Obama and the tax cut issue

[Kobi]

I am getting a little concerned with how Obama is handling this issue. I am surprised at how he is spending so much time negotiating with the Republican leadership while seemingly ignoring his own party opposition in the House.

Given the coming changing of the guard come January, is this a prudent approach or an example of the Stockholm syndrome?

Discuss.

[atomiczombie]

I am SOOOOOO disappointed with prez Obama. I knew during the campaign that he wouldn't be able to keep every promise he made, cause thats the reality of all presidents. But come on, he is spineless! I can't imagine any issue he is willing to risk his presidency over.

On a happier note, Bernie Sanders led a Democrat filibuster of the proposed bill today. Check it out:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/10/5624383-holy-crow-its-an-actual-fillibuster

[MsDemeanor]

Don't get me started......there's a three page rant in my brain.

On the plus side, the 2012 Democratic presidential ticket is wide open, as it's become clear that Obama will be seeking re-election as a Republican.

[betenoire]

I am SOOOOOO disappointed with prez Obama. I knew during the campaign that he wouldn't be able to keep every promise he made, cause thats the reality of all presidents. But come on, he is spineless! I can't imagine any issue he is willing to risk his presidency over.

On a happier note, Bernie Sanders led a Democrat filibuster of the proposed bill today. Check it out:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/10/5624383-holy-crow-its-an-actual-fillibuster

I'm watching it live right now. It's kinda sexy.

linkyloo (http://cspan.org/Watch/C-SPAN2.aspx)

[MsTinkerbelly]

I'm watching it live right now. It's kinda sexy.

linkyloo (http://cspan.org/Watch/C-SPAN2.aspx)

I watched an interview Racheal Maddow did with Senator Sanders a week or so ago; I would vote for him if he ran for President! He has a whole lot of common sense that most of them seem to be lacking these days.

[betenoire]

I watched an interview Racheal Maddow did with Senator Sanders a week or so ago; I would vote for him if he ran for President! He has a whole lot of common sense that most of them seem to be lacking these days.

Plus his accent is kind of sexy. ;)

No seriously, I'm loving his accent. I'm still watching. Oh, and he does make sense and isn't a jackass.

(I'll probably mute cspan for a few minutes so I can watch him on Maddow, though.)

[dreadgeek]

I am getting a little concerned with how Obama is handling this issue. I am surprised at how he is spending so much time negotiating with the Republican leadership while seemingly ignoring his own party opposition in the House.

Given the coming changing of the guard come January, is this a prudent approach or an example of the Stockholm syndrome?

Discuss.

I think that Obama is demonstrating the advanced stages of Battered-Democrat-Syndrome. In year one, I had thought--as it turns out mistakenly--that Obama was some kind of political jujitsu master and that he would allow the GOP to to demonstrate just how uncooperative they were being and then, just when they were getting cocky, toss them over his shoulder with a flip of the wrist all the time looking serene. That is not what I’m seeing. Rather, I'm seeing him capitulate to the GOP time and time again. What's worse is that he does it before negotiations.

My understanding of compromise was that you give up something you want and I give up something I want and we meet in the middle. But that's not what Obama is doing. Instead, he gives up *everything* he wants and gets nothing in return. Hell, the Republicans turn their noses up at their OWN plans if Obama adopted them.

Now, I've read two op-eds basically saying that all of us liberals who aren't Obama, Larry Summers or Tim Geitner don't understand that Obama won. But if this is a win, I'm not sure what defeat would look like.

Cheers
Aj

[katsarecool]

Being the President is the hardest job in the world!!! That said, I stand behind President Obama in his decision. Why you ask? The behaviors of the Republicans in the last few weeks especially will without a doubt bite them in the ass in 2012.

Republicans have flat out said they would not be renewing Federal Unemployment for the nine million Americans and their dependents. And their extended families who are bound to be angry at their behavior and not likely to forget this slight and abuse of power. They have also made disparaging remarks repeatedly about those who are out of work. And have referred repeatedly to Unemployment Insurance as Entitlement Programs which it is not. Employers pay for this insurance each month while processing payroll. So it is not a handout as Republicans would wish all Americans to believe.

Obama's decision was a very intelligent one and in addition it clearly demonstrates his concern for the middle class in this country. Which is what we all want in a President; a person who shows compassion and the ability to be able to perceive how he can best help the majority of our citizens. Thats what I want.

The Republicans will feel the sting of their DADT actions as well. I feel the citizens will also remember the Republicans vicious manovers in pushing through the tax cuts for the rich!!!!

All of the behaviours will rise to the surface during the campaign of 2012 and I hope many of us participate in getting the word out.

The Democrats who are opposed to his actions are for the most part postulating for their constituents; it is mostly for show. They ought to be careful of their behaviors as well.

There are some financial experts on sites such as Huffington Post who are expressing similar opinions as mine.

[katsarecool]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hoyt-hilsman/the-tax-cut-deal-beating-_b_794452.html

At first blush, President Obama's tax cut deal -- trading an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy in return for an extension of unemployment benefits for millions of Americans -- is a setback for Obama and the Democrats. But a closer look at the reality of the deal makes this a clear win for Obama, and probably for Democrats in the long run. Even better, it appears that Obama has finally hit his stride and is now beating the Republicans at their own game.

Granted, it is outrageous to be subsidizing tax breaks for millionaires in the midst of the Great Recession -- not to mention adding to the deficit. But let's look at the facts for a moment -- both of the policy and the politics. First, on the policy front, the tax cut deal amounts to a $900 billion dollar stimulus package at a time when most economists -- notably progressive economists like Paul Krugman -- are calling for continued stimulus to promote economic growth. Can you imagine the reaction from the Republicans and the Tea Partiers -- not to mention Blue Dog Democrats -- if Obama had proposed a $900 billion stimulus package? But that is exactly what the Republicans have agreed to.

This was clearly a case where the White House outfoxed the Republicans by leveraging their own inconsistent ideology against them. At the very same time that the Republicans are screaming about government spending and about lowering the deficit, they were stonewalling any attempt to take away big tax handouts to the wealthiest Americans. Okay, said Obama, have it your way. We'll let you have your tax cut extension in return for extending assistance to the millions of unemployed Americans who desperately need our help. Fine, said the Republicans, perhaps gloating over their tax cut victory, but not realizing that theirs was nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory. The net result -- another $900 billion stimulus package. Try explaining that to the Tea Partiers.

When you look at the politics of the deal, Obama's victory over the Republicans seems even more impressive. Another $900 billion in stimulus funds will certainly help to hasten the recovery, which is already on a slow uptick. By 2012, the economy should be on the upswing, if not in full recovery, which will only help Obama's re-election prospects. Clearly, the single most important factor in the re-election of any presidential incumbent is the state of the economy, and this week's tax cut deal makes Obama's re-election chances look considerably brighter. (For the sake of the country, we must address the deficit for the long term. But I would much rather have rational, progressive approach to deficit cutting than the knee-jerk, inconsistent Tea Party sloganeering).

As for the Republicans, the tax cut deal rips open the inconsistencies in both their politics and their policies. From a policy standpoint, they are screaming about the deficit and government spending while they push for tax cuts for the richest Americans at the expense of millions of the unemployed. In any universe, that is both bad politics and bad policy. Their position will come back to haunt them as they try to explain their position not only to the Republican base, but especially to independents in the future.

Perhaps more importantly -- from the perspective of political optics -- the public will recognize before long that the Republicans cut a very bad deal, and that Obama was particularly adroit in outmaneuvering them. In fact, this deal may be the same kind of important turning point as the Gingrich shutdown of the government in 1995. Looking back, the tax cut deal may be regarded as the point when Obama finally regained his stride.

From a purely political perspective, the opposition that Obama is experiencing from Democrats in Congress is actually a positive for the White House. When the rest of the country -- especially the independents -- see Obama getting flack from his own party for the deal, he will rise in their estimation as someone who is willing to take on his own base. In truth, when the outlines of this Obama victory become clear, it is likely that most Democrats in Congress and around the country will realize that Obama has regained his mojo and outfoxed the Republicans at their own game.

[Nat]

I feel pretty hopeless about the state of the country at the moment. I think this really defeated my hope. I feel like going into hibernation now. My feelings on Obama regularly change. I think he's a human being, that he ran - as most politicians do - on empty promises. I think he's better than McCain. I don't think he does anything based on his own convictions or conscience alone, and I guess I am starting to personally dislike him. But I will still be voting for him in two years and I hope things look better by then.

[betenoire]

extended tax cuts for the top 2% IS NOT A 900 billion dollar stimulus package. extended tax cuts for the top 2% IS NOT going to create jobs for the bottom 50%. trickle-down economics DOES NOT work.

[katsarecool]

I feel pretty hopeless about the state of the country at the moment. I think this really defeated my hope. I feel like going into hibernation now. My feelings on Obama regularly change. I think he's a human being, that he ran - as most politicians do - on empty promises. I think he's better than McCain. I don't think he does anything based on his own convictions or conscience alone, and I guess I am starting to personally dislike him. But I will still be voting for him in two years and I hope things look better by then.Don't loose hope!!! Things will turn around for the better!!! I have been through many recessions in my life and can feel consoled at the ability of our country to bounce back. I began voting in 1968 if that tells you anything (besides the fact I am OLD!!! LOL)

[Kobi]

Kat,

I have sat here trying to see the rationale as you and the article are seeing it. But I cant get my head around it.

To me, I dont see this as a Democratic victory or Obama hitting his stride. For someone who campaigned on the promise of change, I see him as perpetuating the politics as usual at every turn. For someone who was so charasmatic, he cannot even unify his own party or get them to back him.

This "compromise" isnt a compromise. For Obama to get unemployment extended, he had to bend over and take it up the hiney in the form of letting the rich continue to hoard more and more of their money. And, he hung the country out to dry by saddling us with more debt. That doesnt sound like compromise to me. That sounds like giving in to extortion.

The Republicans do not see maintaining their income perks as a bail out in any way shape or form. They see it as solidifying their entitlements. They see extending unemployment as a bail out. Perspective is everything in life.

Essentially, the Republican party has endeared itself to their constituents with this move by reinforcing the proportional discrepancy between income and taxes that those with money enjoy. Proportionally, you and I pay more in taxes than the rich do. Catering to the desires of those with money, while throwing peanuts to the rest is just business as usual.

The economic recovery is not likely to be as smooth or quick a process as people think. We used to have an independent economy and could act as needed to get ourselves out of a jam. We don't have as much freedom or independence in a global economy. When we do a bailout, we are, in many cases, accumulating a lot of debt for international corporations - not American corporations. There is a new economic reality smacking us in the face. There is a new workforce picture slapping us in the face and its not a pretty one.

And DADT? Within the realm of the new reality, exactly how important is THAT going to be at election time to the general public? I cant see it meaning much.

I dont see a victory here or a stride here. I am very disappointed in what I am seeing happen within the Democratic party. I am very disappointed in how ineffective Obama is becoming. Heck, he is making Kerry look decisive.

And, I am very concerned as to how all this bickering, catering, and bending over is going to affect the lives of everyday people. I just cant see a really positive side to it.

[katsarecool]

I still feel 100 percent confident in our President's ability to continue to improve the economy, work for the good of the common people, extricate our troops out of war and harm's way and defeat any candidate the Repugs throw at him.

I do get how frustrating all these events are. We all lived through eight years of pure hell under the Bush administration. I thought it would never come to an end and stayed angry for his entire term. And I had high hopes that our situation would improve quickly but it soon became obvious that the Republicans and the Tea Baggers were engaged in a battle to make sure Obama failed including many dirty tricks of their bad behaviors. I am amazed that rather than work with him to help our country succed they engaged in all out warfare.

I hope when Nov. 2012 rolls around the voters are better educated and that our economy is at a greater recovery phase.

[katsarecool]

Very interesting news conference from former President Clinton today...http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_clinton

[atomiczombie]

Very interesting news conference from former President Clinton today...http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_clinton

Clinton be damned, he was way too compromising with republicans during his presidency too. This deal stinks and it is an insult to everyone who is making less than 250k per year. The extreme economic injustice of it is horrific, and Obama should be calling the Republican's bluff. Pure and simple.

[Soon]

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/01303/infographic1_1303387a.JPG

U.S.: In state of denial over taxes? (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-news/us/us-in-state-of-denial-over-taxes/article2114872/)

“Historically and internationally, the U.S. can’t be categorized as anything other than a low-tax country,” remarked Gordon Betcherman, an economist and professor at the University of Ottawa’s school of international development and global studies.

“Either Americans don’t realize their economy is taxed less than other major economies, or they just have a different standard of what an appropriate tax level is,” said Prof. Betcherman, who spent a decade at the World Bank in Washington.

...

For decades now, the U.S. has increased spending, but hasn’t ratcheted up taxes to pay for bigger government – the military, health care, pensions and the like. The country has been generating tax revenue equal to roughly 18 per cent of its economy for a generation, but spending has climbed steadily to nearly 25 per cent of GDP, from roughly 16 per cent in 1965. The results are huge deficits, and more than $14-trillion (U.S.) of debt.

...

“Tax increases are the only way to ensure that high-income households pay a fair share of the deficit burden,” Mr. Marr said. “Without higher taxes as part of the fiscal-reform package, middle- and low-income households, which tend to feel spending cuts most acutely, will end up bearing almost all of the burden.”

Most of the rest of the developed world – Canada included – has managed to bear higher tax burdens for decades, without grinding their economies into the ground. Economists say even an economically weakened U.S. could cope with a heavier tax load.

The total tax burden on Americans, as a percentage of gross domestic product, stood at 24 per cent in 2009 – lower than it was in 1965 and still falling. That compares to 31.1 per cent in Canada, 34.3 per cent in Britain, 42 per cent in France, 37 per cent in Germany and 43.5 per cent in Italy. The Japanese, Australians and South Koreans all pay significantly more.

The United States is the only major country without a national value-added tax and its sales taxes are lowest in the OECD. Likewise, U.S. fuel and sin taxes are at the bottom among rich countries. And generous tax breaks mean many businesses and individuals pay few taxes, placing a heavy burden on a relatively narrow tax base.

[Kobi]

Thanks for this info How Soon.

Within the scheme of things, overall and comparatively speaking, we do pay less overall taxes per person than many other countries. What the graph doesnt show is the disparity in what those taxes include.

Hard to equate US taxes with Denmarks when they use taxes to provide health care and higher education for all- among other things, while we dont. I am suspecting if we add in what the average US citizen pays for what other countries provide thru their tax base, there may not be much of a difference.

Also, us everyday folks, pay more in taxes, percentage wise in relation to our incomes than those in higher income brackets. I always remember an interview Warren Buffit gave where he chuckled how his sectretary paid more in taxes percentage wise i.e. close to if not more than 35% of her income, while he as a multi-billionaire didnt come close to paying that percentage of his income.

To me, it boils down to what is fair, minus all the misleading marketing. I am tired of hearing how we have to provide taxpayer dollars to industries making billions in profit a year. I get tired of hearing how we cant "overtax" the wealthy cuz they are the ones providing jobs and sustaining the economy. And, if we tick them off, they might take their toys and outsource the job elsewhere :seeingstars:

I get tired of the billions we send to foreign countrties year after year without any appreciable change of their part to become self sustaining. A helping hand now and then is nice but to consistently and continuously dole of billions and billions we have to borrow is kind of unwise. Check out this breakdown - might be accurate, might be flawed, hard to find official stuff -
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm

It gets tiring when politicians want to (maybe) balance the budget on the backs of everyday folks with little to spare while John Kerry can splurge on a 7 million dollar boat which he moors out of the state he represents so he can avoid the piddly tax on it.

There are real class/haves/havenots issues that are effectively sidestepped in budget talks because the very people who are deciding this stuff are trying to protect themselves, financially, and those who line their pockets. It may be 2011, but the good old boy network is alive, well and thriving.

Sadly, we the voters, allow ourselves to fooled by the marketing and advertising strategies that are used to obscure the real issues and to deflect attention away from the real issues.

And, it is so much more complicated than that. There is a warped kind of thinking that starts at the top and filters its way down. And it is done in such a way that those of us down here fight amongst ourselves rather than taking the fight up the ladder to where it belongs. Someday, maybe, we will stop shooting ourselves in the foot.

Just my take on things for today.

[The cute widdle wesbian]

Uh ... keep in mind that I'm not terribly involved with politics. I know what's going on and I have my strong-minded opinions, but I'm not a die-heart politician or anything. I'm in the field of law.

That being said, I might as well put my neck out there and express what I think about our political situation in general. I could never be president because I think the liberals as well as the republicans are wrong as long as they're jadedly stuck to one side. I was sitting back one day listening in on a conversation between my father and sister in the other room. My father is a total rigid conservative and my sister is liberal. As the minutes ticked by, I realized that the more heated and intense the argument became, the more they both were running into a wall. I think that my sister was a little bit more on the win though just because she was willing to admit the faults of the democrats, while my dad was totally unwilling to give way in the least.

This is how I see it, based solely on the past decade: when Bush was elected for his first term in 2000, we were already 5 trillion dollars in debt. At the end of Bush's 8 years in office, we were twice that: 10 trillion in debt. Now Obama's been in office for 2 and a half years. He's managed to do exactly what Bush did in a 4th of the time. Now we're about 15 trillion dollars in debt. This country is broke, and Obama's truly not helping us, but Bush didn't do much for us either. Now our paper money is losing value fast because there's nothing to back it up. Here's my thought on that: Bush screwed us over, Obama screwed us over worse, now we're officially screwed. The republicans absolutely refuse to admit any fault, neither do the democrats. So once again, we're running into a wall.

Here's something else little to think about. I'm a well-earning person, I have a pretty big paycheck, so to speak. But I'm working class, just like the whole of my family. Our hard-earned money is being taken away from us in order to pay (in a lot of cases) people who simply don't want to work. I understand that there are people on wellfare who honestly can't work and need help. I'm all about helping the poor and people in need, but don't deny that there are plenty of people out there who gladly take mine and your tax dollars to sit on the couch and smoke weed all day. I'm in tough times to, why the hell do I want to pay for them? The way my mind works, I have to think of myself and my family first. But here's the other side of that: There are rich people who, like someone else said, barely pay a fraction of us working class people's taxes because they can. So the government wants to take a bit of money from the people earning 1 million bucks a year to help the starved. I could easily live off of 75 hundred bucks a year, trust me. We're in a tough spot. My only question is, why in hell are we arguing? Why are we making such a big deal out of the right and the left? Right now no one has jobs, no one has money, many don't even have food to put in their children's mouths. Why are we worried about the rich or the poor in particular, why aren't we worried about the honorary citizens of this country. We need to balance each other out.

How about dumping all that money into all those countries who've never done a damn thing to help us? Again, I may sound terribly unamerican when I say this, but we need to think of ourselves and ours first. Feed your people, not theirs. When we can aford to dump billions of bucks into the sea, let's do it. But we need to quit the spending as well as quit the rich people money hogging. So the democrats want to dump all the money at the poor, and the republicans want to dump it at the rich (basically speaking). So what goes to us?

This is why I'm a centrist. Unable to ever become president, but always the one who wins those political discussions with my family whenever I have half a mind to engage in them. That day I walked into the room with my father and sister, sat down, thoroughly humiliated their rigid arguments, and shut them both up once and for all. Keep in mind again, I'm not all educated in politics; my views are purely my own that I picked up by watching a little bit of news and junk. What I've said up above is a tiny taste on the tip of the tongue compared to all my political views, so don't think that that's all I got. I hate this topic so I'd rather not unfold completely. lol, not a very serious person and not much into huge political debates. We're all wrong in a way, and we're all right. I agree with liberals about gay rights (obviously), I agree with conservatives about guns in the home. I agree with liberals about birth control, I agree with conservatives about the healthcare bill (ugh). I'm independent. Thank you.

Let the backlash begin!

[Soon]

Kobi,

I understand that the other countries, including mine (Canada), provide universal health care and equitable education and a host of other services that the USA -- all of which is possible through our higher tax rates.

However, the frustration I feel with your country is that these services/rights will NEVER come to fruition b/c citizens already complain about the relatively low taxes that you do pay. Also, the wealthy/and corporations are certainly not paying their fair share (as the article points out) and the burden, therefore, is felt largely by those making under 200 000.

Our tax rates DO afford us a lifestyle that most of us would not give up for a lower tax base. Largely, we understand that taxes are needed to afford to NEVEr care about a hospital bill/surgery, have equal funding for education, and our regulations helped us avoid a collapsed economy. However, the way that Canada and other countries operate is decried as (dirty!) socialism and, therefore, somehow antithetical to certain American *values*.

What was striking to me is how do people think an increase in services (including military spending) can be managed without increasing taxes? Something Reagan even did (who is lauded by The Teabaggers) too offset the federal deficit (he also raised them in the state of Calif. when he was gov. (largest tax hike that state had seen since then).

The USA will never have the standard of living as other industrial countries b/c people seem unwilling to admit that services must be paid by the people of that country and that includes proper taxation.

The USA has the lowest tax rate now since pre-1965 and spending has increased dramatically. Yet, tax hikes (on corporations and the wealthy esp!) is denounced by the GOP. (when they spent more in the last eight years before Obama)

*off for a massage...need it now after reading the article again! ;)

[Kobi]

Kobi,

I understand that the other countries, including mine (Canada), provide universal health care and equitable education and a host of other services that the USA -- all of which is possible through our higher tax rates.

However, the frustration I feel with your country is that these services/rights will NEVER come to fruition b/c citizens already complain about the relatively low taxes that you do pay. Also, the wealthy/and corporations are certainly not paying their fair share (as the article points out) and the burden, therefore, is felt largely by those making under 200 000.

Our tax rates DO afford us a lifestyle that most of us would not give up for a lower tax base. Largely, we understand that taxes are needed to afford to NEVEr care about a hospital bill/surgery, have equal funding for education, and our regulations helped us avoid a collapsed economy. However, the way that Canada and other countries operate is decried as (dirty!) socialism and, therefore, somehow antithetical to certain American *values*.

What was striking to me is how do people think an increase in services (including military spending) can be managed without increasing taxes? Something Reagan even did (who is lauded by The Teabaggers) too offset the federal deficit (he also raised them in the state of Calif. when he was gov. (largest tax hike that state had seen since then).

The USA will never have the standard of living as other industrial countries b/c people seem unwilling to admit that services must be paid by the people of that country and that includes proper taxation.

The USA has the lowest tax rate now since pre-1965 and spending has increased dramatically. Yet, tax hikes (on corporations and the wealthy esp!) is denounced by the GOP. (when they spent more in the last eight years before Obama)

*off for a massage...need it now after reading the article again! ;)



How Soon,

I actually agree with you.

From my perspective, we Americans have a very strange relationship with our values and our economics and our political system. And we have wonkie ideas about accounting too.

[dreadgeek]

Here's something else little to think about. I'm a well-earning person, I have a pretty big paycheck, so to speak. But I'm working class, just like the whole of my family. Our hard-earned money is being taken away from us in order to pay (in a lot of cases) people who simply don't want to work. I understand that there are people on wellfare who honestly can't work and need help. I'm all about helping the poor and people in need, but don't deny that there are plenty of people out there who gladly take mine and your tax dollars to sit on the couch and smoke weed all day. I'm in tough times to, why the hell do I want to pay for them? The way my mind works, I have to think of myself and my family first. But here's the other side of that: There are rich people who, like someone else said, barely pay a fraction of us working class people's taxes because they can. So the government wants to take a bit of money from the people earning 1 million bucks a year to help the starved. I could easily live off of 75 hundred bucks a year, trust me. We're in a tough spot. My only question is, why in hell are we arguing? Why are we making such a big deal out of the right and the left? Right now no one has jobs, no one has money, many don't even have food to put in their children's mouths. Why are we worried about the rich or the poor in particular, why aren't we worried about the honorary citizens of this country. We need to balance each other out.


See, I can't live on $7,500 a year. Keeping a roof over my head--no food, no clothing, no utilities, just the roof over my head--runs me around $14,000 a year. My utilities run another 6K a year, or so only one of those (the cable TV) is optional. Fuel for my car runs me about ~$2400 a year if ALL I do is drive to and from work and shopping trips.

The reason we are making a big deal out of the right and left is that these are meaningful distinctions. Having a right-leaning government or a left-leaning government makes a world of difference! It's the difference between public schools and libraries (favored by left-leaning government) or a gutted public education system and no public libraries (favored by right-leaning government).


How about dumping all that money into all those countries who've never done a damn thing to help us?

What is a better return on investment, one-half of 1% of our GDP going to foreign aid or a several hundred billions of dollars to clean up after a terrorist attack? I'm going to argue that the former is a better investment. Btw. of the G-8, we spend the least amount on foreign aid. Japan, which has a population only slightly larger than the state of California, spends every year what we spend in five in foreign aid. Japan. Which has ten percent of the population of the United States.


Again, I may sound terribly unamerican when I say this, but we need to think of ourselves and ours first. Feed your people, not theirs. When we can aford to dump billions of bucks into the sea, let's do it. But we need to quit the spending as well as quit the rich people money hogging. So the democrats want to dump all the money at the poor, and the republicans want to dump it at the rich (basically speaking). So what goes to us?

The Democratic party is trying to preserve the middle class, the Republican party is trying to dismantle the middle class. What's more, modern American conservatives are not conservative. The more I read conservative thinkers (not Limbaugh et. al. but real thinkers like Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke, etc.) the more I realize that *I* am a conservative and that what passes as conservative is actually more along the line of libertarian-theocratic. The Democratic party are the real conservatives in American politics. The Republican party is the party of right-wing radicals.

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

At this point, I am much more unsettled with how the US Congress is behaving than what upsets me about Obama (although, most likely I will support his re-election- just have to see who the GOP candidate ends up being). I'm registered as "decline to state," which in California, is "Independent."

Frankly, I was amazed that the GOP didn't want to even consider the initial debt-ceiling proposal that Obama said he was willing to support ($3 of cuts to every $1 of revenue via reform of tax loopholes). Although, I support social programs and the health care reform bill, we do need to pay down our debt. At this point, who and how we ended up with it, doesn't matter to me. Both major parties contributed to the mess the US is in.

There are some things that I bet I would be called conservative about- others, liberal or even progressive. Sometimes I feel like as I age, I am just more of a political moderate. Don't know. It pissed me off that Obama did not support the Simpson-Bowles comission findings last year. The fact is, some cuts in entitlement programs do have to be made- and can be without direct hits to beneficiaries. I support "means-testing" for example. There are many, many very, very wealthy retirees that do not need the level of benefits they now receive.

I was angry when Obama allowed the Bush tax credits to be extended and I don't want this to happen again. Yet, reform of the tax code (big time reform) is needed.

My main frustration right now is how much power a fringe group (the Tea Party) weilded during the debt-ceiling debate and Obama caving in on revenue. My guess is that he realized that the House TP members really are ignorant about what the extent a default would have caused. Yet, I think he should have invoked the 14th Amendment although we all know that he would have faced a legal fiasco and calls for impeachment via the GOP. BUT- the numbers to actually pull impeachment off are not there and I think his doing so would have gone a long way in establishing his leadership qualities during a crisis. Hell, he already is vulnerable in terms of re-election.

Honestly, I believe the GOP (the whole party) just wants our economy to tank more- even to the point of an actual depression so that a Republican is elected in 2012. This is what bothers me the most. This is just plain sick and evil because this is not just about Obama failing- it is about millions of us losing everything.

The only way I see as a way for real change in the US political system that can bring what is good and fair in democracy is public funding (only) of elections- federal, state, local- every election held in the US. Now, the chances of this happening anytime soon is pretty damn slim! The "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision cemented the class divisions that decide who will hold office in the US.

[dreadgeek]

Honestly, I believe the GOP (the whole party) just wants our economy to tank more- even to the point of an actual depression so that a Republican is elected in 2012. This is what bothers me the most. This is just plain sick and evil because this is not just about Obama failing- it is about millions of us losing everything.


I am a big believer in taking people at their word. If someone says, for instance, that they believe that we should lock up criminals and not worry overly much about legal niceties such as trial by jury (as a poster here suggested back in June) that what they *mean* is what they said. Well, the Republican party is on record as saying they want Obama to fail. Keep in mind that one of the chief ideologues of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh, flat out said that his goal was to make certain that Obama's presidency failed. Let's presume he meant that. Let us also presume that all of those GOP elected officials who parroted Limbaugh meant it. Now, view their behavior through the lens of their words. They are trying to make certain that he cannot govern! If that means tanking the economy, so be it.

What better way to win the next election than to make certain that the economy is in the tank?

Quite honestly, this reminds me a lot--a LOT--of end-stage Weimar Germany. At the end-game, the right-wing in Germany (the Nazis, the Conservatives and the Junkers) simply made the Reichstag non-functional. The idea was to make the nation unstable so that the German people would vote for anyone who would bring about stability. Doesn't that sound familiar?

Cheers
Aj

[Glenn]

Yep AJ; Then hardcore nationalism and then complete industrialization for the purpose of war...I don't think it will be as bad as Germany, but the focus will be more on waging war.

[Toughy]

http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrnews.html?feed=393046&article=8909602

and

http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrnews.html?feed=393046&article=8914378

Very interesting pieces about how Obama fucked over the Republicans with the Debt Ceiling Bill that he negotiated and signed.....it seems the Tea Party crazy fucks lost big time in this deal.....

[atomiczombie]

http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrnews.html?feed=393046&article=8909602

and

http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrnews.html?feed=393046&article=8914378

Very interesting pieces about how Obama fucked over the Republicans with the Debt Ceiling Bill that he negotiated and signed.....it seems the Tea Party crazy fucks lost big time in this deal.....

I think everyone lost big time in this deal. It's a shit sandwich if you ask me. This bill is going to slow the economic recovery and result in even higher unemployment.

[Toughy]

Did you read the articles?

I don't really think it will truly affect the economy all that much....good or bad.

Congress now MUST deal with jobs. We need another much bigger stimulus to continue re-building the infrastructure of this country. I'm thinking Tennessee Valley Authority or Hoover Dam or all the Army Corps of Engineer projects kind of things. It will create tens of thousands jobs and the economy will take off again.

We also need to create new revenue besides the Bush tax cuts which sunset out at the end of 2012. Close the checkbook on corporate welfare, raise taxes on those making more than a million bucks a year. Leave the frigging middle and working class alone.

[Corkey]

Did you read the articles?

I don't really think it will truly affect the economy all that much....good or bad.

Congress now MUST deal with jobs. We need another much bigger stimulus to continue re-building the infrastructure of this country. I'm thinking Tennessee Valley Authority or Hoover Dam or all the Army Corps of Engineer projects kind of things. It will create tens of thousands jobs and the economy will take off again.

We also need to create new revenue besides the Bush tax cuts which sunset out at the end of 2012. Close the checkbook on corporate welfare, raise taxes on those making more than a million bucks a year. Leave the frigging middle and working class alone.

The roads and bridges could use an overhaul, some of them are a hundred years old, and older. Wonders on the lifespan of a steel bridge in humidity.(sarcasm) Yea we need to put people back to work.

[JustJo]

The roads and bridges could use an overhaul, some of them are a hundred years old, and older. Wonders on the lifespan of a steel bridge in humidity.(sarcasm) Yea we need to put people back to work.

Some major work on the infrastructure would be good all the way around...creates jobs, enhances safety, speeds transit....and how about upgrading some schools and libraries and rural hospitals while we're at it? These are things that I would support my tax dollars going for...and would do a lot of good for all of us for years to come.

[Kobi]

I need a new car. Can we do another cash for clunkers thing?

[Corkey]

Oh I agree but make it based on rust factor instead of mpg..

[dreadgeek]

Yep AJ; Then hardcore nationalism and then complete industrialization for the purpose of war...I don't think it will be as bad as Germany, but the focus will be more on waging war.

Hmmmm...see, my reading of Germany is that the focus was on waging war. This might just be an artifact of the material I've read focusing on how the entire German economy and culture was pointed toward war but it seems to me that from January 1933 onward the entire nation was gearing up for war in Europe. I think what will be different is that Germany under National Socialism was far less theocratic than what I think is barreling towards us. My concern is that we are just this side of a theocratic takeover. Now, this theocracy won't look like Saudi Arabia but rather more a mash-up of Iran after the Islamic revolution and John Calvin's Geneva with a little of late-19th century Utah (Under Brigham Young) thrown in for good measure.

Cheers
Aj

[girl_dee]

As sad as this may sound I am so happy to be going to work Canada right now, I am so tired of worrying about what the government will or will not do with our future, I understand I am still affected but being away from all of it sure is a nice break.

[atomiczombie]

This from Bloomberg News website:

The U.S. had its AAA credit rating downgraded for the first time by Standard & Poor’s on concern spending cuts agreed on by lawmakers to raise the nation’s borrowing limit won’t be enough to reduce record deficits.
S&P dropped the ranking one level to AA+, after warning on July 14 that it would reduce the rating in the absence of a “credible” plan to lower deficits even if the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt limit was lifted. The U.S. was awarded the top credit ranking by New York-based S&P in 1941. It kept the outlook at “negative.”
‘The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics,” S&P said in a statement today.
Demand for Treasuries has surged even with the specter of a downgrade as investors saw few alternatives to the traditional refuge during times of risk as concern increased global growth is slowing and Europe’s sovereign debt crisis is spreading. The action could still hurt the U.S. economy over time by increasing the cost of mortgages, auto loans and other types of lending tied to the interest rates paid on Treasuries. JPMorgan Chase & Co. estimated that a downgrade would raise the nation’s borrowing costs by $100 billion a year.
Moody’s, Fitch
“It’s a reflection of the fact that we haven’t done enough to get our fiscal house in the order,” Anthony Valeri, market strategist in San Diego at LPL Financial, which oversees $340 billion, said in an interview before the downgrade. “Sovereign credit quality is going to remain under pressure for years to come.”
Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings affirmed their AAA credit ratings on Aug. 2, the day President Barack Obama signed a bill that ended the debt-ceiling impasse that pushed the Treasury to the edge of default. Moody’s and Fitch also said that downgrades were possible if lawmakers fail to enact debt reduction measures and the economy weakens.
The measure raised the nation’s debt ceiling until 2013 and threatens automatic spending cuts to enforce $2.4 trillion in spending reductions over the next 10 years.
S&P put the U.S. government on notice on April 18 that it risks losing its AAA rating unless lawmakers agree on a plan by 2013 to reduce budget deficits and the national debt. S&P indicated last month that anything less than $4 trillion in cuts would jeopardize the rating.
‘Grand Bargain’
“A grand bargain of that nature would signal the seriousness of policy makers to address the fiscal situation in the U.S.,” John Chambers, chairman of S&P’s sovereign rating committee, said in a video interview distributed by the ratings firm on July 28.
Obama has said a rating cut may hurt the broader economy by increasing consumer borrowing costs tied to Treasury rates. An increase in Treasury yields of 50 basis points would reduce U.S. economic growth by about 0.4 percentage points, JPMorgan said in a report, citing Federal Reserve research and data.
“The hope is that we could keep Treasuries pure, limited to interest rate risk,” Mohamed El-Erian, chief executive and co-chief investment officer at Pacific Investment Management Co., said in a Bloomberg Television interview before the announcement. “The minute you start downgrading away from AAA, you take small steps toward credit risk and that is something any country would like to avoid.”
Relative Yields
Treasury yields average about 0.70 percentage point less than the rest of the world’s sovereign debt markets, Bank of America Merrill Lynch indexes show. The difference has expanded from 0.15 percentage point in January.
Investors from China to the U.K. are lending money to the U.S. government for a decade at the lowest rates of the year. For many of them, there are few alternatives outside the U.S., no matter what its credit rating.
“Yields are low in the face of a downgrade because there is nowhere else for people to go if they don’t buy Treasuries because they want to be in safe dollar assets,” Carl Lantz, head of interest-rate strategy at Credit Suisse Group AG, one of 20 primary dealers that trade directly with the Federal Reserve, said before the announcement.
Ten-year Treasury yields fell to as low as 2.33 percent in New York, the least since October.
Bond Dealers
The committee of bond dealers and investors that advises the U.S. Treasury said the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency “appears to be slipping” in quarterly feedback presented to the government on Aug. 3. The U.S. currency’s portion of global currency reserves dropped to 60.7 percent in the period ended March 31, from a peak of 72.7 percent in 2001, International Monetary Fund data show.
“The idea of a reserve currency is that it is built on strength, not typically that it is ‘best among poor choices’,” page 35 of the presentation made by one member of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, which includes representatives from firms ranging from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to Pimco. “The fact that there are not currently viable alternatives to the U.S. dollar is a hollow victory and perhaps portends a deteriorating fate.”
Members of the TBAC, as the committee is known, which met Aug. 2 in Washington, also discussed the implications of a downgrade of the U.S. sovereign credit rating. “None of the members thought that a downgrade was imminent,” according to minutes of the meeting released by the Treasury.
A U.S. credit-rating cut would likely raise the nation’s borrowing costs by increasing Treasury yields by 60 basis points to 70 basis points over the “medium term,” JPMorgan’s Terry Belton said on a July 26 conference call hosted by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. The U.S. spent $414 billion on interest expense in fiscal 2010, or 2.7 percent of gross domestic product, according to Treasury Department data.
“That impact on Treasury rates is significant,” Belton, global head of fixed-income strategy at JPMorgan, said during the call. “That $100 billion a year is money being used for higher interest rates and that’s money being taken away from other goods and services.”
To contact the reporter on this story: John Detrixhe in New York at jdetrixhe1@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Dave Liedtka at dliedtka@bloomberg.net

As I said before, the bill is a shit sandwich. I can't believe our government created such a clusterfuck.

[Kobi]

Interesting article atomic. Thanks for sharing it.

To me, it points out so many flaws in how we have and are disregarding basic accounting principles and defying basic market logistics yet somehow the mess still functions. It astounds me. It also makes me wonder what dastardly deeds are keeping this titantic afloat and when the right iceberg will come along to seal its fate.

On the brighter side, mortgage rates dropped again. Am pleased to have locked in a nifty low rate for my refinancing today.

And, I always thank those who came before me who taught some very valuable lessons:

1. always pay yourself first - i.e. savings before bills, bills before play
2. always keep a stash of actual cash in a safety deposit box
3. at all times, live within your means
4. credit cards are for emergencies only
5. never fully trust bankers, politicians, or lawyers

[Corkey]

According to the Maddow show, the Administration is pushing back hard against S&P claiming their figures are off by trillions of dollars. In other words a math error. So the very people that we gave trillions of dollars to for a bail out and who created the problem, are now saying that we don't pay our bills.
There is a total lack of trust for any of the financial marketeers who received any monies in the TARP.

[Toughy]

S & P is the only rating agency of the 3 that downgraded the US.

just remember all this come Nov 2012 and vote for Obama and give him a majority in the House and 60 Senators so we can get on with the business of the people and restoring the economy.

[Martina]

If we taxed Exxon and the top one or two percent of the wealthy at normal rates for a developed nation, our deficit would disappear. We don't need to cut anything. We are still a phenomenally wealthy nation. Our gdp is one fourth of the entire wealth generated on the planet. We have the money. We don't have the will to demand that the richest pay their share.

A flat tax is regressive, so i have never supported it. But damn, now it would be a good thing. It would solve this problem in about a second.

This is not a REAL problem. We are not out of money. We are not poor. The question is how badly are we going to damage our country and the global economy before we face the inevitable.

[Corkey]

Just like the last time the government gave a tax holiday, business ran out of the country, they are talking about a tax on business of 5%. That in and of itself will have business run in, take the tax, and run right back out taking jobs and money with them to offshore. It didn't work the first time, and we are still paying for that in lost jobs, and it won't work again, but bless their pea picken' hearts the GOP tea traitors are trying to do it again.

[*Anya*]

I am a big believer in taking people at their word. If someone says, for instance, that they believe that we should lock up criminals and not worry overly much about legal niceties such as trial by jury (as a poster here suggested back in June) that what they *mean* is what they said. Well, the Republican party is on record as saying they want Obama to fail. Keep in mind that one of the chief ideologues of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh, flat out said that his goal was to make certain that Obama's presidency failed. Let's presume he meant that. Let us also presume that all of those GOP elected officials who parroted Limbaugh meant it. Now, view their behavior through the lens of their words. They are trying to make certain that he cannot govern! If that means tanking the economy, so be it.

What better way to win the next election than to make certain that the economy is in the tank?

Quite honestly, this reminds me a lot--a LOT--of end-stage Weimar Germany. At the end-game, the right-wing in Germany (the Nazis, the Conservatives and the Junkers) simply made the Reichstag non-functional. The idea was to make the nation unstable so that the German people would vote for anyone who would bring about stability. Doesn't that sound familiar?
Cheers
Aj

I have been thinking this is the underlying issue myself. The GOP, I believe, would allow us to tank, just to get more Republicans elected. They believe, with evangelical zeal, that they are the ones to save our country.

This whole mess is a true clusterfuck (good word atomic). Does anyone remember and granted, my memory is not what it was- when Clinton left office, we were in the black? The elected GOP quickly put us back in the red.

I am disappointed in Obama- I did have high hopes for his administration but maybe they were unrealistic. I just know I am disgusted with all of them-hell, they could not even agree to tax big business and their Gulfstream jets!

Bottom-line, my fear is that the GOP will win in 2012 and then we will be well and truly fucked.

[Kobi]

I have been thinking this is the underlying issue myself. The GOP, I believe, would allow us to tank, just to get more Republicans elected. They believe, with evangelical zeal, that they are the ones to save our country.

This whole mess is a true clusterfuck (good word atomic). Does anyone remember and granted, my memory is not what it was- when Clinton left office, we were in the black? The elected GOP quickly put us back in the red.

I am disappointed in Obama- I did have high hopes for his administration but maybe they were unrealistic. I just know I am disgusted with all of them-hell, they could not even agree to tax big business and their Gulfstream jets!

Bottom-line, my fear is that the GOP will win in 2012 and then we will be well and truly fucked.


An evangelical clusterfuck. This doesnt conjure up fantasies of a good time.

The Clinton surplus is debated as a myth. I dont pretend to understand voodoo economics or how best to reframe or manipulate data for a specific purpose. This article helps to do that: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

All I know is basic math. If you have a deficit, there are only three ways to reduce it - increase revenue, cut spending, or a combo of both.

We can continue to quantify and qualify, and expound on any number of theories and crapshoots. But no matter how hard we try, we cannot escape simple math.

We also, in my opinion, cannot escape that in allowing ourselves to go global, we lost (or forfeited) a great deal of control over our own economy and economic wellbeing. This defies common sense.

I dont know who, if anyone, has the answer that will put us back on the path to prosperity or even just an even keel. Just seems to me, we need to abandon economic gymnastics, reclaim basic math and accounting principles, and get our collective heads out of this dysfunctional relationship we have with the accumulation of wealth and power and the corruption of character and values it breeds.

I dont know that the Democrats or the Republicans have the ability or desire to tackle this head on. They are both complicit in and working hard to tame this creature they jointly created.

I do know that, I, dont want to be caught up in a bunch of marketing stategies and campaign bullshit that is just nonsensical and illogical in both nature and content but sounds plausible given the right presentation.

As Americans, I do believe we have the ability to accomplish and overcome many things. But, we cant do either until we are willing to abandon the fantasy world we live in and get firmly reentrenched back in reality.

For me, come election time, I am going back to the basics in deciding who to vote for. I will be looking for those whose actions speak louder than their words, who are strong in basic fundamentals even when those are not popular, who doesnt promise me a bunch of bull we both know is not feasible or plausible, and who doesnt make me feel like I am choosing the least offensive of 2 evils.

[AtLast]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-02/u-s-aaa-rating-faces-moody-s-downgrade-on-debt-economic-slowdown-concern.html
Yes, at this time, only S & P actually downgraded the US credit rating, but, both of the other 2 rating firms (Moody's & Fitch) are not optimistic about the US keeping the AAA ratings they are sticking with right now.

They could also downgrade us at any time. Most likely they could do this when the "super-commission" that will be appointed to offer up the budget cuts necessary via the recent debt-ceiling bill. We are not out of the woods at all with this and these downgrades can and will trickle down to both the middle and working classes. In fact, this could very well smack down even further any gains that just "common folk" might be making if they have been fortunate enough to find work after being laid off due to the recession.

I don't like scare tactics (especially when so many are so stressed economically right now), but this is not something we as a country should take lightly or wait for the direct effects it could have on us.

It seems to me that we ought to be sending messages to all 4 of the Congressional leaders (Reid, McConnell, Boehner & Pelosi) that will be appointing members to this panel stating that appointments need to be made up of people that are willing to compromise! Both sides have already been talking about appointing stead-fast reps of their party that hold to the same damn things that caused the debt-limit mess- and brought on the S & P downgrade. We need more of this conflict???

[Toughy]

I want the most hardcore idealogues from both sides on the super commission. When they fail to do anything because they will not compromise, all those triggers will kick in. Then the Republicans are fucked because they will have to either increase revenue or cut their precious defense budget and corporate welfare. If the triggers kick in SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans and Senior benefits are OFF the table for cuts.

All those big corporations and big pharma are shitting their pants right now as they will be the ones who are going to face the big ass cut spending knife, not the middle/working class and poor people.

I'm telling y'all, Obama royally fucked the Republicans with the debt ceiling legislation.

The real way to stop this forever is two-fold. Pass a federal Constitutional Amendment declaring Corporations are not people and money is not speech (the only way to get around the Robert's SCOTUS). The other thing would be passing legislation that requires only public financing of all political campaigns. Bye bye special interest groups and all those big money lobbyists. K Street will have a whole bunch of empty office buildings.

[Random]

Personally I like the thought of...

The First thing that hits the tables for cuts when they try to hold the goverment hostage is Wages, Bennifits, and Retirement funds for Cong and Sens...

If they are really so worried about our future then how about they unline their pockets a little?

[citybutch]

The downgrade was brought by the fact that Republicans are not willing to raise taxes and the Democrats are not willing to cut spending.... and not the debt limit "mess". In order to make for a healthier financial outlook either one of those two things or both need to happen. Just like when I am working with my clients who are spending more than they are making (which is what is happening in the country right now) we work on increasing revenue and/or decreasing expenses. It's that simple. This is a problem that has been brewing with the rating companies long before the debt limit stalemate came along... THAT "mess" was created, in my very humble opinion, by politics... although frankly it needed to come to the forefront at some point. The debt limit was raised 8 (?) times under GW Bush... and 4 times thus far (well, 5 now... kinda) under Obama... There just comes a time where one has to stop increasing the amount one can borrow... and start to work on the systemic problems of overspending when revenues are reduced... Something had/has to change....



hold to the same damn things that caused the debt-limit mess- and brought on the S & P downgrade. We need more of this conflict???

[JustJo]

The downgrade was brought by the fact that Republicans are not willing to raise taxes and the Democrats are not willing to cut spending.... and not the debt limit "mess". In order to make for a healthier financial outlook either one of those two things or both need to happen. Just like when I am working with my clients who are spending more than they are making (which is what is happening in the country right now) we work on increasing revenue and/or decreasing expenses. It's that simple. This is a problem that has been brewing with the rating companies long before the debt limit stalemate came along... THAT "mess" was created, in my very humble opinion, by politics... although frankly it needed to come to the forefront at some point. The debt limit was raised 8 (?) times under GW Bush... and 4 times thus far (well, 5 now... kinda) under Obama... There just comes a time where one has to stop increasing the amount one can borrow... and start to work on the systemic problems of overspending when revenues are reduced... Something had/has to change....

Exactly....what's the old saying?

"When your outgo exceeds your income, then your upkeep becomes your downfall."

Yea, that one. :blink:

[Martina]

THe money we're wasting is the effing billions a day in interest. That makes me sick sometimes when cuts to important services are being discussed.

i agree that the issue is the stalemate. i do not think Obama could have done a lot about that. But i do think he could have and should have pursued the financial and corporate criminals who helped land us in this recession.

The first -- ending the stalemate -- is a thousand times more important. But it just burns -- it's so symbolically throw it in your face unfair -- that none of these bastards has gone to jail.

[citybutch]

This is an excellent read on the topic. Although there is one error. The US went on credit watch with S&P in April of this year and not June.

http://nutsandolts.com/2011/08/06/tea-party-led-republican-party-kills-its-hostage/

[AtLast]

I want the most hardcore idealogues from both sides on the super commission. When they fail to do anything because they will not compromise, all those triggers will kick in. Then the Republicans are fucked because they will have to either increase revenue or cut their precious defense budget and corporate welfare. If the triggers kick in SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans and Senior benefits are OFF the table for cuts.

All those big corporations and big pharma are shitting their pants right now as they will be the ones who are going to face the big ass cut spending knife, not the middle/working class and poor people.

I'm telling y'all, Obama royally fucked the Republicans with the debt ceiling legislation.

The real way to stop this forever is two-fold. Pass a federal Constitutional Amendment declaring Corporations are not people and money is not speech (the only way to get around the Robert's SCOTUS). The other thing would be passing legislation that requires only public financing of all political campaigns. Bye bye special interest groups and all those big money lobbyists. K Street will have a whole bunch of empty office buildings.

I am under the impression (but could be wrong) that the trigger mechanisms are not the same for cuts and revenues under the agreement reached- that it is very much in the GOP/Tea Party's favor if the "super" commission does not make cuts (to the degree called for) as outlined in the agreement.

Gotta go do some more research... but here is one analysis that doesn't look so great for what the Dems/Obama care about the most-

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92977/debt-ceiling-deal-trigger-medicare-revenue-tax-obama

(exerpt only)
The debate played out as a microcosm of the debt ceiling debate as a whole: Republicans threatened to torpedo the whole deal if the trigger included new revenue, so Obama retreated. It appears he’s agreed to substitute automatic defense cuts for automatic revenue increases.

The problem is that, these days, plenty of Republicans support cuts in defense spending. Or, at the very least, they don't find them as objectionable as they once did, notwithstanding the best efforts of defense contractor lobbyists. That would increase their leverage in the committee negotiations, making it more likely that the end result is substantial cuts to entitlements. (The media seems to be missing this point completely, at least based on what I'm reading and seeing right now.)

Now, I do like your federal constitutional amendment idea- and hell yes, public financing of all political campaigns is long overdue.