If The Tea Party Likes a Debt Plan, IT CANT PASS.

If Tea Party Likes a Debt Deal, It Can't Pass: Economist
Published: Wednesday, 27 Jul 2011 | 3:40 AM ET Text Size
By: Patrick Allen

As the high risk-game of chicken over raising the US debt ceiling draws closer to possible economic collision, one economist is warning that any deal that wins approval from the right-wing Tea Party movement will pass neither the Senate nor the president.

U.S. House Speaker Rep. John Boehner is struggling to find a solution to the debt showdown without alienating the powerful Tea Party faction of the Republican party.

“As the Tea Partiers are showing no indications of being willing to compromise at all, the only way a deal can be done is for moderate House Republicans—those who appreciate that default would be hugely damaging for the country—to side with Democrats to pass a bill that the Senate and the president can sign,” Ian Shepherdson, chief US economist at High Frequency Economics said in a research note on Wednesday.

As things stand, such a solution looks very unlikely in the coming days. The latest plan from House Speaker John Boehner needs revising following Congressional Budget Office experts warning it would not deliver on the spending cuts it claimed. That plan is likely to be voted on by Congress on Thursday.

US Downgrade Is Minor Compared to Threat of DefaultIf There's a Debt Deal, These Four Will Make It HappenWant 1950's Taxes? Accept 1950's Spending: Analyst
President Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff, Bill Daley, told CNBC on Tuesday that he is confident that some kind of plan will pass. The head of global sovereign ratings at S&P has told CNBC that the US could prioritize debt payments to avoid default but warned such action would be “deeply disruptive” to the US economy.

A problem for the Republican Party could be that the majority of Americans now back a debt ceiling plan that involves both spending cuts and tax hikes. A Reuters/Ipsos poll this week found that 56 percent of American’s favor a plan involving both cuts and tax increases.

“We had hoped by now that House Speaker Boehner would have started to recognize this reality, but press reports suggest that he focused on party solidarity in his conference call with Republican House members,” said Shepherdson.

“Perhaps the light bulb will come on when the inevitable pushback from voters becomes overwhelming. We can only hope that happens before August 2,” Shepherdson said.

Its clearly a fact that anything the Tea party favors will not pass. Its extreme right wing for the most part.

"I think the Tea Party movement should get the credit for elevating the debate about the debt limit to the national stage. We’ve raised the debt limit 10 times in the last nine years. In the last five years, we’ve almost tripled the amount of debt this country is holding. This has all been done relatively quietly while politicians have mortgaged our futures. So the fact that we’re having a spirited debate about this now is good for the nation and I think the Tea Party can take credit for it."

That's another perspective, and remember, these people do have votes in the house.........

Obama has been elevating the debt debate.
The tea party are extremists and what they support cant pass. They believe that not passing
a raise of the debt limit would be good for this country. It clearly would be devastating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

Obama has been elevating the debt debate.
The tea party are extremists and what they support cant pass. They believe that not passing
a raise of the debt limit would be good for this country. It clearly would be devastating.

---

No, the liberals are the extremists and support what they cannot pass.

Raising the debt limit would be "good" for the country? I wouldn't call it "good", but maybe the lesser of two evils.

No the tea party are the extremist and support what they cannot pass. LOL.

Obama supported a very centrist solution and that is why some Liberals were unhappy,
but interestingly he had the Democrats on board to pass his plan which would have resulted
in more deficit reduction than what will pass now. Extreme Republicans (seem to be more
and more your friends.:) opposed elimination of some tax subsidies and tax loopholes
which largely benefited the ultra wealthy. Since you say they were just bones thrown to the Liberals
and really wouldnt affect much, Im sure you had not problem with Obama's plan. Lmfao.

Raising the debt limit has ALWAYS happened and will always happen. Its not where the real fight is.
You seem to be confused. You did read the facts of the debt liimit article that i posted correct.

Siriiusly long is just so ideologically rigid that he cant even see or acknowledge that Obama was willing to negotiate and sign a very CENTRIST piece of legistlation (and he would have gotten the Dems to go along). Its just a fact.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43926716

Lost Amid Debt Talks: How 'Grand Bargain' Fell Apart
Published: Thursday, 28 Jul 2011 | 10:43 AM ET Text Size
By: Associated Press

Despite his image as a button-down Republican, House Speaker John Boehner walked to the brink of a dramatic and historic agreement to change the government's spending habits.

But as he twice approached a $4 trillion deficit-reduction deal with President Obama that would have rocked both parties' bases, Boehner was reeled back in by his caucus' conservative wing.

The muscular, tea party-fueled group not only forced him to abandon a "grand bargain" with Obama, it made him scramble Wednesday to secure the votes for a far more modest deficit-ceiling plan, which in turn is all but doomed in the Senate.

The events highlight the limits of power for an experienced and well-liked politician who has struggled to budge his caucus' staunchest conservatives despite constantly reminding them that their party doesn't control the Senate or White House.

"The problem with leadership is it has to be conjoined with follower-ship," Duke University political scientist David Rohde said. "Boehner is not in a position to give orders to his members."

A grand bargain might have passed, with scores of Democratic votes replacing GOP dissenters, Rohde said. But it also could have put Boehner's speakership in jeopardy.

No matter how the White House and Congress handle next week's expiration of the government's borrowing power , the messy finish will make it easy to forget that Boehner and Obama once stood on the precipice of a daring compromise.



While never completed, the general outlines would have cut spending by about $3 trillion over 10 years. It would have started reining in Medicare and Social Security benefits, and raised tax revenues by $800 billion or more.

Both men knew the tax component would be the toughest sell for Boehner, whose party has raised the "no new taxes" mantra to near-religious status.

In turn, however, liberals would have shrieked at Obama's willingness to curb entitlement programs and severely trim other government programs, changes that Boehner could have touted as a remarkable GOP victory.

"There was always a desire to go forward with as large a package as possible that would deal with the underlying structural challenges that face the entitlement systems," a top House leadership aide told reporters at a Friday briefing after the deal collapsed. "We thought we could get to significant entitlement and tax changes."

Boehner, a mainstream conservative from Ohio, would have insisted that the changes were not "tax increases." That's a familiar semantics game in Washington. It would emphasize a freeze or even reduction in most tax rates while drawing attention away from an overall growth in tax revenues, thanks largely to eliminating loopholes and subsidies.

The grand bargain would have been a heavy lift in both parties. Perhaps it never could have passed the Democratic-controlled Senate or GOP-controlled House.

But administration and House insiders say Obama and Boehner came remarkably close to a handshake deal, even though neither man is reputed to be a great risk-taker.

"The space between us had narrowed to very, very little," a top White House official told reporters Friday.

No, the liberals are the extremists demanding more of our earnings. I have a family to raise. I have personal responsibility to my family, and I take it seriously.

I appreciated the fact that Obama came off of the left for the discussions. I really do. The fact remains that 1% of all income earners pay 38% of all income tax. It's enough. Period. Don't bother arguing this fact. I know you and your kind thurst for more, but enough already. Cut spending. Stop living beyond your means.

If you take all the millionaire's and billionaie's and CONFISCATE all their wealth, you would knock down the debt <10% for that year only. We'd still be left with 10's of trillions of dollar's of debt with "the rich" being unable to pony up the 38% they had been supplying. Great idea, no? It's all a big talking point for the left to get votes and stay in power. gThe rich, oil companies, CEO's are easy targets for the left to use for their means of staying in power.

By the way, the bottom 50% pay nothing. Just look at my little picture to the left to be reminded.

AH so now you finally acknowledge that Obama was in the middle. Damn that took days of catching you in some
false statements to finally get you to say a simple nice thing about him. But of course you had to say that "he came off the left". Silly. The left knows all too well that Obama is a moderate.

Nope. Once again you got it wrong. Obama has lowered taxes. They are the lowerst in MANY years.
On top of that the debt plan he favored would have LOWERED all income tax rates in exchange for closing
certain loopholes that mostly favor the ultra wealthy.

You seem to argue a lot for not changing the tax laws to affect the wealthy. The interesting thing is that you rarely talk
about how Republcian plans would affect the middle class. I think you forget just how good our economy was under Clinton
and Reagan when tax rates were higher but fairer.
No one is talikng about CONFISCATING wealth. Thats an exaggerated and rigid comment that doesnt allow for a real discussion.
Its a Tea Party talking point. Sorry you keep reaching for it over and over and over again.

Once again we hear Republican and Tea Party talking points. Boring.
You arent saying the bottom 50% dont pay ANY taxes are you? Thats another Republican trick which tries to pretend they pay nothing. Semantics matter. Be more specific and honest please.

Do you think a family of four should pay income taxes if they earn $30,000 a year? Do you think thats a salary that
can support a family of four.? Last time we argued this you acknowledged it made no sense for them to pay income tax on so little.


What you seeem to forget is that the wealthy have ways to escape taxes. Those 50% NOT SO MUCH.
Remember your obsession about accountants? LOL>

If closing loopholes for the very wealthy would do very little then why are they being fought so fiercely by the Republicans
Its just part of the puzzle. No one is saying it is ALL.

Check this out.

Clinton spent $547 Million per day.

Bush spent $1.6 Billion per day.

Obama has spent $4.1 Billion per day.

No, the bottom 50% of income earners pay no compulsory income tax. The top 1% covers 38% of them. The next 5% cover the rest and then some. And here you want more. Talk about inequality.................. Talk about fairness........... We all pay other "non compulsory" taxes - cigarettes, gasoliine, goods.... but not food and clothing (unless you eat out).

Yes, Obama did reduce my taxes as part of the stimulus package. Now the fight is on to keep them from going back up. I'd prefer to invest my earnings myself and stimulate my own local economy.

The point about "confiscation" was to demonstrate the size of the problem. Liberals sense of "fairness" is one thing , but solving the problem is another. I'm sorry you need it explained and understand it as a tea party talking point, but that's your shortcoming, not mine. Anyone who graduates film school should be able to get the point; that is, unless you did get the point, but wanted to somehow turn it around with rhetoric??

Yes, we should all pay some income tax.

The weathly escape taxes?? Hmmm, let's see. The top 1% of income tax earners pay 38% of all compulsory income taxes. How's that escaping??

You may recall that I have shown indiffernce to taxing the rich. I don't really care. I fiind it odd that liberals focus on it, and I find it unbelievable that the democrats may allow default because of it.

Back to the original statistics presented. It is not a revenue problem; it is a spending problem.

What is a more profound question is why is far left so fiercely fighting to tax the wealthy? You know the answer. They use this tactic to incite emotion and anger of people in order to get their votes and stay in power. It is so corrupt. Demogoguery is what it is.