House GOP revolts against Boehner plan

[SMOKE 1,426]

Wrong again. He's offered several approaches. A clean increase as it has been passed time and again by the Congress regardless of the party in the majority and regardless of the party holding the White House. It was routine as it should be since not a penny is added to the deficit as a result of that debt ceiling increase. He offered an approach where the deficit would be cut some 4 trillion dollars or thereabout in exchange for a debt ceiling increase that ensures stability and certainty to the credit markets and hence the economy. The GOP has rejected both of these approaches and the ball is in their court. It's not at all reasonable to believe that a deal that couldn't be agreed to at the beginning of the legislative session can be accomplished closer to election time. Anyone claiming that that is possible is lying or utterly ignorant of the political realities. This hostage taking of the debt ceiling, the credit rating and the economy both here and globally has to stop if the economy is ever to recover in any meaningful way. The GOP is standing in the way of that - purposely. They will own whatever consequences their inability to govern brings to this country. You may think otherwise but that just puts you into this small nutty minority out in the country.

thanks for proving you have your head shoulder deep up obama. the correct answer is ALL of them are to blame. they are ALL playing chicken w/ our economy. and if the US defaults or gets a downgrade WE will suffer. none of them will.

[mawilson 2,133]

Oh yeah- entitlement spending is nearly twice!! Wow.

Interesting that even in this crappy #### economy we are bringing in more revenue than most of the 90s, so there is certainly a point to be made that revenue isn't the problem.

Indeed. "We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem." Hmm, where did I hear that?

Of course, we could just raise taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" (or your average

250-thousandaire), and then do it again in 10 years and again and again...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How about in the pre-trillion dollar deficit era?

Bagels over the last four decades.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

thanks for proving you have your head shoulder deep up obama. the correct answer is ALL of them are to blame. they are ALL playing chicken w/ our economy. and if the US defaults or gets a downgrade WE will suffer. none of them will.

Not really. There are two separate issues that the GP decided to tie together. Obama has initially requested a clean debt ceiling increase. That should have passed and none of this would happened. The deficit reduction would still have been important enough an issue that neither Obama nor the Democrats could have avoided. The hostage taking is not Obama and not the Democrats. It's the tea party freaks. That's squarely on them. The public at large sees it that way and surely, the public at large isn't up Obama's. Try to live in the real world for a change. It might be an eye opening experience that you might be thankful for one day.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Interesting that even in this crappy #### economy we are bringing in more revenue than most of the 90s, so there is certainly a point to be made that revenue isn't the problem.

You should tell your boss that you should work for your 1993 salary since you can easily make spending adjustments.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Some people want to trim the fat.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Indeed. "We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem." Hmm, where did I hear that?

Tax revenues are under 15% of GDP today as opposed to 18%-19% on average. That's a 3%-4% gap on the revenue side. Expenditures are 24% today as opposed to 20%-21% on average. There's a 3%-4% on the expenditure side. Together, that's a 7% gap. 7% on $15 trillion is just over a trillion dollars worth of a deficit. Take that off the balance and you'll have a deficit in the range of $400 billion or less than 3% of GDP which, by most standards, is considered sustainable. Now, consider that the top tier of income earners have paid taxes at an effective rate of roughly 29% back in the 1990's. Today, their effective tax rate is just above 18%. Something's out of whack and it's not ONLY the spending. That's. Just. Not. True.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Some people want to trim the fat.

I do. Defense should be brought back to levels that at least resemble some sense of sanity. The GOP created and never funded federal homeland security bureaucracy should be scaled back significantly. We've got to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. And the spending through the tax code should be cut in half. That's easily $10 trillion worth of fat trimmed over the next decade. Sign me up.

[luckytxn 2,265]

lol I'm not fantasizing.

wait...that sounds even more wrong doesn't it.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

[dalegg 143]

You should tell your boss that you should work for your 1993 salary since you can easily make spending adjustments.

I believe the chart is adjusted for 2010 dollars.

Tax revenues are under 15% of GDP today as opposed to 18%-19% on average. That's a 3%-4% gap on the revenue side. Expenditures are 24% today as opposed to 20%-21% on average. There's a 3%-4% on the expenditure side. Together, that's a 7% gap. 7% on $15 trillion is just over a trillion dollars worth of a deficit. Take that off the balance and you'll have a deficit in the range of $400 billion or less than 3% of GDP which, by most standards, is considered sustainable. Now, consider that the top tier of income earners have paid taxes at an effective rate of roughly 29% back in the 1990's. Today, their effective tax rate is just above 18%. Something's out of whack and it's not ONLY the spending. That's. Just. Not. True.

Why do expenditures have to go up because the GDP increases?

[mawilson 2,133]

Why do expenditures have to go up because the GDP increases?

You are asking the right question.

Why should we keep government revenues at a certain percentage of GDP?

If we do that, why don't we do everything else as a GDP percentage?

Department of Defense? 19 percent and not 1c more.

Social Security? 21 percent and not 1c more.

Medicare? 13 percent and not 1c more.

Medicaid? 8 percent and not 1c more.

But we don't do that, do we?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why do expenditures have to go up because the GDP increases?

They have throughout history. Revenues, on average, have been 18.5% of GDP. Expenditures, on average, have been 20.5% of GDP. Now, revenues have dropped 3.5% below that average while expenditures have risen 3.5% above. That's the 7% gap from the deficit average we're looking at right now and any claim that this is a spending only problem is dishonest and ignores reality. It's really just that simple.

Look, I get it. Republican policy since the 1980's have been to "starve the beast". Rid the country of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. The policy goal has been to turn this country into a Banana Republic - a country with the richest elite in the world and their servants. Excuse me for not signing up for that vision for America. It's not the vision that this country was built on (quite the opposite actually), it's not the vision that made this country great and it certainly is not the vision that will regain the global leadership role this country once had. I think America is better than that.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

For the good of the country, if this issue really is that huge, they may well be politically intelligent in doing so.

The Repubs should take advice from Zero Sum and Sousuke. THAT's funny. They should do exactly what they were elected to do...STOP OBAMA and Democrats from doing what they want to do.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Wow.

The GOP have finally fractured. I kinda saw this coming....

Maybe moderate republicans will jump off the sinking boat and join Obama and the Dems.

[mawilson 2,133]

They have throughout history. Revenues, on average, have been 18.5% of GDP. Expenditures, on average, have been 20.5% of GDP. Now, revenues have dropped 3.5% below that average while expenditures have risen 3.5% above. That's the 7% gap from the deficit average we're looking at right now and any claim that this is a spending only problem is dishonest and ignores reality. It's really just that simple.

Look, I get it. Republican policy since the 1980's have been to "starve the beast". Rid the country of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. The policy goal has been to turn this country into a Banana Republic - a country with the richest elite in the world and their servants. Excuse me for not signing up for that vision for America. It's not the vision that this country was built on (quite the opposite actually), it's not the vision that made this country great and it certainly is not the vision that will regain the global leadership role this country once had. I think America is better than that.

I question the underlying assumption that Government should grow at the same rate as GDP.

At the same rate as population, perhaps, but GDP?