The Goat Pen

S&p will upgrade again to triple a before all's said and done. maybe when the cuts are automatically done when congress can't make it happen on there own and we are forced into automatic cuts. hopefully a deal will be made coupled with expiration of bush tax cuts to push us into a compromise of some sort that addresses medicare/social security etc. long term it has to happen then we get our rating s goes back up and stocks go up up up. somebody realized today and basically erased all the losses from yesterday that s&p reinstates the AAA in the future. I guess will blame the tea party for that too. btw I voted obama in 2008 and will likely vote obama in 2012. I just wish he'd never pushed thru the health care in 2009 and bush left prescription drugs alone. we can't afford it

I don't see S&P increasing the rating up for awhile since I think it was a political decision, not one based on the economics. I don't think that it'll have a longterm effect though unless they are joined by one of the other rating agencies.

Obama did have an opportunity to endorse the Simpson and Bowles plan in April- a plan put together by his own debt commission. This plan would have addressed revenue increases and supported a plan for Obamacare.


That plan called for a reduction of 4 trillion in a little over 10 years.

If I had to guess, I think that is where the S&P is pulling the 4 trillion number.

Why Obama chose to move toward a plan that would be deemed clearly democratic when the Simpson Bowles plan gave him the push button issues he wanted seems foolish in retrospect.

And the tea party folks didn't shock anyone with their stance in Washington, going back as early as March they were telling the GOP and Democrats that the debt ceiling was going to be a pivotal issue for them and they were going to demand caps and or a balanced budget.

Why congress waited until June or July to get serious about it when they had a plan to work from - if not agreed upon, at least crafted by both parties - AND they knew exactly what the tea party folks demanded is beyond me.

While I don't specifically blame Obama, blaming the tea party for doing in August what they said they were going to do in March does appear to be a deflection to me.

At a minimum you can say that is was an opportunity to lead squandered by Obama and arrogance on the part of the GOP to believe these guys would just fall in line once they applied pressure.

In a way I'm glad they didn't because this idea that if they don't get their way, they'll take their ball and go home isn't accurate. The issue is bigger than that, its an issue of politicians refusing to address the issues Americans demand because the political fallout is too great. While I"m not naive enough to say that Tea Party candidates don't want to be career politicians, they were sent to Washington to push for topics that keep politicians from getting re-elected - and we see the results of them pushing that agenda - gridlock, delay and chastising on the part of career politicians

I blame the tea-party for doing this with the debt limit, risking the financial standing of the United States, not because of their base standing. Although I want a compromise, I think all of this should have been done where it belongs, in the budget battle, not in deciding whether or not to pay your debts that have already been created.

Obama could just have agreed to whatever they wanted

and then we'd have our debt ceiling raised and would have satisfied S&P expectations of serious cuts.

Is his unwillingness to compromise on core beliefs more valid than theirs?

His unwillingness to compromise???? What are you talking about? He was willing to compromise, one of the reasons liberals were and are mad at him.

I'll point again: The Mother of All No-Brainers

from non-tea-party conservative David Brooks

Moreover, many important Democrats are open to a truly large budget deal. President Obama has a strong incentive to reach a deal so he can campaign in 2012 as a moderate. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has talked about supporting a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or even $4 trillion if the Republicans meet him part way. There are Democrats in the White House and elsewhere who would be willing to accept Medicare cuts if the Republicans would be willing to increase revenues.



Obama was willing to move to put entitlements no the table. What did the tea-party move on?

what did he compromise on - did he give up major spending cuts?

was he willing to give up revenue increases in exchange for major spending cuts?

People want to talk about how these guys were *willing* to compromise but the net result is that no one caved on their agenda for the better good of America.

The GOP didn't get their cuts, Obama didn't get his revenue increases and they agreed to a neutral stop gap

Did the Tea Party get their way? is there $500 billion in immediate cuts or a balanced budget amendment.

Seems to me there were alot of guys ready to take their ball and go home if they didn't get their way.

Obama opted out for more than a week once he realized his "tell your congressman" speech fell flat on getting results aimed at forcing the hand of the GOP to agree to a revenue increase.

and again - you can't ignore that Obama had a plan from his own debt commission that had republican input - in April - that he shelved.

You are all too willing to give Obama a free pass when a major issue is he whiffed on the understanding the severity of this issue early on (or at least had self serving motivations to ignore his own commission)

what did he compromise on - did he give up major spending cuts?

No, because he was willing to do it if the Republicans were willing to include some revenue (in a 4 to 1 ratio I add). You're talking about the end decision. The tea-party wasn't even willing to go along with Boehner's closing of some loopholes. They consider ending subsidies to the oil companies as tax increases.

You're using the end result as evidence of willingness to compromise. That's wrong. What was proposed during the negotiations? There is no doubt that there was much more willingness between Boehner and Obama than it was with the tea-party.

As for giving Obama a free pass? No. In fact, I think he caves way to early in negotiations. In virtually every negotiation he's had since he's President, he's caved significantly and early.

and again - you can't ignore that Obama had a plan from his own debt commission that had republican input - in April - that he shelved.

I am hardly ignoring it. It's a plan that was much more an immediate rapid reduction that was impossible to get through either branch of goverment and that shouldn't be talked about with the raising of the debt ceiling anyway - which is my basic point, none of this should have been connected to the raising of the debt ceiling. This was an artificial crisis that needlessly brought risk to the entire country.

You are already getting Clinton tax revenue starting in 2013. You have your benefit from a compromise already. What more do you want? If you want more revenue than that, spell out how that happens? I haven't seen anything material from the Dems how they want to raise even more revenue than Clinton did, even though he raised the most revenue of any President since WWII? Evidently, it's not enough for you...

Really getting tired of that line Sardis. It is fucking tired as shit, especially when you fucking know that the GOP will drive to have those tax cuts extended and accuse the Democrats of raising taxes if they don't get their way. Shut the fuck up about it until those cuts are gone. No one is buying your line.

There were two "fuckings" and one "fuck" in that post. Time to try decaf, Mook.

You are already getting Clinton tax revenue starting in 2013. You have your benefit from a compromise already.

Unless this is something the tea-party agreed to, I don't see it as any compromise. Plus, that is already calculated. The point was to reach 4 to 5 trillion in addition to already calculated spending and revenue. Thus, your assertion isn't part of this. Plus, you are leaving out the Obama tax cuts (yes, Obama has cut taxes since he was President).

Either way, I don't think any of this should be done with the debt ceiling (I agree with Moody's, this is something that should not even be voted on).

TheBigMook wrote:Really getting tired of that line Sardis. It is fucking tired as shit, especially when you fucking know that the GOP will drive to have those tax cuts extended and accuse the Democrats of raising taxes if they don't get their way. Shut the fuck up about it until those cuts are gone. No one is buying your line.

You have the Presidency, and the Senate. Those increases are in the hands of the Democratic Party. And if the public is so disgusted with thetea party then youhave no worries.

Owlman wrote:

You are already getting Clinton tax revenue starting in 2013. You have your benefit from a compromise already.

Unless this is something the tea-party agreed to, I don't see it as any compromise. Plus, that is already calculated. The point was to reach 4 to 5 trillion in addition to already calculated spending and revenue. Thus, your assertion isn't part of this. Plus, you are leaving out the Obama tax cuts (yes, Obama has cut taxes since he was President).

Either way, I don't think any of this should be done with the debt ceiling (I agree with Moody's, this is something that should not even be voted on).

You still haven't answered the question, how would you raise more revenue than Clinton did?

Add a tax bracket for income in excess of $1M.

(also, getting unemployment below 8%...and real unemployment closer to 13% would be the best option, too)

AlabamAlum wrote:There were two "fuckings" and one "fuck" in that post. Time to try decaf, Mook.

Fuck that noise.

Bklyn wrote:Add a tax bracket for income in excess of $1M.

(also, getting unemployment below 8%...and real unemployment closer to 13% would be the best option, too)

According to the CBO Adding a 50% bracket on income over $1 million would add about $30 billion a year in revenue assuming the taxpayer doesn't change his behavior because of those high rates...

Additional Revenue of est. $30B

That's because the majority of those making excessively over the $1M mark are only paying 15% tax rate because it's carried interest and classified as capital gains.

Some CEOs and ballplayers would be subject to it. The John Paulsons, David Einhorns and Paul T. Joneses of the world will still make 100s of millions of dollars in any given year and still pay lower a tax rate than their administrative assistants.

I don't think the rate should be 50%...much lower than that...but I do think carry should be treated like ordinary income