Mike, Correlation is not causation. I don't listen to Rush--he's on when I'm working, and I can't be responsible for what others say in any case. If we happen to make the same arguments or points in part or whole, there's nothing I can do about that. If I comment on or use someone else's stuff, I'll cite it and h/t it. That's the way I roll.

It seems your every argument parrots arguments already made int the crazy right wing bubble.

@Mike Healey, then why hasn't the President responded to recent republican support for raising taxes with an offer in the form of legislation containing specific cuts that are needed to balance the budget, reduce (preferably eliminate) the deficit?

Mike- Please enlighten us all here. Please explain HOW President Clinton and President Obama lowered the deficit while increasing the debt.

The deficit is the difference between the money Government takes in, called receipts, and what the Government spends, called outlays, each year. You can still accumulate debt AND reduce the deficit. Understand?

Mike- I agree with your definition. However, I didn't ask for a definition of debt and deficit. I asked you to tell us HOW Presidents Obama and Clinton cut the deficit. How did they do it?

Its not difficult to recall what you asked, its written above what I answered:
You asked "Please explain HOW President Clinton and President Obama lowered the deficit while increasing the debt."?
"HOW Presidents Obama and Clinton cut the deficit" is a second question.
Last year’s debt-ceiling agreement included $1.5 trillion in cuts to discretionary programs.

President Obama signed the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act in 2010 which mandates that new spending be offset with spending cuts or new revenue.

There are also better tax receipts from saving the economy from collapse.

Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

Mike- the devil is in the details. If the President signed legislation "which mandates that new spending be offset with spending cuts or new revenue."
New spending...... mmmmm. How did the debt increase to 16 billiion, under President Obama? Shouldn't spending cuts or new revenue have prevented that increase in debt?
Maybe you are counting the fact that the Fed is printing money and loaning it to Washington at 0% with maturity now at 10+years. That this is the funding source that the Obama administration has embraced....partly to increase the debt to record levels, partly to kick the can down the road, and partly to overcome the fact that China started dictating the interest rates that it would buy US bonds and the treasury was foced to step in and print money.
Who is going to suffer with this policy Mike. If you say middle class then give yourself a star.

And yet you can't help but read it!:0) Reminds me of what Stern once said "It's like I'm a fungus, I grown on ya".

I use “Big Spenders” because they are big spenders. The cuts are miniscule, do not address the drivers of the debt (Big Spenders sacred cows), and do cut Big Spenders dream (defense), and spare us from a debt:GDP ratio of 100% by a whopping....wait for it... 2 years according to some studies. So, though there are "cuts", there are not any meaningful cuts other than defense and, given that, I say it falls right in with the Big Spender's wet dream (as does Howard, Dean not Stern). Also, I'm not convinced that the money "saved" by the cuts and acquired by the tax increases will be used to reduce the deficit or debt. I have a cynical hunch that it will be directed to the political class’s cronies and go the way of the stimuli.

I agree, the stuff you write is equivalent to fungus.

Don't flatter yourself too much just because I read it. I read lots of junk.

You use the expression "big spenders," but that doesn't mean they are just because you say it. It makes no sense, it's illogical to use sequestration, which calls for cuts as proof that "they are big spenders". Up is not down and down is not up no matter how much you insist it is.

You actually have to have proof to back up your assertions.
If your looking for spending waste, defense is the best place to start.

"According to some studies..." Studies from where, right wing websites?
...
At least you admit that your assertions are based on a hunch and are not reality based.

Lol, it's my opinion Ray. Sheesh, relax. It's my opinion that they're big spenders for the reasons I stated. I don't think it's illogical at all. I think they'll use the cash "saved" on some spending and acquired via tax hikes as a slush fund for their cronies. I don't believe it will have any real effect on the debt or deficit and will find its way to something else. The newly found cash on hand will be wasted. I suspect you don't agree and that's fine, you have more faith in the political class than I do.

Well, no, that doesn’t make any sense. If you’re correct that I’m making assertions, then, by definition, I would not have to back them up because they’re assertions. Perhaps you mean I’m making a proposition? I’ll take it you made a mistake and answer that one. Well, the proposition I’m making cannot be backed up yet as it’s predicated on things yet to occur or be observed; this is known as a hypothesis. We’ll see what happens and I’ll let you know if my hypothesis was correct. (Knowing you, and your affinity with this space, you’ll probably let me know if I’m not:0)

Re Studies: Mercatus, George Mason University http://mercatus.org/publication/bca-sequester-doesnt-make-dent-national-debt

Scott,
you are correct, you don't have to back up assertions, you do only if you want your proposition to have integrity, otherwise your opinion is like fungus, growing in cold dark, damp places where people never go.

Predicting the future is sometimes based on what happened in the past, it's a precarious endeavor, and even more so when one does not have a handle on reality, or a good sense of history.

By the way Scott,
your messiah, Ronald Reagan said that entitlements do not drive the deficit or national debt, so according to him, your G. Mason U prediction is nonsense.

He was speaking to the fact that Social Security and Medicare are earned by people who pay into them. And he is correct because Social Security brings in lots of cash, so much so that the Congress borrows from it to pay for the debt.

Re: Ray's "you are correct, you don't have to..." sentence.
Wow! That's the most fantastic exemplar of self-contradiction I have ever seen, and two in one sentence no less. Bravo, Ray, your comments have breached the parodic threshold.

Let's take it apart and marvel at its disorder.

The First one:
If I'm correct, as Ray states, that assertions and propositions are not interchangeable or synonyms, why then does Ray use propositions and assertions as synonyms in the very same sentence where Ray says I'm correct in stating that they are not synonyms? lol. Who knows!

The second one is strikingly better:
If my opinion is "...in damp places where people never go", why is Ray writing this exact line pertaining to my opinion in one of those places where I post my opinion regularly? Ray clearly goes to that place because he's writing this line and other comments in that place. Lol.

Cue the carnival music.

Given the blaring calliope, I won't quibble with your observation about "when one does not have a handle on reality", that's like debating Michael Moore on the visceral joys of overeating, he clearly has a more experiential perspective on it than I, as do you with not having a handle on reality.

Ray, re: "by the way"
Oy vey, you uncorked more desultory pettifoggery. I didn't bring up Reagan, I didn't write the study, this isn't in the 1980's. Any honest reading will reveal you writing to yourself. Your strawman is just that, and your parodic inanities have expired my interest.

Scott,
nothing but distraction over the difference between "assertion" and "proposition", and it doesn't hide the fact that your opinion is based on magical thinking, and not on anything substantial that you can back up.

You haven't showed that sequestration proves Obama or Democrats as "big spenders". The basis of your argument has its origins in your imagination, and is not grounded in reality as you readily admit here:

"I think they'll use the cash "saved" on some spending and acquired via tax hikes as a slush fund for their cronies."

Therefore, your essay is worthless, with nothing to back it up. Then you throw out this right wing George Mason report that confuses paid for entitlements, such as Social Security, as part of the deficit and national debt. Ronald Reagan once siad that this is wrong minded, but you dismiss that relevant fact because it doesn't fit your fantasy world view.

"And yet you can't help but read it!" you responded, yes Scott, I read it, I also accidently stepped in dog mess, but that doesn't make the dog an artist.

Oops, good catch. That should be $5 trillion not 6 trillion or I should use "near" instead of "over". I'll email Tony to find out about editing it to make the correction.

The stimulus cost 800 billion.

Other spending would be to bail out the auto industry, financial institutions, so you are wrong when you say nothing to show for it.

You mean Chrysler is still an American owned company?

The auto bailout was nothing more than a favor to the UAW for campaign support.

Regardless of Fiats takeover, there would be no Chrysler company if not for the auto bailouts, which began under Bush by the way.

So you are saying that saving manufacturing in America is a bad thing, right Charlie?

"Regardless of Fiats takeover, there would be no Chrysler company if not for the auto bailouts" Absolutely not true in the least. Chrysler and GM would have declared chapter 11; and most certainly some investment entity would have gainiend control of the actually brands and manyufacturing infrastructure through that process. Fiat is already talking about moving some production facilities so how long do you think "US Made" will last? They started under the Bush administration at the REQUEST of democrats and the incoming administration; you can't blame this or the clunkers program, which benefitted more forgein makes than US ones, on Bush.

For the record I think manufacturing in America is great.

In chapter 11 the first thing to go would have been labor contracts.....UAW labor contracts AND management contracts. The only thing baileed out was the UAW, say like it happen Ray and stop spinning it.

Absolutely false Charlie,
no banks, no backers were interested in GM or Chrysler. A government bailout was the only avenue.

Again patently false, the CEO of Fiat said he will not move any manufacturing overseas.

That's a rumor startted before the election.

Bailouts started under Bush. Bush and the Democratic Congress, along with Republican minority votes, started the bailouts of banks and the auto industry.

Charlie, stop rewriting history.

Congratulations Charlie, you've picked Politifact's "Lie of the Year" by repeating the year's biggest lie.

Here's the quote in Slate Magazine, quoting Politifact, about Fiat sending Chrysler manufacturing overseas:

"It originated with a conservative blogger, who twisted an accurate news story into a falsehood. Then it picked up steam when the Drudge Report ran with it. Even though Jeep's parent company gave a quick and clear denial, Mitt Romney repeated it and his campaign turned it into a TV ad. And they stood by the claim, even as the media and the public expressed collective outrage against something so obviously false."

Mitt Romney gets the prestigious "Lie of the Year" award from Politifact.

No wonder conservatives (neoconservatives that is) are so proud of themselves

Ray your twisting what I am saying, I know that is your bread and butter way, but let me be clear I said "Fiat is already talking about moving some production facilities so how long do you think "US Made" will last?" There were in fact suggestions to that effect, yes, quickly recanted and ideas scrapped during election year; but that wasn't my point, I am 100% aware that they are not in fact moving production as of now, maybe you missed the question mark of when at the end of the sentence?
Of course no investor wanted in on the Auto's back then they had an unworkable agreement with everyone from creditors to supliers to labor; who would want to step into that mess and pay to do so. Put them into chapter 11 and there would be suitors just as there were when the government did it; accept one small detail your refusing to acknowedge the UAW labor contracts remained in place and the bond holders and creditors got the scalp. Political favor nothing more.......

Charlie,
you just make stuff up.

Where is Fiat talking about moving US operations overseas?

Please provide evidence.

Where for certain would GM and Chrysler been picked up after Chapter 11?

Only in your imagination. Talk about "spin".

Hey Ray, go actually read politifacts "lie of the year" , When you get to "Bloomberg reported on Oct. 22 that the company was planning to restart production of Jeeps in China." let me know, then I can remind you that I said it has been talked about, which in fact it has. My question was how long until it is no longer made in America? Not the twist about "moving all US production to china" that your to myopic to see beyond, yes Ray as I have said from the start that is without question a lie.....that fact that it was talked about is not.
You know Ray, as far as "certain", well no one is sure of that, and that is the purpose of doing things in an organized legal way, like Chapter 11. But that would have had too big an impact on the Democrat support structure because of the position it would have pu tthe Unions in.....so step in uncle sam and bail out the Unions, not the auto industry.......please remember Ford needed no help at all, this was a UAW bailout for political favor.

Charlie,
No evidence that Chrysler is going to move Jeep production from USA to China. Not now, not then. "Restart production on Jeeps in China", does not mean the same as moving operations from the from the US to China. Not the same thing Charlie, just spin on your part..

So, congrats are due for supporting the lie of the year.

And now you know the real reason why people were reluctant to vote the Republican ticket, not the imagined reason (liberal media bias, or "vote fraud"), it's called lying to the American people.

And that's not the way Ford sees it or GM and Chrysler. The big three call it like it is, a bailout of the US auto industry. But again, spin on your part.

Not people, lefties. Lefties want free stuff. I can't speak for neocons, but this conservative realizes "that people want decent jobs with wages" and I believe most others do as well and I especially agree with the dignity bit.

"Not people, lefties want free stuff"

So you just make stuff up with no real proof to back up anything.

Oh, thank goodness you thought enough of yourself to demand style changes. Unfortunately, that thought is something I don't share. Lighten up, it's a blog. If you don't like it, don't read it.

But I gotta give it to you for one of the most interesting avatars I've seen in a while.

Sending the real estate market and the construction industry down the tubes....

And "Proud Conservative" is unsuccessful again in making any point because he uses, ad hominem, ad hominem, and (what else) ad hominem.

Thank you Jim.

It appears that Scott either doesn't understand the issue or he's trying to stir up the low-information reader.

Jim- To answer your question about the sunset provision in the Bush tax cut when it was passed 10 years ago. As you should recall, the Bush Tax cuts of 2001 (EGTRRA) was passed in the Senate under the rules of reconciliation. By Senate rules, a reconciliation bill, also known as the Robert Byrd rule, cannot alter federal revenues for more then 10 years. Hence, the 10 year sunset in the bill. Senate Republicans wanted the bill to be permanent, for every taxpayer, but Democrats opposed that measure, so the Republicans used reconciliation.

The Byrd Rule allows Senators, during the Reconciliation Process, to block a piece of legislation if it purports significantly to increase the federal deficit............

Thank goodness REPUBLICANS were able to get around that rule that was designed to stop laws from significantly increasing the federal deficit.......

Where would we be now, where would we be now........

Mike-you say "The Byrd Rule allows Senators, during the Reconciliation Process, to block a piece of legislation if it purports significantly to increase the federal deficit............

Thank goodness REPUBLICANS were able to get around that rule that was designed to stop laws from significantly increasing the federal deficit......."

The bill passed uinder reconciliation. How did they get around it?

JimWilson:
I think we're on the same page with regards to the definitions, but the "diary", which I guess is a 20th century term for blog, is about the strategy used by O in negotiations. There's no judgement put forth on the merits of "Fiscal Cliff/Sequestration" in this "diary", pro or con. So your statements and questions, though interesting, aren't really applicable. Nowhere does it state that "it objects to sequestration", it's about an idea that if I were a big spender, I'd want the cliff and then puts forth a way to negotiate to get it, implying that's what O is doing.

Scott: So the point of this 'blog' is to point out that Presidents negotiate using politics?
Talk about burying the lede. But thanks for the insight anyway.

@Jim Burying the lede? LOL! Jim, it's in the title and is the first line of my first 2 paragraphs lol. Good lord, if I expose it anymore I'd be arrested! Regarding your interpretation of the point: well, if you consider politics as deceptive trickery then yes, the point is O is negotiating using deceptive trickery or, as you state, politics.

Charles- So you think that raising the debt ceiling is a good thing? Do you think the President should have the authority to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval? Something that this President is advocating for as part of his fiscal cliff compromise.
Before we talk about raising the debt ceiling, should we have budget in the first place? So that we have a metric to determine what we are raising the debt against?

FTP: Though this blog is on a negotiation strategy, I'm glad to hear you're for Tax Reform. We can agree on that at least. The undecipherable code is ridiculous; it's meant only for a select few to navigate and benefit.

CEO's like authoritarian governments because if people protest, Tiananmen Square style, they put down the protests with an iron fist, and back to the factories for subsistence wages for them. Giant retailers like "stability" such as this with foreign governments ruling with an iron fist, it's a great way to exploit workers and it's great for profit. This is what they mean when they say "it works".

Mr. Immelt is cooking his own goose. A more consumer based economy in China must include higher wages, therefore making it tougher to squeeze that last drop of profit. Higher wages will make it less likely to exploit workers.

This man is not just a CEO he is trotted forward by the current administration as thier example of connecting with business....he is a policy advisor. As a CEO he is also heading the one of the largest companies in the US and it has a lower effective tax rate of any citizen.......this is the policy poster boy?

And? What's your point Charlie?

Are you anti-business?

You complain about CEO's in government, but I thought that was a plus, afterall, you Repubs touted Mitt's business acumen?

(You also complain that Obama kept GM and Chrysler afloat, yet isn't that what we want, more US manufacturing, more US businesses?.)

You neoconservatives sure are a hard bunch to please.

So how about we return to the spending levels from the 90s too? Across the board lets do it right?

Yes. Let's have government spending as a % of GNP be the same as in the 1990's....