Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Finally, Congress can kinda agree on something: Stopping domestic spending cuts. Subby is not sure whether to be impressed or weep   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, congresses, carbon sequestration, debt limit, Wall Street reform  
•       •       •

1427 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jul 2012 at 12:41 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-07-13 09:09:56 AM  
Keynes was a dumbass, but cutting domestic defense spending would kill our economy, amirite?
 
2012-07-13 09:26:53 AM  
"NDD programs are not the reason behind our growing debt," the group added. "In fact, even completely eliminating all NDD programs would still not balance the budget. Yet NDD programs have borne the brunt of deficit reduction efforts."

And that's why any supposed debt or deficit reduction efforts that don't include substantial cuts to defense are pointless. It's even doubly stupid when the folks screaming loudest about the need to cut spending are the also screaming for increased spending on defense.
 
2012-07-13 09:48:53 AM  
Subby is not sure whether to be impressed or weep

Considering how the article is about a coalition of 3000 organizations pushing Congress to not cut their funding, and has nothing to do with Congress "kinda" agreeing on something... I'd say do both. Be impressed and weep. Then take take your medication, pull the stick out of your ass, and try to get some sleep.
 
2012-07-13 10:31:48 AM  
I say: Bring on Sequestration. Let the Bush tax cuts expire.

We tried lowering taxes, that didn't work. We tried stimulus spending, that didn't work.

So, raise taxes and cut spending. Lets give that a try.
 
2012-07-13 12:44:56 PM  

vernonFL: I say: Bring on Sequestration. Let the Bush tax cuts expire.

We tried lowering taxes, that didn't work. We tried stimulus spending, that didn't work.

So, raise taxes and cut spending. Lets give that a try.


vernonFL: I say: Bring on Sequestration. Let the Bush tax cuts expire.

We tried lowering taxes, that didn't work. We tried stimulus spending, that didn't work.

So, raise taxes and cut spending. Lets give that a try.


You mean implement actual austerity the same way that Europe does and not the BS method the GOP keeps endorsing which is cutting spending and taxes?

That idea is too smart for our dumbasses in Congress to understand.
 
2012-07-13 12:46:05 PM  

vernonFL: I say: Bring on Sequestration. Let the Bush tax cuts expire.

We tried lowering taxes, that didn't work. We tried stimulus spending, that didn't work.

So, raise taxes and cut spending. Lets give that a try.


As long as you don't raise taxes on the richest brackets, you've got some Republican votes.

/The rest won't vote on it until you CUT taxes on the rich, while raising them on everyone else.
 
2012-07-13 12:47:37 PM  

LordJiro: vernonFL: I say: Bring on Sequestration. Let the Bush tax cuts expire.

We tried lowering taxes, that didn't work. We tried stimulus spending, that didn't work.

So, raise taxes and cut spending. Lets give that a try.

As long as you don't raise taxes on the richest brackets, you've got some Republican votes.

/The rest won't vote on it until you CUT taxes on the rich, while raising them on everyone else.


LordJiro: vernonFL: I say: Bring on Sequestration. Let the Bush tax cuts expire.

We tried lowering taxes, that didn't work. We tried stimulus spending, that didn't work.

So, raise taxes and cut spending. Lets give that a try.

As long as you don't raise taxes on the richest brackets, you've got some Republican votes.

/The rest won't vote on it until you CUT taxes on the rich, while raising them on everyone else.


And the fact that cutting taxes will just negate the spending cuts is something that doesn't even phase most right-wingers.

So essentially it's all for nothing in the end.
 
2012-07-13 12:48:57 PM  
Prior to the across the board cuts demanded by the failure of the Super Committee to reach an 11th hour deal (Thanks GOP) 3,000 groups that benefit from NDD spending have sent a massive petition saying "Don't do this"?

Good luck with that.
 
2012-07-13 12:49:28 PM  

vernonFL: I say: Bring on Sequestration. Let the Bush tax cuts expire.

We tried lowering taxes, that didn't work. We tried stimulus spending, that didn't work.

So, raise taxes and cut spending. Lets give that a try.


Fine.

Are you cool with raising taxes mostly on the rich and cutting services mostly from the poor (and defense)? That way the middle class is mostly spared.
 
2012-07-13 12:49:47 PM  
Both Democrats and Republicans have ideas about how to avoid the sequester. But the election will play a large role in determining how the issue is ultimately resolved.

Congress won't touch it before the election and I wonder what a lame duck session is going to do with it?

Whatever happens, I'm just glad Republicans will not try to use cuts in domestic programs to leverage an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the higher earners again.
 
2012-07-13 12:56:52 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Both Democrats and Republicans have ideas about how to avoid the sequester. But the election will play a large role in determining how the issue is ultimately resolved.

Congress won't touch it before the election and I wonder what a lame duck session is going to do with it?

Whatever happens, I'm just glad Republicans will not try to use cuts in domestic programs to leverage an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the higher earners again.


For the last few years most everything got done in the lame duck session. The one magical part of the year where your vote doesn't have political consequences and you can moderate your views and vote with the other side.
 
2012-07-13 01:07:41 PM  
Wow.. 3000 organizations that suck on the national tit are afraid they wont get their yearly allowance.

It's just plain SHOCKING.

//and not a fark was given that day.
 
2012-07-13 01:10:51 PM  
Well, as long as they cut the useful domestic spending and keep pouring cash into the military it's all good amirite?
 
2012-07-13 01:15:43 PM  

madgonad: Are you cool with raising taxes mostly on the rich and cutting services mostly from the poor (and defense)? That way the middle class is mostly spared.


Raise taxes on everyone, cut spending across the board including defense, raise the SS retirement age and remove the income cap for SS contributions.
 
2012-07-13 01:21:48 PM  
This is all happening because Republicans wanted to wave their dicks around when the federal defecit needed to be raised. Like it has every few years. So they arranged a comittee to act like adults, which they didn't do... full well knowing these cuts would happen.

In short, Congress agreed to the deal. Suck it.
 
2012-07-13 01:23:44 PM  
"It seems that the mood of the crowd is that those getting free money want to continue getting free money!" - R. Romero
 
2012-07-13 01:29:59 PM  

cabbyman: "It seems that the mood of the crowd is that those getting free money want to continue getting free money!" - R. Romero


Does that include all of those defense contracts we keep pissing money on that the GOP will fight to the death to defend them from being cut?
 
2012-07-13 01:31:31 PM  
As long as they remember that whatever credibility they have is tied to this deal, the sequestration should stand intact or fall as a whole.
 
2012-07-13 01:34:23 PM  

Mrtraveler01: cabbyman: "It seems that the mood of the crowd is that those getting free money want to continue getting free money!" - R. Romero

Does that include all of those defense contracts we keep pissing money on that the GOP will fight to the death to defend them from being cut?


Hell yes.
 
2012-07-13 01:36:11 PM  
The domestic spending cuts are an ongoing issue really. Obama's been cutting down on the civillian side bureaucracy. However he also wants to undo some of the military cuts, namely build more Aegis destroyers (Burke Flight IIIs). The Reps are offering him the money for the ships, but always packaging it with civillian side expansion. So if he takes the money they can scream he's a tax and spend liberal and expanding the federal government/deficit by a large amount. If he doesn't get the money for ships, he's a soft on defense Democrat and not building a proper Navy.
 
2012-07-13 01:55:02 PM  
Let the "Bush tax cuts" expire
Immediately bring home all overseas troops, and DON'T replace them with "civilian contractors"
Cease all corporate subsidies for Big Oil, Big Ag, and Big Pharma
Cut all defense spending by ~50%
Raise social security and medicare eligibility ages to 70.
Means testing for social security and medicare.

Oh: and death panels until all baby boomers stop voting.
 
2012-07-13 01:55:23 PM  
But Republicans got 98% of what they wanted.
I say take the Defense money and the Domestic money, and let the tax cuts expire while your at it.
Either you meant what you said about cutting the deficit of you held the economy hostage for NOTHING!

/ except to harass president Obama.
 
2012-07-13 01:58:17 PM  

vernonFL: madgonad: Are you cool with raising taxes mostly on the rich and cutting services mostly from the poor (and defense)? That way the middle class is mostly spared.

Raise taxes on everyone, cut spending across the board including defense, raise the SS retirement age and remove the income cap for SS contributions.


I'll keep explaining this - if you remove the income cap for SS contributions, you also have to remove it for payouts. Otherwise, it's the most direct form of income redistribution this nation has ever tried.

I'm not 100% against that idea (more like 90% - as in, hitting the "cap" instead kicks off a sliding payout where you only see MOST of what you paid in), but you at least have to realize that philosophically, that idea is about as "unfair" as they come.
 
2012-07-13 02:00:25 PM  
talkingpointsmemo.com

Looks like we have all our schmucks in a row.

Nice way to match up the tie and your face, Jim.
 
2012-07-13 02:06:35 PM  

Dr Dreidel: I'll keep explaining this - if you remove the income cap for SS contributions, you also have to remove it for payouts


You're right, and I'm okay with that. I haven't done the math though, but I think that like any kind of insurance, Over the long run it would take in more than it paid out. But I really don't know.
 
2012-07-13 02:07:03 PM  

vernonFL: madgonad: Are you cool with raising taxes mostly on the rich and cutting services mostly from the poor (and defense)? That way the middle class is mostly spared.

Raise taxes on everyone, cut spending across the board including defense, raise the SS retirement age and remove the income cap for SS contributions.


This this this this this this this this THIS THIS THIS this THIS THIS this THIS THIS THIS THIS.

I would say not across the board spending cuts - certain R&D/science funding programs should receive more cash - but VERY few programs in general should be able to increase expenditures. In fact I would argue transfer DoD money to R&D funding while continuing to end defense programs - and phase it out slowly.

Oh and when you're done, when deficit is 0: Surplus budget amendment.
 
2012-07-13 02:19:25 PM  

Dr Dreidel: I'll keep explaining this - if you remove the income cap for SS contributions, you also have to remove it for payouts.


Serious question - where does that come from? Who says it has to be increased both ways?
 
2012-07-13 02:26:24 PM  

Dr Dreidel: I'm not 100% against that idea (more like 90% - as in, hitting the "cap" instead kicks off a sliding payout where you only see MOST of what you paid in), but you at least have to realize that philosophically, that idea is about as "unfair" as they come.


Well, That income isn't gonna redistribute itself.
I mean, that's how the economy works, right, consumers redistribute income from the bottom to the top, government redistributes income from the top to the bottom, and the engine of economy chugs along merrily.
 
2012-07-13 02:30:12 PM  
Remember, it doesn't matter if your citizens are dead or starving as long as the coffer is full and you feel good about yourself.
 
2012-07-13 02:30:21 PM  
If I read the news correctly...

in 2012 base Def Budget was 553b
in 2013 base Def Budget is 547 (6 billion less)

Budgets are nebulous because funds needed to build things and pay troops are done in Defense on a 10yr timeline. So that each year there aren't stoppages in construction.

But anyways.... There have been some recent items in the news that would lend you to believe that there are cutbacks.
Tank production is being shut down. We have enough.
Plane production has scaled back.
Navy balked at a new ship production and kept a ship that was to be retired (Ponce) and moved it to the Arabian Gulf. Wise use to me.
Navy cancelled helicopter drone 2013 project

I mean, it is some defecit reduction. Not enough to really dent it. But combine it with some other non military cuts and see what happens to the Economic outlook. Maybe confidence will improve.

One thing that jumps out at me is that in 2011 We gave out 1.6 Billion dollars in free cell phones with paid service. For some of those who applied and got them, they were listed as their 2nd cell phone.

That's just one small example. But if there is some fat trimming. People may be more open to some limited tax increases to boot.

But hey, that's just me....
 
2012-07-13 02:36:54 PM  

El Pachuco: Dr Dreidel: I'll keep explaining this - if you remove the income cap for SS contributions, you also have to remove it for payouts.

Serious question - where does that come from? Who says it has to be increased both ways?


1) Right now, the 10.4% SS tax (6.2% paid by your employer, 4.2% by you; self employed folks get to pay ALL of it) only applies to the first $110,100 in income you see every year.

2) Right now, the monthly benefit you get back is tied to how much you put in (the max monthly payout is currently $2,513).

Assuming you earn $110,100 (the max subject to SS tax) in a year, you'll have contributed $11,230.20 for the year, or $935.85/month. The payout is already favorable (due to inflation and a couple of other things), but there's no simple answer as to how that number can be derived pre-retirement.

Like I said, we're more than able to raise the cap or means-test benefits. It's a political nonstarter, though, as SS is already seen as predominantly redistributive (so monkeying with the input/output ratio to benefit lower-income folks won't obviate that charge).

// source 1
// source 2
 
2012-07-13 02:48:33 PM  

El Pachuco: Dr Dreidel: I'll keep explaining this - if you remove the income cap for SS contributions, you also have to remove it for payouts.

Serious question - where does that come from? Who says it has to be increased both ways?


---------------

Removing the cap for SS contributions officially makes it into a tax/handout. As it is now, it is more or less a forced retirement account, and everyone benefits based on what they put in. You take out the cap on contributions, and all of a sudden the top contributors can rightfully say that FICA payments are just a tax that they will see little relative benefit from. Seems to me like a very bad road to go down, and I'm a liberal/Democrat.

It seems much more effective to me to just make the tax code more progressive, and leave SS as it is. Keep SS as a "pure" savings/retirement account and leave it out of all the tax bickering.
 
2012-07-13 02:52:00 PM  

balloot: You take out the cap on contributions, and all of a sudden the top contributors can rightfully say that FICA payments are just a tax that they will see little relative benefit from.


And?
 
2012-07-13 02:52:51 PM  
I thank our new Teabagger-GOP for this.

Those simpering douchebags wanted this, screamed for it, cried for it... and now it's happening.

Take your hoverround and mayo sandwiches and weep at what your ridiculous version of math hath wrought.
 
2012-07-13 02:56:30 PM  
Proof # 1732 that congress can not be trusted with our money.
 
2012-07-13 03:30:12 PM  

Aarontology: And that's why any supposed debt or deficit reduction efforts that don't include substantial cuts to defense are pointless. It's even doubly stupid when the folks screaming loudest about the need to cut spending are the also screaming for increased spending on defense.


And wanting to cut taxes much, much further.
 
2012-07-13 03:34:19 PM  

Dr Dreidel: I'll keep explaining this - if you remove the income cap for SS contributions, you also have to remove it for payouts. Otherwise, it's the most direct form of income redistribution this nation has ever tried.


Well that's a stupid assertion if I've ever heard one.
 
2012-07-13 03:36:04 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: balloot: You take out the cap on contributions, and all of a sudden the top contributors can rightfully say that FICA payments are just a tax that they will see little relative benefit from.

And?


------------------------------

...and everyone who makes more than $110,000 a year will all of a sudden dislike Social Security and want to dismantle it. And it will then be killed, because pretty much everyone who is important and influential makes more than $110,00 a year.

To put it another way, let's say I proposed a new tax of 6% on all earnings over $110,000. And I said you can either have that tax and Social Security, or you can have neither. Which of those two things do you think would happen?
 
2012-07-13 03:52:26 PM  

un4gvn666: Dr Dreidel: I'll keep explaining this - if you remove the income cap for SS contributions, you also have to remove it for payouts. Otherwise, it's the most direct form of income redistribution this nation has ever tried.

Well that's a stupid assertion if I've ever heard one.


Explain. I provided some manner of support for my assertion, so it's your turn.
 
2012-07-13 03:55:39 PM  

un4gvn666: Dr Dreidel: I'll keep explaining this - if you remove the income cap for SS contributions, you also have to remove it for payouts. Otherwise, it's the most direct form of income redistribution this nation has ever tried.

Well that's a stupid assertion if I've ever heard one.


How is that stupid? I would love to know, because it appears perfectly correct to me. If someone made $1M in a year, you would take 6% of that, and then give them payouts down the road that are the same as someone who had made $110K. How is that NOT direct income redistribution? That person just paid $53,400 (6% of $890K) that is slated for someone else's SS check!
 
2012-07-13 04:00:59 PM  

Dr Dreidel: vernonFL: madgonad: Are you cool with raising taxes mostly on the rich and cutting services mostly from the poor (and defense)? That way the middle class is mostly spared.

Raise taxes on everyone, cut spending across the board including defense, raise the SS retirement age and remove the income cap for SS contributions.

I'll keep explaining this - if you remove the income cap for SS contributions, you also have to remove it for payouts. Otherwise, it's the most direct form of income redistribution this nation has ever tried.

I'm not 100% against that idea (more like 90% - as in, hitting the "cap" instead kicks off a sliding payout where you only see MOST of what you paid in), but you at least have to realize that philosophically, that idea is about as "unfair" as they come.


------------

FWIW, I'm in total agreement with this. I'm a Democrat, I'm a liberal, and I think it's a horrible idea to remove a direct tie between contributions and payouts in SS. That would change the purpose of the program entirely, and give Republicans a very good excuse to kill it outright.
 
2012-07-13 04:16:33 PM  

vernonFL: I say: Bring on Sequestration. Let the Bush tax cuts expire.

We tried lowering taxes, that didn't work. We tried stimulus spending, that didn't work.

So, raise taxes and cut spending. Lets give that a try.


It would work too much, that's the problem.
 
2012-07-13 04:25:22 PM  

balloot: ...and everyone who makes more than $110,000 a year will all of a sudden dislike Social Security and want to dismantle it.


As if one party doesn't want to dismantle (privatize) it already?

balloot: And it will then be killed, because pretty much everyone who is important and influential makes more than $110,00 a year.


SS is the most successful social welfare program in the history of the country. It won't be dismantled because old people rely on it, and old people are the only ones who consistently vote.
 
2012-07-13 04:34:02 PM  

Dr Dreidel: un4gvn666: Dr Dreidel: I'll keep explaining this - if you remove the income cap for SS contributions, you also have to remove it for payouts. Otherwise, it's the most direct form of income redistribution this nation has ever tried.

Well that's a stupid assertion if I've ever heard one.

Explain. I provided some manner of support for my assertion, so it's your turn.


balloot: un4gvn666: Dr Dreidel: I'll keep explaining this - if you remove the income cap for SS contributions, you also have to remove it for payouts. Otherwise, it's the most direct form of income redistribution this nation has ever tried.

Well that's a stupid assertion if I've ever heard one.

How is that stupid? I would love to know, because it appears perfectly correct to me. If someone made $1M in a year, you would take 6% of that, and then give them payouts down the road that are the same as someone who had made $110K. How is that NOT direct income redistribution? That person just paid $53,400 (6% of $890K) that is slated for someone else's SS check!


Social Security is not a retirement program. It is social insurance.

"How is that NOT direct income redistribution?". That's the whole point. Just like taxes, we accept that some redistribution of wealth is both necessary and healthy for our society. No one claimed that it wasn't. We're simply asking "Who farking cares?"

The program is meant to prevent people from slipping into abject poverty in their old age or in case of a disability. If you have a high income, you are not in danger of succumbing to this scenario, ergo, you are not eligible for those benefits. Not yours.

This is the cost we as a society have deemed necessary and just in order for anyone to avail themselves of the privileges our society affords them. If you don't like it, GTFO.

Saying "Oh, high income earners will SURELY just have the program undone if you don't allow them access to those benefits!" only highlights the problem we face in our current society, which is that high-income-earning assholes (who do not represent the majority of citizens) seem to think that their level of income is directly proportional to their level of representation in our government. THAT is the greatest struggle we face in the 21st century. And if you defend any policy or idea by saying, "well, the well-off will just use their influence to undo it," then you're part of the problem, and, in my opinion, "stupid".

Happy now?
 
2012-07-13 04:42:04 PM  
My friend works for Lockheed Martin and is all smug about it. Let's see what happens when the welfare queen that is Lockheed gets its funding cut.
 
2012-07-13 07:36:03 PM  
I like the sequestration... it's a fair deal... it gets rid of some programs I think are bloated (DoD), but the tradeoff was getting rid of some programs I like. It's fair, neutral, and takes pet projects from both sides.

Also, anyone who thinks the DoD can't be cut without losing combat-readiness is someone who hasn't filled out the same form five times, then sent it to five different people who will meet for days on end to decide whether or not the purchase of a few hundred bucks should be authorized. The military is the standard bearer for administrative inefficiency and it's high time we help the private employers by letting them have some of the desk jockeys.
 
2012-07-13 07:40:25 PM  

balloot: un4gvn666: Dr Dreidel: I'll keep explaining this - if you remove the income cap for SS contributions, you also have to remove it for payouts. Otherwise, it's the most direct form of income redistribution this nation has ever tried.

Well that's a stupid assertion if I've ever heard one.

How is that stupid? I would love to know, because it appears perfectly correct to me. If someone made $1M in a year, you would take 6% of that, and then give them payouts down the road that are the same as someone who had made $110K. How is that NOT direct income redistribution? That person just paid $53,400 (6% of $890K) that is slated for someone else's SS check!


It's stupid because it's not true, your contributions to the social security system are also capped, you don't pay the SS tax above cap... if you'd like to learn more about how social security contribution caps work, visit http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html . The guy making 890k pays the same amount in social security taxes as the guy who made 110k, that's why they get the same amount.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report