Bipartisan deficit commission

[levander]

Just throwing something up that I don't think gets enough attention on DU.

From http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/12/18/greenspan_warns_deficits_will_test_ability_to_sell_debt/">Click:

“For the next decade or two, on some reasonable sets of assumptions, our borrowing cushion shrinks significantly, threatening to test our capacity to raise funds to finance unprecedented deficits,’’ Greenspan said in testimony to the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.

“Our nation has never before had to confront so formidable a fiscal crisis as is now visible just over the horizon,’’ Greenspan said.

In answer to a question about why rising debt is a concern, Greenspan said: “The critical issue that economists worry about’’ is the spiral that occurs with ever-rising debt and debt service, often followed by higher interest rate. As a consequence of that, “the debt service becomes explosive and that moves directly into the budget deficit,’’ he added.

And with higher interest rates, the values of your homes go down, small businesses are the largest growth engine of our economy and they need to borrow to keep their business running... Higher interest rates will crush us. Anybody here been around long enough to remember the late 70's?

The deficit issue is a problem folks. Bigger problem that health care. You ask people if they'd rather have a job or health insurance, what do you think they'd pick? Better yet, go ask somebody who's lost their job in this last recession we still haven't recovered from.

[CreekDog]

1. what does a bipartisan commision have to do with the deficit?

the Republican side of that commission will under no circumstances ever support any tax increase of any kind, no matter what.

and if you want to harm the economy, try to stop inflation while an economy is in recession.

hello Depression and hello GIANT deficits, of the scale you have not seen before and worse than you are anticipating.

[levander]

4. Biggest deficits since WW2

Creek, one of the most interesting things I saw watching Senate proceedings on the bipartisan deficit commission was that we haven't seen deficits this large since World War 2. And, the thing about the spending during that war was that we knew after the war was over, our spending was going to be reduced dramatically. The deficit was entirely due to all the money we spent on that war. But these days, we don't have that luxury. There's nothing indicating our spending is going to be cut dramatically. We've made commitments like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security (not new, but the demographics for it are) that are eating up so much of our budget...

I can't imagine how they're going to figure this one out. It may very well be to raise taxes and just accept a slower growth rate for our economy.

There goes Obama's promise that no family making under $250K will see a tax increase!

[CreekDog]

8. The reason I brought this up is because people here tend to take issue with "memes" like this one

first, your point about deficits is a valid one, but that's not what you posted about.

you posted about the "bipartisan deficit commission" as if that's the only way to address it --as if that's the most effective way to address it. i disagree 100%.

secondly, IT IS a Republican talking point (and a recent one) that things need to be bipartisan to be better. no way. an idea is good or it's bad, apart from whether it's bipartisan or not.

the way politics is played these days, bipartisan probably means that an idea to address a problem that one side cares about has to be watered down to get bipartisan support. what's the good in that?

dealing with the deficit for Republicans in recent years has meant increasing defense spending, funding from deficit spending massive war efforts off-budget, cutting small but critical government programs that save nothing but hamper our efforts on disease fighting and what not. And the big one is that while cutting taxes which reduces revenue, the main aim of Republican deficit "hawks" has been to defund government entitlements that are both popular, well run and among the most solid of all government programs --not to mention they keep huge swaths of our population out of poverty and they do it without Wall Street's help.

forgive me for not buying into the "commission" or "bipartisanship" when that's what the ground rules are going to be from the outset. i'll play a different game.

[levander]

11. Bipartisan deficit commission, that's just what's in the news lately...

I don't think everything should be, or could be bipartisan. But, there is significant overlap between the two groups. When that overlap occurs, it's the first thing that should be addressed. I think it's a great idea to address the issue 1st with a bipartisan commission first. Then, they can pick and fight battle lines after we've got the easy stuff done.

For example of overlap, Bush did make a huge contribution to aid Africa. I wish I were on top of things enough to throw up more info than that, but I suffer from laziness...

And, a lot of politics is the battle over public opinion. You do a bipartisan commission, where Republicans are challenged to participate, you have them underline the necessary concern over the issue, and doing something becomes necessary for their own political survival. And, because Democrats control Congress, I'd think Republicans would have a much tougher time not getting on board with Democratic leadership once they've gone through the effort of delineating how important the issue is. After having underlined the importance of the issue, there won't be absolute pressure, but there'd be more pressure to do something. And, if you don't have to cow-tow to every last Democrat but have Republicans on board, you don't have to make dirty deals. Or, at least not as much. Like some people have asked why the Democrats didn't go after Olympia Snowe and the trigger instead of bending to Lieberman's wishes.

And, there are the special interest groups. I really wonder if the reason big industries came out so well in that bill was because the Democrats were standing alone on it. If that bill hurt the AFL-CIO or the AMA, that industry knows exactly who to blame. But, if the Democrats had substantially more support from Republicans, I wonder if it wouldn't have given them more cover to make the case to big industries that the country really needs this and get them to offer more concessions.

And, Senator Dodd mentioned it that he too considered a caveat that the health care bill wasn't bipartisan. It's not only Republicans complaining about lack of bipartisanship. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Civil Rights bills, all these were bipartisan efforts. The idea that we can't get anything done with these guys is just false. And, when the Republicans do get back in power, you don't think they're going to jack with the health care bill in major ways? They hate that bill. They'll fuck it up.

Obama talked a lot about uniting the nation while he was campaigning. That's basically bipartisanship coming out of Obama's mouth. It's not only a Republican talking point. It is interesting the Bush committed the same fallacy when he ran in '00. Remember him running around saying "a uniter not a divider". Yeah, right!

Boy, I could keep going on, but that's probably too much for a simple internet post already.

[CreekDog]

2. oh and by the way, thank you for these talking points, normally I can't get them here:

:eyes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=86528&mesg_id=86559 (Republicans lost cause they spent too much)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=77282&mesg_id=77744 (Don't blame Republicans for health care...health care not bipartisan enough)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=77194&mesg_id=77317 (Republicans for Medicare, Democrats against it)

[levander]

3. I hate partisan ranting on both sides...

That's why I made the Republicans for Medicare comment, it was sarcasm.

You don't think Republicans lost in part because they spent so much? I thought that was a given.

Me blaming Democrats for lack of bipartisanship in health care reform is an uncommon belief here. The Republicans in Congress are blaming the Democrats with whatever they can find. And, Democrats are blaming Republicans. But, I look at it, and with a straight party line vote, it wasn't the Republicans doing dirty deals, buying votes with my money. That was all the Democrats. And, you had the Healthy Americans Act that provided universal coverage and was a lot more fiscally responsible than the current bill sitting right there with bipartisan support, Democrats chose not to go that way. And, Democrats having control in Congress, they were the ones who made the decision which way to go. Yeah, there's lots of little things you could pick over, but with facts as general and obvious as this... None of these things are little tiny issues. They're much larger pieces of the pie. You look at those things and I don't know how you can't come to the conclusion that it was the Republicans decision to be partisan about it.

The crux of the argument that Republicans were too partisan seems to come from the idea that none of them voted for it. Hell, the Democrats had to buy off the moderate members of their own party to get them to vote for it. You think Republicans are going to vote for it?

They didn't vote for it because neither universal coverage nor regulation of the insurance industry is as big an issue in the Republican party. And, those are the only two good things about this bill. Everything else stinks like rotten eggs. This bill is an awful way to get those two things done.

[CreekDog]

5. you hate partisan ranting on both sides, then why only Republican talking points in this thread?

seriously. each and everything you are saying is the Republican argument. you aren't taking a little from the guys on the left and a little from the guys on the right.

i don't know if you are actually Republican but you are using this forum to make their points and doing it against Democratic initiatives.

you tell me what that means.

[levander]

6. But, none of it is simple name-calling...

None of it is just, "that's lefty, that's righty!" and acting like that's the end all and be all of the argument.

Thought is put into each point. I don't classify any of it as left or right. More generally, I'm a moderate leftist. But, there's a lot more that goes into it than that. Anyone's who's put real thought into political issues has some beliefs that agree more with the other side than their own. Hell, Bill O'Reilly is on Fox News bragging about the few liberal beliefs he has. And, how that makes him an independent and not a Republican. Come one! A couple of issues here and there... He's still a conservative.

I've applied labels to none of what I've said. That's what you've done.

And, I could see being someone for the health care bill, you'd read what I'm saying and consider it more left than right.

Bitching about the deficit is probably something that's sounds conservative. And, years ago I was less concerned about it. But, that irresponsible neigher-do-well, George Bush, has elevelate that problem to such an extent, that it's now a much more important issue that transcends party politics. I bet DU becomes more and more savvy as to the significance of this issue once Obama starts pounding on it. He's made several comments as deficit reduction is going to be one of his biggest efforts next on the agenda. I bet I don't sound so conservative to you once Obama starts harping on that. And, believe me, I am looking forward to being able to agree with the president more than I do now!

Or maybe, you'll just lump me AND Obama in with the Republicans?... ;(

Next time I do this thread, I'm not gonna quote someone who in addition to being a horribly wise man, sought after a degree of deregulation that was just ridiculous. That was his folly, and I stood in awe when he delivered his mia culpa in front of the Senate after the credit crisis materialized. Even he realized how wrong he was about the extent he took deregulation. Next time I'll be quoting some well known liberal. I bet then DU takes it more seriously. And doesn't just simply dismiss it as "Republican talking points".

[Orsino]

7. Because we know that greater participation by Republicans is sure to lower the deficit.

:eyes: for the "both sides" tell.

[CreekDog]

9. as David Broder would surely tell you

:eyes: :boring:

[johnaries]

10. Greenspan: "I was wrong."

Greenspan has been discredited. Most economists that the problem is the economy and support increasing the deficit in order to stimulate the economy. Once the economy improves, government revenues will increase WITHOUT increased taxes.

HCR is important because it controls costs for both consumers and the government and lowers the deficit in the long run.

How's your tea? :hi: