealth disparity:
Between 1930 and 1970, America saw an incredible DROP in the gap between rich and poor. During that time, taxes on the highest earners ranged from 50% to 90%. And yet, we built the Jefferson Memorial, created the highway systems, build and improved many national parks, created a space program, put a man on the moon… AND WON A WORLD WAR. That sounds like the heart of the America I know.
In the 1970s, a faltering economy hurt wealth disparity, but the gap has been racing wider since the election of Reagan in 1980.
So, despite the fact that wealth disparity is at record high, corporate profits are as well, and taxes are at their lowest point in 60 years, apparently Obama is a socialist because he wants to raises taxes. While, by the way, cutting $4 trillion from the deficit by slimming government programs.
For perspective, a week ago 5 democrats voted for a bill Boehner suggested. Tonight, Boehner’s bill was so radical that no democrats would vote for it, and yet it still wasn’t radical enough to get the support of the tea party. So who is the radical? Who is unwilling to compromise?
Who is unAmerican?
@Tommy @James:
I’ve given this thread its own post.
Who is Un-American?
Tommy Pane:
Your money + Reasonable Profit = American Growth
Your money + Reasonable Profit + Your Greed – American Education & Infrastructure = Crumbling American Middle Class
What’s the difference between King George III and present day global PlutocraticCorporotacracy? Learning how to ‘game’ American election system + Approximately 250 years
Hey John did you know that the Bushes are distant relatives of King George III…W…is a direct descendant…It all makes sense now, doesn’t it.
To James Miller….Your points of” historical” note need to be…shall we say…rewritten! POINT (1) you stated that George W Bush was the first President to go to war without raising taxes! It would be nice if you finished the point. W was given a 5.6 trillion dollar surplus. What he did with it was go out and spend 12 Trillion dollars on two (2) very questionable “wars” along with a host of other niceities that he put in his shopping cart! So, onward & upward (no James not the space program) but our deficit. POINT(2) Making all the references to the Jefferson Memorial,Highway systems(Penna. was the first state to complete a turnpike/highway system in the U.S.) created the Space Program,put a man on the moon & won a war. Four out of five, maybe three out of five were actually necessary. Imagine,if you will James…the TOTAL COST associated with the SPACE PROGRAM…From Day 1 to present day in the year 2011. Now, imagine ALL THAT MONEY being spent on INFRASTRUCTURE,RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT,EDUCATION, the list James, is mind boggeling. Here’s a POINT OF INTEREST people like you lose track of…The “WAR” in AFGHANISTAN has EXCEEDED the AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT BY THE USA IN BOTH WW I & WW II…COMBINED ! And like you said James, WW II,,,WE WON THAT ONE ! Class dismissed.