Here's how part 2 of the debt bill will play out...

[Fearless]

As you know, we need to "finish the cuts" in the second part of the bill.

1. If no action is taken: There are across the board cuts to social programs, defense, gov't agencies, etc. In short: The economy is crippled because people lose their only sources of income / medical care. The job outlook is screwed as spending evaporates in the private sector.

2. The "Super Congress" convenes and does one of the following:


A. The same sort of "compromise" as we got now. In short: Republicans get 80% of what they want, small to no revenue changes do occur, but are offset by large cuts in social programs for the neediest Americans. Jobs suffer because consumption decreases. The economy takes a dive.

B. Republicans ideas win out: Social programs are cut. The neediest Americans suffer. The economy takes a dive because they lose their sources of income. Jobs follow because consumption disappears.

C. Democratic progressive ideas win out: Revenue is raised, corporations would rather see their money invested in their companies than taxed out of them, jobs are created, and the economy is righted.


The kicker: This is the thing though. Corporations would rather have the money pad their OWN pockets even more than be given to employees or to the government in taxes. Therefore, they will look to buy off the "weakest" member or members of the Democratic side of the "Super Congress". They will succeed and the Republican ideas win out. The "Super Congress" votes on certain cuts to social programs, leaves taxes and loopholes alone, and passes the bill along to Congress where, like this time around, Congressmen are FORCED to sign the only bill they're going to get because if they don't, then even BIGGER cuts will automatically be enacted.

The result: Hoovervilles.

[William769]

1. K&R.

[FreakinDJ]

2. "A"

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. 6 R + 1 D = unamended up/down vote in both houses

What could *possibly* go wrong?

[Fearless]

5. And the vote will come right before the deadline ensuring that there will be no more bills.

[Myrina]

4. Death by a thousand slices....

In 10 or 12 years, this country won't be recognizable to anyone who lived during the 1950's - 2000's anymore. And once all of the domestic spending is zeroed out, then comes the military. Will they empty that coffer? Doubt it. But we're very well on our way down the same path the USSR took in the late 70's/early to mid 80's.

[Owlet]

6. I think you're right

Maybe, like the USSR, sections of the country will split off: like Texas. Or Florida. Alaska maybe. Be nice to keep California, but you never know about these things once they get started.

[OhioChick]

7. K&R n/t

[rhett o rick]

8. R&K

[grahamhgreen]

9. And POTUS will lobby for the crappy "compromise" saying, "we could have done better"

[a2liberal]

10. K&R (n/t)

[scheming daemons]

11. You wouldn't know a progressive idea if it smacked you in the nose

...as evidence by your thread bashing Obama for proposing an Infrastructure Bank.

[Fearless]

14. For providing handouts for private companies. Yes... very not progressive.

:eyes:

[scheming daemons]

15. Using govt money to create infrastructure jobs was the basis of FDR's presidency

... and is as progressive an idea as there is.

[Fearless]

16. Giving gov't money to corporations to create jobs is the same as giving tax cuts to corporations.

Give PEOPLE jobs. Give PEOPLE the money. FDR created a federally run program not throw our money at corporations.

[scheming daemons]

17. Hiring a company to build a bridge is not the same as giving that company a tax break.

The government is the customer. It is using govt money to hire a contractor to build something.

That DIRECTLY creates jobs.


Giving a company a tax break does not directly create any jobs, because it doesn't force the company to do anything with the money.




Come on, I know you're not this dense.

[scheming daemons]

18. also... FDR's WPA hired private construction companies to do the work

Exactly what Obama is proposing.

[jpak]

12. C is themost likely

yup

[Fearless]

13. Why?

[proud patriot]

19. I see it playing out Differently

:shrug:

[Fearless]

20. How do you see it happening? I'm curious.

:)

[proud patriot]

21. Well

Listening to Randi Rhodes I tend to agree with her veiw of how this will play out.
Granted I'm watching who is appointed to the Super Comittee, because that plays
a key role.

I'm just more of a cup half full girl

[Proles]

22. It really depends who is on this

silly "Super Congress" but I'm not getting my hopes up.

Accepting reality and cynisism is actually more healthy for my well being rather than being shocked at constant betrayal.

[readmoreoften]

23. Will it be a mixed moderate Republican side and an all progressive side? That's the only scenario

that could work out okay... Itll more likely be 6 Republicans, 3 blue dogs and 3 progessives.