Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Economy

Disputes, Distrust Dashed Deal

2011-07-23

But serious disputes remained. Boehner's aides said the White House had upped its demands on taxes. From $800 billion, it wanted to add $400 billion in revenue, staffers said.
Bad Boner! Didn't recognize a good deal from His Majesty?
And, GOP staffers said, there was a dispute over a "trigger" inserted into the law. This was a provision intended to make sure the two sides kept their promises to return, after raising the debt ceiling, and reform the tax code and entitlement spending.

Boehner's aides wanted something that would be painful for Democrats, to be sure they followed through. They suggested a trigger that would repeal two cherished elements of the health-care law: the individual mandate to purchase health insurance and a special board tasked with monitoring Medicare spending.
I guess they're going to have to wait until after 2012 to drive a stake thru the heart of Obamacare?
Obama's staff said he wouldn't agree to put those two provisions in the trigger. And Obama said he wouldn't accept such large cuts to Medicare if Boehner wouldn't accept that additional $400 billion in tax revenue.
But the Trunks are to blame. At the WaPo site, I voted for Obama as the biggest obstacle to a deal, but of those WaPo readers who voted 40% blamed Boehner and 44% blamed House Leader Cantor. Only 12% blamed The Surrealistic Spinner and His Marvelous Media./span>

Posted by:Bobby

#9 We had a deal but it fell through. It's ~~Bush's~~ Boehner's fault it fell through.

Posted by: JohnQC 2011-07-23 20:04

#8 I strongly suggest everybody here read George Reisman's "The Government Against the Economy". It was written based on the follies of the 70s, but the stupidity and principles remain exactly the same.

It had better get fixed very very soon. We're running out of time. Or else it ends awfully badly for all of us, for civilization.

Posted by: Shereter Poodle9774 2011-07-23 19:29

#7 The US has a GDP of $14.66 trillion dollars. Only a stock of $1.7 trillion.
The US Federal Government takes $4 trillion right off of the top of that every year. And that's not enough to fund all of the stupid experiments they already have.

For every dollar in the government is a dollar not in the true economy. In fact, for every dollar - the activity the government conducts is detrimental to what we need to grow and thrive.

Our economy in the US exists in spite of the massive government burden, not because of it.

Governance is not a toy. It is time for accountability.

Posted by: newc 2011-07-23 16:24

#6 All the 'spending cuts' the Democrats have spoken off are designed NEVER to take place, at some remote time, in the far future, and/or in an alternate reality. If you look at Dem-proposed spending cuts to be carried out this year, thain't none.
Obama is trying to keep up his shuck-and-jive economy until he gets re-elected. And don't think that isn't likely. AFAICT, the GOP has not been willing to make the same points I have been making, what are they waiting for?

Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-07-23 14:24

#5 an immediate rise in unemployment

which would be the end of Obama. From which we can infer that his unspecified $3-4 trillion in "spending cuts" are (1) wholly fictitious (2) an Enron-style accounting illusion or (3) so far in the future as to be irrelevant. Or all three.

Posted by: Matt 2011-07-23 12:32

#4 Every single thing the government gives out, it has to take from someone else. True, to a degree. The problem for those who advocate a spending cut is that this will cause an immediate drop in GDP and an immediate rise in unemployment. It's just mathematics: GDP = C + I + G + (X − M). Use Google to explain this to yourself.
The electorate would notice this eventually, and will tend to blame those who cut the spending. Economic growth, should it ever resume, would tend to restore GDP, but this takes a lot of time, which translates into suffering and discontent.
Those advocating a spending cut are pushing austerity. However, Obama's spending mania is leading the US off a cliff, which is always fun, until impact.

Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-07-23 12:16

#3 Obama is intransigent & bent on spending the US into disaster. The MSM is doing an outstanding job of covering up this fact.

Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-07-23 12:10

#2 Aside from the $650 billion in social services cuts, from delaying and reducing benefits, making the programs more sustainable (outgo closer to income) ...

Obama offered a billion - excuse me - a trillion in cuts for $1.2 trillion in new revenue. That's what it says. Read it again.

Who pays all this new revenue? Corporations? Doctors? Oil companies?

Where does ALL their income originate? You.

So Obama's extraordinary deal is a "cut" of adding "only $200 billion a year" in new taxes - ultimately paid by you, the consumer.

Every single thing the government gives out, it has to take from someone else. As long as you're feeling sorry for yourself and don't care a whit for anyone else, that is an extraordinary deal.

Posted by: Bobby 2011-07-23 09:39

#1 Just as I posted, I caught this - Obama said he wouldn't accept such large cuts to Medicare if Boehner wouldn't accept that additional $400 billion in tax revenue.

So Obama is selling out Medicare? Again?

Posted by: Bobby 2011-07-23 08:12

00:00