Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

*** Official Debt Deal Discussion *** If you want to discuss actual policy please post here.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
DFab420 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:08 PM
Original message
*** Official Debt Deal Discussion *** If you want to discuss actual policy please post here.
Edited on Mon Aug-01-11 01:09 PM by DFab420
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/the-four-big-problems-with-and-four-silver-linings-around-the-debt-limit-deal.php?ref=fpa

Good vs Bad

Good:

* "Only about two percent of the nearly $3 trillion in savings outlined in this plan occur in the first year, and they don't all come from social programs. They also come from defense spending and other domestic programs. So its near-term impact on the economy will be pretty small. Of course, if the economy doesn't recover soon, the out year cuts will turn out to be very painful."

*"The good news is, the breakdown of this enforcement mechanism is fairly progressive, given that it's all cuts. It amounts mostly to a two percent cut for Medicare providers, and a whopping $500 billion in defense cuts over 10 years. Programs for the poor and for veterans and Social Security and Medicaid are all cordoned off"

*"When the new fiscal committee convenes, it will have free reign to look at both entitlement cuts and tax increases. The problem is that tax increases are scored by the Congressional Budget Office against "current law," which assumes the expiration of all the Bush tax cuts. So if the committee tries to end the tax cuts for the top earners, but make the rest of them permanent, it will score as a big tax cut and thus a budget buster. Not something a committee tasked with deficit reduction will want to touch. But that means the committee will have to look at other revenue raising options -- loopholes and expenditures that have nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts, say, or a new millionaire's tax bracket."

*This plan, in a convoluted way, guarantees that the country won't run out of borrowing authority again until the end of 2012. There will be other hostage crises between now and then, but none with consequences as grave as debt default.

Bad

*" The first part of the budget to take a hit -- and that will be hit for at least a few years into the future -- is the one part of the budget that hasn't grown particularly fast over the last decade. And it's also the part that matters the most for regular people: Health programs, education, clean energy, and transportation. It will be cut and capped, in a way that the Congressional Budget Office forecasts will amount to hundreds of billions of dollars less spending for these crucial programs."

* Late last year, President Obama struck another big deal with Congressional Republicans -- one that extended all of the Bush tax cuts for two years, but also included a payroll tax holiday for employees, and a one-year extension of unemployment insurance. As the Recovery Act has phased out, those concessions are now the only two things providing the economy with billions of dollars a month of extra juice -- juice that will run out at the end of 2011. Earlier in this debt limit fight, when Obama was aiming for a "grand bargain," he was also pushing to include a year long extension (and possibly a widening) of both of these measures. They didn't make the final cut.

* Defense is a real target here, as are Medicare providers, as opposed to Medicare beneficiaries. In the base deal, veterans and Social Security and Medicaid beneficiaries are walled off from immediate cuts. But at the end of the day, this is still an austerity plan

*Literally nothing about this plan will do anything to slow the growth of health care costs -- the true driver of the country's structural deficit.


*********

Thanks to TPM for breaking it down. Let's see if we can make actual sense of the bill..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. One of the really bad things is... the austerity coming down
this is really basic economics. You cannot cut your way out of bad economic times. This will surely put us now on the double dip, if not outright a real technical depression. (Yes there is an actual definition)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFab420 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I agree. It is a dangerous time to be making cuts to domestic spending, of any kind.
What we can only hope is that there are at least some economically savvy people working behind to scenes to try and make cuts to programs that won't, hopefully, cause the double dip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obxhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. I disagree, we can cut our way out of this mess.
The cutting just has to happen at the sources of the problem such as our military/war and tax breaks for billionaires and corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. This is basic economics
and every time you try to cut your way out of a recession, it deepens it. THe most obvious example is 1937 when FDR surrendered on that and led to the second depression in 1938.

I could offer you example upon example from abroad, as well. The most recent one... Japan,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFab420 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. +1 but I though FDR was infalliable and he never did anything wrong!!!
lol

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFab420 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Negatory
History has shown time and again. The moment you start to make cuts in a recession, is the moment you dip into a depression..

The only thing that could stave off the slide, is if the economy recovers enough in the next two years to survive the cuts that come down the line from this bill. Luckily most cuts the first year are in defense, which may or may not protect the economy from plummeting.. Risky risk is risky
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
23. yes, spot on. it is going to lead to more suffering.
we're already at 17% or so 'real' unemployment, and how does cutting increase jobs? We know it doesn't.

"Health programs, education, clean energy, and transportation" will be hit first... nice. These damned Teahadists forced the threat of chaos on America if they didn't get their goal - while ignoring how much it will harm the economic recovery in pursuing it!

I would have no problem with them being held with some type of charge for threatening the well being of the country, but, I know that won't happen, so it has to come at the voting booths. I hope we run quality candidates in every Teahadist's district. They must be squashed, permanently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rageneau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. A truly progressive president would end the war on drugs and there'd be plenty of money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFab420 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Ok. BUT THAT"S NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!
That is not part of this policy, that is not part of this discussion..

trying to attach a change in drug policy to this would have caused even more a a shit storm on the right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. Why is the target of Defense and medicare providers a bad thing? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFab420 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Because it is still technically an austerity plan
While a stimulus package would be much more preferred.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I see what you're saying DFab, however a stimulus would never happen with this House.
Edited on Mon Aug-01-11 01:31 PM by vaberella
They're horrible. But I don't see how a stimulus package would be more effective here. I actually think more regulation is actually the important factor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFab420 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. This is also true. In the current political climate calling for spending at all
is like covering yourself in honey and jumping into a bear den. The republicans are salivating at the mouth for someone, anyone, to call for spending increases so they can play their "fiscal responsibility" card without having to actually show what cuts they'd make.

Now, with cuts already on the table, they can't think of any actual policies they would like to see cut except for social programs. Which points out their wildly unpopular motives...

Shrewd move by the dems if you ask me...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFab420 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
6. Anyone? Does anyone actually wnat to talk about policy? Or just "what they've heard from so and so"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Wonky stuff is hard
to me the most dangerous part of this is the austerity plan.

The second, and this is pure politics... this has worked twice for these people. We will have more of these dramas. This is Shock Doctrine at it's best. (And a few other things)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFab420 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. I know.. I dread the October budget fight...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
12. I don't see how this isn't a prescription for big non-defense cuts.
The intitial cuts to defense are tiny. And the deadline for further cuts is in 2012, the election year. Even Democrats will not, in an election year, want to propose (or allow by way of the trigger) serious cuts to defense. Nor are they likely to push for significant tax raises. So the committee will propose cuts to domestic spending and "entitlement reform," and Democrats will pass them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFab420 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. 3 trillion dollar saving, mostly from Defense is small??
How much money would you like them to cut out of our National Defense??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
24. the initial cut is only 350 billion
Edited on Mon Aug-01-11 03:30 PM by Vattel
and that is releative to projected growth. Believe me, the Pentagon is not worried about this.

I thought tis was supposed to be a serious discussion of policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
craigmatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
15. Does anybody actally think repubs care about cutting the military?
If the answer is no then that part of the deal is a mute point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFab420 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Why is it a mute point?
If it helps the country, and take money from the grossly obese defense funds who cares if the Republicans care or not??

This isn't an us vs them moment. This is a "let's get our house in order" moment. Who the hell cares if it digs into them or not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
craigmatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. It is an us against them moment. It always has been.
Their whole agenda is cutting to the point of sabotaging the government. If we were really getting our house in order and working towards the common good we'd be raising taxes. They care an aweful lot about digging into us which is why they kept walking out on the negotiations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Per TPM: GOP seeks to weaken defense cuts in key part of deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFab420 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Which is why the enforcement policy is there right?
Also this still has yet to get the Progressive caucuses stamp of approval. So hopefully if the Repubs try to change the Defense Cuts, the Progressive will add-on a revenue rider..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Yikes. What a mess.
I was rather hoping and, in fact, asked my representative, Nancy Pelosi, to rally a HELL NO!! vote on the bill to force a 1-sentence raising of the debt ceiling at the last minute. Hey, a girl can dream.

My worry is the devil in the details. I didn't realize until recently the First Responder's Bill excluded treatment for cancer. I worry there is or will be written into the bill a poison pill or two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 12:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC