Beeho's fiscal cliff strategy

Watched fox news a few minutes ago. Focus was on a press conference with Jay Carney, who said Beeho wants to get the tax increases approved now, but defer discussion on spending cuts and entitlement reform next year "since they are such complex topics". This explains the lack of a dem plan for spending cuts/entitlement reform. Pretty darn clear they have no intention of doing either - this is a repeat of the (successful) strategy used in the Reagan and Bush I administrations, when the Republicans caved on near-term tax increases in return for future spending cuts that never happened. Sadly, I fear this might actually succeed, as Boehner seems to want to not be blamed, although he will no matter what he does.

Peter Schiff's take is not only should we not avoid going over the fiscal cliff through sequestration, but in fact it is necessary to get any sort of meaningful spending cuts in the near term. Schiff is one of the very few who accurately predicted both the tech bubbles and housing bubbles bursting. He acknowledges there will definitely be pain, but the pain will be much worse if we don't make the cuts at all. http://www.europac.net/media/video_blog

I'm really not surprised about this - Beeho is pure politics, all the time - and his victory is when republicans get blamed for anything. My sense is sequestration won't happen and some sort of deal will be struck - but the deal will most definitely not be good for us.

Singlestack

I agree. Falling off the cliff will result in pain. But it's going to happen eventually. I'd prefer the house republicans tell Obama, Pelosi and Reid to go fuck themselves. Falling off the cliff can't be any worse than what's eventually going to happen anyway. We just have to endure all the bullshit hot air outta DC, in addition to the fiscal pain, if we wait. I can do without the bullshit.

$497 Billion in proposed cuts over the next 5 years, tack on an additional $500 billion next year from sequestration and you have yourself an American military that can't even afford to take a dump AND wipe... That's what I see being a pretty horrible thing, but made worse by the cliff.
I agree, Carl, Obama wants to raise taxes, he's going to raise taxes. The cliff will see a rise in taxes. It's a lose-lose any way you cut it. "Raising taxes during a recession really helps!" -Said no economist, ever.

Oh they have strategy? News to me. Also, adding to the library long tax code isn't difficult? Sounds just like local "temporary tax increases" that never go away

Of course Obama has a plan and he's spouted it all along. "Tax the "rich" more and hope that works." Thats pretty much it. What you people fail to realize is that if there is no budget, there is no way for Obama to overspend on that very budget. Pure genius.

Obama believes the "tax the rich" bullshit as much as he believes in smaller gov't. It's not a strategy, it's pandering to his base and it works well for him...that's what's important to Obama. I know you're being a little tongue-in-cheek with the "can't overspend if you don't have a budget" remark...at least I think you are...but, yes, he can overspend. That's why congress is constantly having to raise the debt ceiling. Furthermore, Obama's base couldn't give a rat's ass about budgets...there's enough in the budget for Obama-phones and other handouts and that's what matters.

You are correct sir about my tongue-in-cheek budget comment though, in an attempt to emulate the government, I have also raised my debt ceiling and will be attending the next Tanner Gun Show with a wallet full of promisory notes.

Very true. Beeho has constantly demonstrated his motivation to be accumulating more and more political power. Has nothing to do with the USAa well being. The additional revenue raised by taxing the rich raises something like $80B - enough to fund the fed gov for about 9 days - but won't reduce the deficit at all. Beeho knows that very, very well, but doesn't care. If he cared, he would be all over taking steps to reduce spending - not saying "we will deal with it later...".

Singlestack

Heres the plan that will work, go Back to the Eisenhower tax rates (last best Republican president) Problem solved in no time.

Here's the plan that will work: The central government sticks within constraints of the constitution.

So we can all agree, he's either A) really dumb, B) really smart, and with either option, complacent, or just wants to procrastinate until the last minute (remember that "government shutdown" last year?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nynco

Heres the plan that will work, go Back to the Eisenhower tax rates (last best Republican president) Problem solved in no time.

---

The Eisenhower tax rates and deductions resulted in roughly the same revenue as a percentage of GDP than the present tax rates are collecting. Yet another FAIL on nynco's part.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=205

The Democrats "strategy" has been to refuse to undertake their legal and constitutional duty and actually pass a formal budget. That is because they wish to absolve themselves of the actual results of their failed stewardship of the institutions of Federal government.

They presented this compromise agreement of defering spending cuts to the end of the year a year ago, to gain electoral advantage. Now they are blaming the GOP for the results of their own proposals. That's the kind of juvenile behavior we've come to expect from the Democrats.

What the GOP should do is refuse to pass any budgetary legislation at all, continuing resolutions - nope, debt ceiling raises - nope, nothing except a formal budget with all the statutorily required trimmings is passed by both houses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spqrzilla

The Democrats "strategy" has been to refuse to undertake their legal and constitutional duty and actually pass a formal budget. That is because they wish to absolve themselves of the actual results of their failed stewardship of the institutions of Federal government.

They presented this compromise agreement of defering spending cuts to the end of the year a year ago, to gain electoral advantage. Now they are blaming the GOP for the results of their own proposals. That's the kind of juvenile behavior we've come to expect from the Democrats.

What the GOP should do is refuse to pass any budgetary legislation at all, continuing resolutions - nope, debt ceiling raises - nope, nothing except a formal budget with all the statutorily required trimmings is passed by both houses.

---

That could work- if the dems could stop being pouty little children and actually work with the GOP... This is why I think we should just fire them all, start fresh, and outlaw both democrats and republicans.

Beeho's plan is basically analogous to a man asking his woman to fellatiate him first and then after he gets his he'll go down on her. You just know once he blows his load he's going to roll over and go to sleep.

Obama has already led the US into another recession ... after failing to actually oversee any actual recovery from the last one.

Complete incompetence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spqrzilla

debt ceiling raises - nope,

---

That would be unconstitutional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

That would be unconstitutional.

---

Refusing to pass a debt ceiling raise would not be unconstitutional. The Democrats tried to float that argument over a year ago, and it was really laughable.

The Constitution provides that Congress has the power to raise money, appropriate funds, etc. If there is a law setting a maximum amount that the Federal government can borrow (and there is), that is the limit of the Federal government's authority to borrow, period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

That would be unconstitutional.

---

How so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sharpienads

How so?

---

Stand by.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

Stand by.

---

Standing by.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spqrzilla

Refusing to pass a debt ceiling raise would not be unconstitutional. The Democrats tried to float that argument over a year ago, and it was really laughable.

The Constitution provides that Congress has the power to raise money, appropriate funds, etc. If there is a law setting a maximum amount that the Federal government can borrow (and there is), that is the limit of the Federal government's authority to borrow, period.

---

Quote:

---

Amendment 14 Section 4.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

---

So this says that any debt (except the mentioned exception) is valid and will not be questioned. My stance was going to be that by not raising the debt ceiling, that would be the same as defaulting on the debts of the US. I imagine this is the same thing the liberals tried to say, which you referred to. However, upon further consideration, it seems to me that raising the debt ceiling may not be the ONLY way to repay US debts. So, if there is even one other option to make good on our debts, then I conceded that not raising the debt ceiling would not be unconstitutional.

I am under the impression that the purpose of raising the debt ceiling is to cover debts that the US has already accrued, not to free up money for more spending in the future. Just to be clear, I think the spending is out of control and needs to be stopped. Once the debts are on the books though, to not pay them would be unconstitutional.

Irving, raising the debt ceiling allows the Federal government to increase its borrowing. Currently the Federal government is borrowing around 40% of all the money its spending each year.

The Public Debt clause of Amendment 14 states that the debt's validity shall not be questioned. That does not mean that failing to make an interest payment is unconstitutional.

I thought failing to pass a budget for 3 years was unconstitutional...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

I thought failing to pass a budget for 3 years was unconstitutional...

---

I don't believe it's unconstitutional. Illegal, perhaps. But not unconstitutional.

The Democrats' intentional refusal to pass a budget is indeed illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nynco

Heres the plan that will work, go Back to the Eisenhower tax rates (last best Republican president) Problem solved in no time.

---

Can we have the Eisenhower spending levels as well? The Eisenhower-era regulatory burden? The Eisenhower-era levels of social and entitlement spending?

Pretty clear now that the deal isn't about revenue at all - its about politics. Even though Boehner and the squishy house republican leadership agreed to $800B in tax increases that Beeho wanted during the campaign, it is through limiting tax deductions and not rate increases. Beeho is demanding rate increases - or no deal - and no specified spending cuts or entitlement reform. He refuses to negotiate, letting the media be the negotiator for him.

Although by most measures in a negotiation, Boehner is being "reasonable", he continues to play by traditional rules and is utterly losing the game. Beeho is 100% about power politics, all the time - and this is no different. Most of the media will give Boehner no credit for being reasonable, and we will go over the cliff. The house republicans will own the blame. It seems to me that given Beeho's approach, there are really only two responses:

1. Let Beeho's plan pass and let Beeho own the results. Although the media will somehow try to hang that on the republicans, I don't see that as successful if the republicans vote "present" and nothing more.

2. Pass the Bush tax cuts in the house, send to the Senate, and go home. They will get blamed anyway, might as well get blamed while staking out your position. That is, if there aren't going to be negotiations then defend your position and principles and let the chips fall where they may.

The republicans still need to figure out they need to play 100% hardball if they are going to have any future at all. With Boehner's approach, there will be great bloodletting in the republican party and look for a change in many seats in 2014. Maybe ultimately thats what had to happen.

Singlestack

I honestly think the GOP stands less and less of a chance of really doing much of anything anymore- we're seeing them now in the last days- since we all learned that over 50% of the nation wants to live under Liberal rule and socialist tendencies.

Completely agree. I really don't think a 3rd party can win in a presidential election, so we may be looking at more and more extreme dems running things for a long time. The republicans seem to stand for nothing now, and the sad part is I don't think most of the republicans in Washington are even aware of it - they just seem themselves being "bipartisan" and willing to compromise. They will be completely rolled...

Eh, I think America is slowly waking up and getting sick of the 2-party system... I don't see a 3rd party in the white house anytime soon, but if 2010 is any indication with multiple Tea party getting elected to congress, maybe we can hope that 2014 and 2016 will see a big push from 3rd parties to get into lower level office and try to gain a foothold... either that or we're all doomed and the Democratic party will take over and the raping will continue with less bitching.

>Eh, I think America is slowly waking up and getting sick of the 2-party system...
I would like to think so, but honestly I don't think thats the case. In fact, votes in national elections to 3rd parties have decreased since Perot: http://www.gallup.com/poll/155537/li...-election.aspx

I'm thinking the only way there is a 3rd party with legs is in the event of a total economic collapse. Of course, in that case easy to imagine martial law and suspension of elections due to widespead civil chaos. The way the current 2 party system is setup, the 2 parties have the money and the media - thats why Ron Paul ran as a Republican even though the republican leadership and platform made him sick to his stomach. Believe me, if the tea party decided their efforts were better spent creating a 3rd party instead of taking over the republican party, I'd probably support them if there seemed to be significant energy and numbers involved. However, thats not the case now and I think they are better served trying to get good candidates elected to Congress.

>maybe we can hope that 2014 and 2016 will see a big push from 3rd parties to get into lower level office and try to gain a foothold... either that or we're all doomed
I couldn't agree more. I do think conservatives can make important inroads into elected office at the local, state, and federal levels. However, I'm not seeing how they can win the white house, and with it, federal judge and supreme court appointments.

Singlestack