US Debt Negotiations Collapse

Sierra Oscar

The debt negotiations between the Republicans and the White House administration, aimed at increasing the debt ceiling limit for the US to allow the nation to continue servicing its debts, have collapsed tonight. The Republicans are holding firm against any tax increases being included as part of a deal to increase the debt ceiling.

The US is on course to default on its debt on August 2nd.

House Speaker Boehner Withdraws From Debt Talks

House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner broke off talks with President Barack Obama on Friday and said he will begin negotiations with Senate leaders aimed at meeting an Aug. 2 deadline to avert an unprecedented U.S. debt default.

nesf

Moved.

jank

The republican far-right have put themselves in a corner they cannot get out of. Obama was offering $3 in cuts for every $1 raised in taxes. This is what you get when the party of No comes to power. No ideas and no compromises.

Overheal

Pomp and Theater. Whats on telly?

matthew8

jank wrote: »

The republican far-right have put themselves in a corner they cannot get out of. Obama was offering $3 in cuts for every $1 raised in taxes. This is what you get when the party of No comes to power. No ideas and no compromises.

Champione! Champione! Olè! Olè! Olè! Woo hoo! Yippee!

The US is back to reality! Marvellous news!

The republicans were elected to massively lower spending and not raise taxes a cent. The GOP - The party of keeping promises.

Superb! Superb!

66% of GOP voters wanted NO COMPROMISE. Democracy has worked!

Balanced budget all the way!

Time to celebrate!

sunssocks

the country for good.... I think it will be very hard to gain any improvement in fiscal stuff. so much improvement in the economy relied on money printing. and there is not much else politicians can still do to make look things a little less bad

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

Champione! Champione! Olè! Olè! Olè! Woo hoo! Yippee!

The US is back to reality! Marvellous news!

The republicans were elected to massively lower spending and not raise taxes a cent. The GOP - The party of keeping promises.

Superb! Superb!

66% of GOP voters wanted NO COMPROMISE. Democracy has worked!

Balanced budget all the way!

Time to celebrate!

What good is a balanced budget when you have a great depression?
Also not increasing the debt ceiling will increase interest rates and be more expensive then raising it.

There is no way it won't be raised. Just the poor the sick and veterans will be paying instead of the richest people on earth. Sickening.

matthew8

Why borrow money when you are already in debt? Basically no debt deal means they don't borrow money for the budget, wonderful news.

sunssocks

too many tax cuts for the rich? too many wars at the same time? too much taking care to create a world trade benefitting USA through creating a service economy and shifting industry abroad...

many people now would love to have the old dirty jobs that are now all in cheap labour countries. by the way, do does it come, that they got there?

who made this possible? who worked towards that companies can produce where worrkers are paid cheapest? who told us thhis will be just fine for us?

Overheal

Regardless of whether they raise the ceiling, it's ridiculous they can't come to an agreement about 3:1 cuts:taxes. Exactly how do two thirds of GOP voters expect to resolve a $15 Trillion Debt? Bear in mind 51% of Americans don't pay any income taxes at all, and plenty of them get money back. Myself included.

jank

matthew8 wrote: »

Why borrow money when you are already in debt? Basically no debt deal means they don't borrow money for the budget, wonderful news.

Yes, default is wonderful news! Christ even Bill o'Reilly was harping on about the tea party growing the **** up when it came to making big decisions that may not be popular with the base. A balanced approach is what is needed and the polls show this to be the case. They also show that more people blame the GOP for the current impasse then the Democrats. This is what you get when a fringe group comes to power.

Id expect Boehner and co to scurry back to the table in the next couple of days and harp on about hard fought concessions. LOL.

Sticky_Fingers

This is a ridiculous situation, they are willing to risk giving the world economy a strong kick in the nuts in the name of political posturing. The republicans need to cop on to themselves, the US debt needs to be addressed but in order to do so they need to buy time by accepting the deal.
No doubt Obama will be blamed for all of this if the US defaults, the republicans will play the victim and deny all responsibility while encouraging the masses to burn Obama in effigy. Whats worst is they probably will get away with it too .

Denerick

At this stage I want the US to default, and by extension bring on the collapse of the global economy and a new age of anarchism. We have seen over the past twenty years how absurd American politics has become, how a nation of gullible child like citizens can tear apart the long term fiscal structure of a nation simply because they would like to have 'lower taxes'. This insane selfishness, which is not compensated for by a corollorary reduction in spending (These same people like their social spending as much as any socialist European) was probably tolerable when all it meant was that their grandchildren would suffer in poverty and silence. But now it has come to a head, and the American populace, so consumed by their own greed, the worst excesses of capitalism, and deranged by the ravings of far right populists, are simply incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions.

It is not an exaggeration to say that America is a great Empire in decline. It is an inevitability. This profound stupidity it is currently engaging in is hastening that decline, and rather than make it straggled out and genteel, it has decided to go down with guns blazing, tearing everything connected to it.

Red Hand

Denerick wrote: »

At this stage I want the US to default, and by extension bring on the collapse of the global economy and a new age of anarchism.

And that's what you want? Looting, pillaging etc? Great...

Denerick

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

And that's what you want? Looting, pillaging etc? Great...

I'm feeling a bit misanthropic at the moment

Sticky_Fingers

Denerick wrote: »

At this stage I want the US to default, and by extension bring on the collapse of the global economy and a new age of anarchism.

It is not an exaggeration to say that America is a great Empire in decline. It is an inevitability. This profound stupidity it is currently engaging in is hastening that decline, and rather than make it straggled out and genteel, it has decided to go down with guns blazing, tearing everything connected to it.

I can pretty much guarantee that one week into your anarchist dystopia you will be eating your words while the rest of us are collectively p!ssing our pants.

Willing the world to be set alight and so you can watch it burn is not something any sane person would want.

Denerick

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

I can pretty much guarantee that one week into your anarchist dystopia you will be eating your words while the rest of us are collectively p!ssing our pants.

Willing the world to be set alight and so you can watch it burn is not something any sane person would want.

Ah, but the fires! They would burn so bright!

Ok, ok, I'll stop now.

matthew8

I still ask, why borrow money for your budget? Also, the de-facto republican slogan is "no compromise", that's what their voters voted for.

kev9100

matthew8 wrote: »

I still ask, why borrow money for your budget? Also, the de-facto republican slogan is "no compromise", that's what their voters voted for.

Well if thats the case, then the GOP has officially become the party of the stupid. If you want to be in government, you have to compromise.

matthew8

kev9100 wrote: »

Well if thats the case, then the GOP has officially become the party of the stupid. If you want to be in government, you have to compromise.

Not in a 2 party state. Through this no compromise strategy the republicans have already made huge gains in negotiations.

jank

matthew8 wrote: »

Not in a 2 party state. Through this no compromise strategy the republicans have already made huge gains in negotiations.

You know this is an oxymoron?

Denerick

matthew8 wrote: »

Not in a 2 party state. Through this no compromise strategy the republicans have already made huge gains in negotiations.

Such as what? Bring the world economy to heel? Definitively prove that America is a Great Empire in decline and incapable of behaving rationally?

I'm coming round to the idea that the tea partiers and the Republican party are a fifth column of the Chinese or something. None of this makes any sense.

Dotsie~tmp

When nobody is buying your debt but you it becomes an exercise in printing. This is a fight over whether to run the presses. Whats been injected so far? 2 trillion mostly on the feds balance-sheet? For junk assets that will never recoup a fraction of these "bailouts". This is a debt crisis thats been built over decades by left & right and the fed is out of ammo.

matthew8

Denerick wrote: »

Such as what? Bring the world economy to heel? Definitively prove that America is a Great Empire in decline and incapable of behaving rationally?

I'm coming round to the idea that the tea partiers and the Republican party are a fifth column of the Chinese or something. None of this makes any sense.

Empires in decline don't load more debt onto themselves. What doesn't make sense about not borrowing while 14 trillion dollars in debt? It seems perfectly logical.

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

When nobody is buying your debt but you it becomes an exercise in printing. This is a fight over whether to run the presses. Whats been injected so far? 2 trillion mostly on the feds balance-sheet? For junk assets that will never recoup a fraction of these "bailouts". This is a debt crisis thats been built over decades by left & right and the fed is out of ammo.

Thank you for talking sense.

jank wrote: »

You know this is an oxymoron?

Nope.

Example: I negotiate the price of something with a seller. The price is 100 euro and I want to get it down to 60 euro. I do not compromise on my demands, though negotiating.

jank

matthew8 wrote: »

Example: I negotiate the price of something with a seller. The price is 100 euro and I want to get it down to 60 euro. I do not compromise on my demands, though negotiating.

Yes but the seller can also refuse to sell you that service/product for 60 euro. If the price is too low they can tell you **** off and you are left with nothing to buy. If nobody comprimised then nobody would sell or but anything. A "No comprimise" strategy has so far worked for the GOP but huge damage has been done and now is the time for them to comprimise....

The problem here is that the republicans especially the tea party fringe have stated for months now that there must be NO new tax rises at all and NO move on the debt celling.... those positions are untenable because the markets will call that bluff!

As I said, Obama has offered up alot on the table but the "No comprimise" strategy or should I say idiocy of the GOP is now threating the entire global economy. When you have right wing senators and commentators calling for the the GOP to wake the **** up, take whats on the table, give a little and go home with a victory you have to sit up and take notice.

matthew8

jank wrote: »

Yes but the seller can also refuse to sell you that service/product for 60 euro. If the price is too low they can tell you **** off and you are left with nothing to buy. If nobody comprimised then nobody would sell or but anything. A "No comprimise" strategy has so far worked for the GOP but huge damage has been done and now is the time for them to comprimise....

The problem here is that the republicans especially the tea party fringe have stated for months now that there must be NO new tax rises at all and NO move on the debt celling.... those positions are untenable because the markets will call that bluff!

As I said, Obama has offered up alot on the table but the "No comprimise" strategy or should I say idiocy of the GOP is now threating the entire global economy. When you have right wing senators and commentators calling for the the GOP to wake the **** up, take whats on the table, give a little and go home with a victory you have to sit up and take notice.

If you are 14 trillion dollars in debt it is a ridiculous idea to borrow even more money. It is truly bizarre that in this day and age people calling for a balanced budget are "extreme" and that people who want to add to 14 trillion dollars of debt are "moderate".

Amerika

President Obama has portrayed himself as a pathological liar in the debt deal. The mainstream media is complacent, verging on dishonesty, and just touting the Democratic party line. And the intellectually deficient foolishly buy it all hook-line-and-sinker.

Thank god there are resources to discover the truth, in order to counter the trilogy of amorality.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/24/curl-is-obama-a-pathological-liar/?page=all#pagebreak

Rowley Birkin QC

Amerika wrote: »

President Obama has portrayed himself as a pathological liar in the debt deal. The mainstream media is complacent, verging on dishonesty, and just touting the Democratic party line. And the intellectually deficient foolishly buy it all hook-line-and-sinker.

Thank god there are resources to discover the truth, in order to counter the trilogy of amorality.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/24/curl-is-obama-a-pathological-liar/?page=all#pagebreak

I stopped reading at "plain ol' folk".

Amerika

Rowley Birkin QC wrote: »

I stopped reading at "plain ol' folk".

Of course you did.

Manic Moran

I'd be curious to know some of the larger details. If they refused to raise the taxes -and- close the gazillions of dollars' worth of tax loopholes, that's one thing. But if all those loopholes were on the table, the Republican position may not have been so bad.

NTM

loldog

matthew8 wrote: »

It is truly bizarre that in this day and age people calling for a balanced budget are "extreme" and that people who want to add to 14 trillion dollars of debt are "moderate".

It would be bizarre except that some of those people will not accept the raising of taxes as part of the budget balancing process, purely on ideological grounds. That is extremism. The US is becoming a failed state, the political process seems broken beyond repair, thanks in no small part to the Murdoch media.

If I were Obama, I would not run for a second term. Being POTUS is the worst job in the world now. Who would want to go down in history as the incumbent President when the country collapses?

.

matthew8

loldog wrote: »

It would be bizarre except that some of those people will not accept the raising of taxes as part of the budget balancing process, purely on ideological grounds. That is extremism. The US is becoming a failed state, the political process seems broken beyond repair, thanks in no small part to the Murdoch media.

If I were Obama, I would not run for a second term. Being POTUS is the worst job in the world now. Who would want to go down in history as the incumbent President when the country collapses?

.

I wish we could have a sensible debate on the debt ceiling here rather than constant insulting of the republicans. The thing is, and I have said this many times before, they were democratically elected to stop Obama raising taxes.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

President Obama has portrayed himself as a pathological liar in the debt deal. The mainstream media is complacent, verging on dishonesty, and just touting the Democratic party line. And the intellectually deficient foolishly buy it all hook-line-and-sinker.

Actually the media seems pretty clear that in many polls, Americans want a balanced approach to the budget which includes both spending cuts and tax increases.

If that happens to be the Democratic party line (edit: and it is, see gallup below), then they're the ones who have it right this time around.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Actually the media seems pretty clear that in many polls, Americans want a balanced approach to the budget which includes both spending cuts and tax increases.

If that happens to be the Democratic party line, then they're the ones who have it right this time around.

Hmmmm... The most recent Gallup poll indicates the majority of Americans don't want the debt-ceiling limit raised at all. How often have you seen that poll touted by the media?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148454/Debt-Ceiling-Increase-Remains-Unpopular-Americans.aspx

Sticky_Fingers

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmmm... The most recent Gallup poll indicates the majority of Americans don't want the debt-ceiling limit raised at all. How often have you seen that poll touted by the media?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148454/Debt-Ceiling-Increase-Remains-Unpopular-Americans.aspx

Your comment is misleading:

From the article linked:

This measure reflects public opinion about raising the debt ceiling in the abstract. The question wording did not mention the rationales for or against raising the debt ceiling, nor did it explain that any such move would ultimately be a part of a broader budget bill involving spending cuts and perhaps tax increases

The people polled were asked were they in favour of raising the debt ceiling in isolation, without any spending cuts or tax increases to tackle the budget deficit.

If I asked people would they in favour of radiation poisoning they would say absolutely not, that would not mean they would not be willing to suffer from it's effects if it was a byproduct of chemotherapy to treat cancer.

Amerika

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Your comment is misleading:

From the article linked:

The people polled were asked were they in favour of raising the debt ceiling in isolation, without any spending cuts or tax increases to tackle the budget deficit.

If I asked people would they in favour of radiation poisoning they would say absolutely not, that would not mean they would not be willing to suffer from it's effects if it was a byproduct of chemotherapy to treat cancer.

At least I produced sources. And how exactly were the polls "asked" -- that support the supposed "balanced approach" that is being touted?

But I stand my ground on the fact that the media has not reported much at all on the poll I noted. Just more support on my contention that they are in the tank for Obama and the Democrats, and why the media is no longer "trusted."

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmmm... The most recent Gallup poll indicates the majority of Americans don't want the debt-ceiling limit raised at all. How often have you seen that poll touted by the media?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148454/Debt-Ceiling-Increase-Remains-Unpopular-Americans.aspx

Oh look, just 2 clicks away:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148562/Americans-Including-Republicans-Debt-Compromise.aspx



and

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/Deficit-Americans-Prefer-Spending-Cuts-Open-Tax-Hikes.aspx



Independents and Democrats want a mixed approach; only Republicans seem to favor Only cuts, (26%), barely beating other Republicans who want a mixed approach (24%)

Sticky_Fingers

Amerika wrote: »

At least I produced sources. And how exactly were the polls "asked" -- that support the supposed "balanced approach" that is being touted?

Fair point, I too would like to see trusted polls that ask the people whether they are in favour/against the White House cut and tax plan.

Well there you go, Overheal has provided the answer, 57% of republicans want a deal even if its something they dislike as opposed to 35% who are for holding out, consequences be damned.

Overheal

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Fair point, I too would like to see trusted polls that ask the people whether they are in favour/against the White House cut and tax plan.

produced.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

produced.

Big difference between "compromise" and "balanced approach."

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Big difference between "compromise" and "balanced approach."

Perhaps you could care to explain your version of both, I am a semantics nazi myself. To me they are the same in this circumstance. Republicans want entitlement cuts and all this other stuff. The Democrats want to raise revenue as well. Aren't both logical and indeed more logical if done in concert? But the Democrats won't agree to a plan without taxes and the Republicans won't agree to a plan with them. Your version of compromise seems to be that the Republicans get what they want. If the Republicans compromise, the Balanced Approach gets taken, which involved entitlement and other cuts, as well as revenue increases.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Perhaps you could care to explain your version of both, I am a semantics nazi myself. To me they are the same in this circumstance. Republicans want entitlement cuts and all this other stuff. The Democrats want to raise revenue as well. Aren't both logical and indeed more logical if done in concert? But the Democrats won't agree to a plan without taxes and the Republicans won't agree to a plan with them. Your version of compromise seems to be that the Republicans get what they want. If the Republicans compromise, the Balanced Approach gets taken, which involved entitlement and other cuts, as well as revenue increases.

Cut, Cap and Balance is a compromise, because the debt-ceiling will be raised to support Obama’s spending addiction, and keeps our rating intact. Increased revenues with a bit deeper cuts as our debt spirals out of control might appear on surface to be a balanced approach… That is until you look at history where Democrats take immediate revenues from tax increases and lets a future Congress try and come up with the cuts --which never happens (remember the "balanced approach" tried by George HW Bush, which cost him the election?).

matthew8

The main problem with American tax policy is the loopholes and tax breaks. I would hit these hard, while lowering corporation tax to 25% and gradually decreasing it further over a few years. I would destroy many double taxes, things like the inflation tax and tax on bartender's tips. I would not be totally opposed to raising income tax on the rich. They could easily save hundreds of billions with little pain by cutting military expenditure by 60%. Medicare, medicaid and Obamacare can also be hit heavily. Senators Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Jim DeMint introduced a balanced budget plan recently.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Cut, Cap and Balance is a compromise, because the debt-ceiling will be raised to support Obama’s spending addiction, and keeps our rating intact. Increased revenues with a bit deeper cuts as our debt spirals out of control might appear on surface to be a balanced approach… That is until you look at history where Democrats take immediate revenues from tax increases and lets a future try and come up with the cuts (which never happens).

In which instances was that? And which plan is on the table which averts Default without raising the debt ceiling? And what stops a budget proposal from immediately installing the increased revenues into paying down our obligations?

Overheal

matthew8 wrote: »

The main problem with American tax policy is the loopholes and tax breaks. I would hit these hard, while lowering corporation tax to 25% and gradually decreasing it further over a few years. I would destroy many double taxes, things like the inflation tax and tax on bartender's tips. I would not be totally opposed to raising income tax on the rich. They could easily save hundreds of billions with little pain by cutting military expenditure by 60%. Medicare, medicaid and Obamacare can also be hit heavily. Senators Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Jim DeMint introduced a balanced budget plan recently.

I don't know why a cut to bartenders tax is all that important (unless you're a bartender) - as for Captial Gains tax, have a read and let me know your opinion:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/19/grover-norquist/grover-norquist-said-economy-has-grown-or-been-dam/

I think everyone is in agreement on loopholes though. Major tax reform needs to happen if not in this presidential term, then in the next.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

In which instances was that?

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/07/20/tax-cut-fraud/

And which plan is on the table which averts Default without raising the debt ceiling?

Who said anything about any plan not raising the debt ceiling?

And what stops a budget proposal from immediately installing the increased revenues into paying down our obligations?

Huh?

Overheal

Well you said "the debt-ceiling will be raised to support Obama’s spending addiction, and keeps our rating intact" as if there was some alternative, and that the only reason we were raising it was to satiate an itch the POTUS has for spending.

As for your link perhaps I'm having trouble reading it but I don't see where it supports your argument. Are there sources from the 90s that can explain in a little more detail exactly what cuts were proposed and if they ever materialized? I also dare to mention your source site seems a little... biased?

Huh?

I believed you were saying that they took the revenues and spent them on entitlements rather than paying down obligations. Perhaps I am mistaken.

cherryghost

I'm not quite so sharp on the US Politics/Economy but maybe someone can clear something up for me.

- Some proposals is to raise the debt ceiling by just under $1tr and spending cuts of up to $2.7tr.
- The IMF is urging not to make cuts that won't make an impact on US spending
- The debt heaped on in the last 12 months is close to $1.5tr

Surely no matter what happens, they'll have to cut things that will effect the US retail and spending? I've heard murmurs of a reduction in the military by up to $400bn, but surely that's not enough, not by a long shot. And also, a $1tr raise in the debt roof would just prove to be entirely useless? They'll reach that before next summer and there'll be more of this political nonsense. If anything they should enlarge it by a big margin in order to give themselves a longer amount of time to cut costs instead of boxing themselves in a corner with a timebomb?

matthew8

Overheal wrote: »

I don't know why a cut to bartenders tax is all that important (unless you're a bartender) - as for Captial Gains tax, have a read and let me know your opinion:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/19/grover-norquist/grover-norquist-said-economy-has-grown-or-been-dam/

I think everyone is in agreement on loopholes though. Major tax reform needs to happen if not in this presidential term, then in the next.

The thing is, I don't view tax as something you raise and decrease simply because of certain economic benefits. Why does the government have a right to your money because you earned it a certain way?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Well you said "the debt-ceiling will be raised to support Obama’s spending addiction, and keeps our rating intact" as if there was some alternative, and that the only reason we were raising it was to satiate an itch the POTUS has for spending.

Obama has increased the national debt by more $3 Trillion in his short term in office. Pretty much speaks for itself.

As for your link perhaps I'm having trouble reading it but I don't see where it supports your argument. Are there sources from the 90s that can explain in a little more detail exactly what cuts were proposed and if they ever materialized?

Hope this helps
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44706
For more information look up: The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Law (GRH), passed in 1985 mandating a balanced federal budget by 1991... and all it's revisions and changes.

I also dare to mention your source site seems a little... biased?

At least you said it kindly. The majority here on the Left usually attack the "Character" rather than the "Content." Get's a bit old if you ask me. And yeah it is biased... just like the majority of all other media sources. But even if it is biased, does that mean the content is wrong?

I believed you were saying that they took the revenues and spent them on entitlements rather than paying down obligations. Perhaps I am mistaken.

Nah... But entitlements or obligations... until changes are made, they're all debt owed right?

Overheal

Obama has increased the national debt by more $3 Trillion in his short term in office. Pretty much speaks for itself.

And bush raised it $4T during 7 increases, and in it wasn't until the last year of his Presidency that the economy really hit the fan. Whether it is/was spending addiction or necessity is debatable imo.

but even if it is biased, does that means the content is wrong?

No. But it does make it look far more conspicuous and scrupulous.

Nah... But entitlements or obligations... until changes are made, they're all debt owed right?

Indeed.

In which case and giving respect to the 90s, the only 2 part plan I see working is one that cuts spending now and schedules tax increases at a set date later, contingent on goals being reached on spending and/or entitlement cuts. Which means Dems have to wait on their taxes and Republicans have to renege on their pledge/commitment to no tax increases. They both lose something.