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.

(Investors Business Daily)   How come there's no pressure on Dems to cough up spending cuts in the "fiscal cliff" talks?   (news.investors.com) divider line 94
    More: Strange, no pressure, D-Ill, Boehner, George Stephanopoulos, Party leaders of the United States Senate, Nancy Pelosi  
•       •       •

1880 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Nov 2012 at 10:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-27 09:13:35 AM
12 votes:
Because they have said all along they would be willing to cut spending programs as a part of a balanced package?
2012-11-27 09:50:41 AM
10 votes:
When you lose you're expected to make concessions.  Republicans lost.
2012-11-27 09:47:28 AM
8 votes:
When writing about a balanced approach to fiscal policy, one that involves both spending cuts and new revenues, it should be noted that Congress and the President have actually already cut $1.5 trillion ($1.7t including interest savings) in discretionary spending, not including war costs, over the next decade. Link
2012-11-27 10:36:19 AM
5 votes:
SCOREBOARD: 303 to 206. That's how come, biatch.
2012-11-27 10:05:59 AM
5 votes:
It's Investor's Business Daily. Pay it no mind.
2012-11-27 12:14:28 PM
4 votes:

MattStafford: ps69: People are giving us free money. We ought to be doing stimulus, not committing hara kiri through idiotic austerity. Our debt is not a problem.

To make an analogy: suppose banks were lending an individual money at near zero interest rates, with absolutely no indication that they would raise rates in the near future. Do you think it would be financially prudent for that individual to borrow as much money as humanly possible and spend it on booze and hookers?


The financial prudence of the borrowing depends entirely on what it is spent on.

Should you borrow to finance destruction, like booze or hookers or war? No. You get zero return on these; they are pure loss from a financial perspective, because the gains are either nonexistent or short-term. Except for the companies that supply booze, hookers, and war, of course.

Should you borrow to finance construction, like education and infrastructure? Yes. These will increase your earning power over the long run, allowing you to pay back your debt. It's "spend money to make money".

Are you somehow under the impression that no entity ever borrows to finance growth?
2012-11-27 10:47:34 AM
4 votes:

SunsetLament: the country voted for Republican control of the House of Representatives.


With a little help from Mr. Gerry Mander
assets.motherjones.com
2012-11-27 10:39:44 AM
4 votes:

Rain-Monkey: Because they have said all along they would be willing to cut spending programs as a part of a balanced package?


done in one.

and, oh yeah, THE FISCAL CLIFF IS 100 PERCENT THE FAULT OF REPUBLICANS.
2012-11-27 10:38:55 AM
4 votes:

Daily reminder: The GOP's backing of the tax plan pushed by the loser of the presidential election is not a concession.

- Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) November 27, 2012
2012-11-27 10:36:02 AM
4 votes:
Because they didn't get their asses handed to them back on November 6?

Because they've been conceding them all along even though they won't work on their own?

Because they never made a pinkie-swear to an unelected megalomaniac to never ever cut spending, cross our hearts and hope to die?

because fark you, that's why?
2012-11-27 10:02:56 AM
4 votes:
The Dems are not the ones steadfastly refusing any sort of compromise. The GOP is the one going all "Thelma and Louise" on us.
2012-11-27 11:16:51 AM
3 votes:
Remember folks, it's when ridiculously wealthy people might feel a pinch, it's "OMGZ teh fiscal cliff!!111"

And when we cut spending that benefit poor and working poor by $1.5 trillion (as we already have) it's merely "kicking a can down the road".


Semantics and word games are fun. Especially when it's used to imply that one outcome must be avoided at all cost, and one outcome not only needs to be revisited in the future but revisited in a Draconian manner.

/teh class wuhrfare
2012-11-27 10:41:01 AM
3 votes:

Infernalist: DNRTFA.

Am I missing something, or did this major publication completely miss the trillions of dollars in offered spending cuts that the GOP took an enormous steaming dump on before demanding more?


By equating Democrats unwillingness to privatize Medicare and cut Social Security with the GOP's unwillingness to raise any taxes any amount.

It's dumb but you have to be dumb to play Both Sides are Bad.
2012-11-27 10:37:40 AM
3 votes:

CPT Ethanolic: As anyone who's studied the federal budget knows, the problem isn't too little taxes. Even if we kept all the Bush tax cuts in place, federal revenues as a share of GDP will soon exceed historic averages.

Uhmm... HUH?? Do these historical averages include the time before income taxes or something?


Does he not know that from the end of WWII to now, we always collected about 19% GDP in revenues? Does he also not know that something happened around 2004 that caused this to drop to ~14% (and it's stayed there since)?

If he doesn't know that, why the bloody blue fark is he writing about government for a business publication?
2012-11-27 10:33:45 AM
3 votes:
DNRTFA.

Am I missing something, or did this major publication completely miss the trillions of dollars in offered spending cuts that the GOP took an enormous steaming dump on before demanding more?
2012-11-27 09:29:53 AM
3 votes:
Isn't the entire problem with the fiscal cliff the fact that it's a giant spending cut? What am I missing?
2012-11-27 02:55:42 PM
2 votes:

hasty ambush: Philip Francis Queeg: Please show me where the US Constitution enumerates that the federal Government has the power to create an Air Force. Please also indicate where it enumerates that they may maintain an Air Traffic Control system.

Air traffic control comes in two parts. First it is part of treaties ratified by the US which then have the same power as the Constitution itself and tow to regulate commerce between the states as the does the FCC etc.

The USAF comes under the enumerated powers to raise , fund and regulate (all enumerated not general) the military it can also define organizational structure hence the department of the Air Force. You might argue it says nothing about airplanes but it also says nothing about horses, bayonets or Johnny cakes.

If your going to argue food stamps comes under general welfare you as well argue that the Patriot Act or unlimited detention comes under the common defense


The word "military" is not used in the Constitution. It only refers to Armies and Navies specifically. I'm sure a strict constitutionalists like you will agree that the Air Force as it is now established is wholly unconstitutional and should be abolished. You wouldn't want to see the Founders clear specific words interpreted to include other things.
2012-11-27 02:16:01 PM
2 votes:

hasty ambush: Freedom and being cared for are two different things. Freedom comes with burdens among them being self reliance and self responsibility. The more those two burdens are lessened the less freedom you have. As you become more dependent and ceded more control of your life to those doing the "caring for" you are less free.


I don't believe caring for people, be they poor or elderly or sick, in their time of need makes them dependent on that care. In the same way having access to a fire extinguisher does not cause one to start fires. 

I believe this is a fundamental difference between left and right. The left tends to believe people use that care because they need it, not because they want to. The right tends to believe if people use that care because they need it, they will then always want to.
2012-11-27 02:14:39 PM
2 votes:
Why is people who feel taxing the rich to the tune of several billion dollars a year is a waste of time because it doesn't completely eliminate the deficit in one fell swoop feel that eliminating PBS to the tune of $150 million a year is a good first step and well worth doing?
2012-11-27 01:51:02 PM
2 votes:

MattStafford: jst3p: Your premise, that the government exists only to promote policies and programs that are economically productive, is flawed. You understanding of Civics is on par with your understanding of economics. I really hope you are trolling because if a person as ignorant and outspoken as you really exists I weep for our public education system.

Except for the fact I'm in favor of wealth redistribution. I'm not in favor of spending borrowed money on unproductive things.


Your premise, that the government exists only to promote policies and programs that are economically productive, is flawed.

Your premise, that the government exists only to promote policies and programs that are economically productive, is flawed.

Your premise, that the government exists only to promote policies and programs that are economically productive, is flawed.
 

Why the assumption that the borrowed money is supporting old people. The old people have to be paid for, because it is the right thing to do. We are paying for them with the revenue we take in. We are bowrrowing money to maintain the largest military, by far, in the world and conduct nation building in the Middle East. How is that econonomically productive?
2012-11-27 12:09:40 PM
2 votes:

jigger: qorkfiend: So no, it doesn't clearly say that and it's subject to interpretation? Fascinating.

It clearly does not grant Congress the power to impose a mandate on individuals to engage in commerce. The power does not exists. Well, it does now. Thanks Supreme Court. It's a terrible precedent.


Incentives to engage in commerce have long been part of the Constitutional lexicon. The mortgage interest deduction is the clearest example; if you do not have a mortgage - you have not engaged in commerce to solicit a loan for the express purpose of engaging in commerce to buy property - you will have a higher tax bill than someone who does. Likewise, if you do not have health insurance, you will have a higher tax bill than someone who does.

There's also the historical case of the Militia Acts, which required people to purchase arms from a private company. It was passed by a Congress that included many of the Founding Fathers, signed into law by George Washington, and not overturned by the Supreme Court. This notion of yours that the Founders would somehow disapprove of the ACA is contradicted by the Founders' own actions.
2012-11-27 11:56:57 AM
2 votes:

tony41454: Because Dems are idiots who want to break America's bank. It's not the Republicans that have gotten us into this mess, it's the liberal spendthrifts.


You're boring.
2012-11-27 11:56:04 AM
2 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: ps69: People are giving us free money. We ought to be doing stimulus, not committing hara kiri through idiotic austerity. Our debt is not a problem.

ding ding ding


If we only had some real world example that shows that austerity measures can make "bad" into "worse"
2012-11-27 11:52:58 AM
2 votes:

tony41454: It's not the Republicans that have gotten us into this mess


If you ignore history, math, and reality this is definitely true.
2012-11-27 11:46:22 AM
2 votes:
People are giving us free money. We ought to be doing stimulus, not committing hara kiri through idiotic austerity. Our debt is not a problem.
2012-11-27 11:32:02 AM
2 votes:
The Romney/Ryan plan of fixing the budget through closing loopholes and getting rid of reductions was overwhelming rejected by voters in favor of Obama's plan of raising marginal tax rates on incomes over 250k. In response to this defeat republics decide their position should be to fix the budget they will only get rid of loop holes and deductions.
2012-11-27 11:14:57 AM
2 votes:
www.caglecartoons.com
2012-11-27 11:00:28 AM
2 votes:

jigger: mrshowrules: Because he knew Obamacare would be deemed unconstitutional.

Anyone who thought that it was a forgone conclusion that the mandate would be overturned severely underestimates the Supreme Court's ability to twist the constitution and previous case law.


In other words it's Judicial Activism when I don't agree with the ruling.
2012-11-27 11:00:01 AM
2 votes:

SunsetLament: Oh, that sucks. Maybe you should control state legislatures next time re-districting comes around.


Maybe it's not about control, but about common sense. Gerrymandering sucks no matter who it benefits.
2012-11-27 10:56:17 AM
2 votes:

SunsetLament: I would start to believe the media


don't bother, just keep getting info from right wing sources. Now that Romney has won in a landslide he'll be able to turn around anything these democrats screw up during Obama's time as a lame duck.
2012-11-27 10:51:53 AM
2 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: because for the dems, improving the budget overages by 10% via taxes is a bigger class warfare win than dealing with the other 90% of the budget overages


Say, did you ever get around to issuing an apology for all that confident boasting you were doing about an impending Romney victory?

So, tell us again why we should take you seriously?
2012-11-27 10:47:31 AM
2 votes:

Slaves2Darkness: mrshowrules: exick: Isn't the entire problem with the fiscal cliff the fact that it's a giant spending cut? What am I missing?

If you view temporary tax cuts as effectively spending (which I think it is), you are absolutely accurate.

No you are missing the second part of the fiscal cliff and that is an automatic 10% cut to all government programs across the board.


The 2nd part is well-understood as spending cuts. By point is that the whole thing is effectively all spending cuts.

I don't view letting the tax cuts expiring as a revenue increase (although it increases revenue). I view it primarily as ending a temporary subsidy (i.e., spending reduction).
2012-11-27 10:36:09 AM
2 votes:
Why should we have to cut programs people voted for? If people wanted to cut all that shiat, then Romney should have won.
2012-11-28 11:30:52 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Gaseous Anomaly: What, exactly, is "unsustainable" about our national "lifestyle"?

Are you serious? The fact that 70% of our economy is based on consumption should be enough to convince anyone. Combine that with massive trade deficits year after year, and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see where we are heading.


OK, where are we heading? Yes, I'm asking serious questions, trying to illuminate where your thinking may be muddy on these issues.

For one example, ponder what devaluation of the dollar does to trade deficits. (This helped me a lot; I used to be absolutely convinced that free trade could never lead anywhere but the whole world having Third World standards of living, with no chance for improvement. Learning some actual geography-of-trade and international-finance concepts has refuted that.)

For another example, what's bad about basing an economy on consumption? Instead of "it makes me feel icky and it should make you feel icky too", try to explain what "should" be different, how that would affect the world, and why it's better.

If (to pick a common example) you're concerned that "too much" of our economy is in services vs. manufacturing (I used to believe this too), keep in mind that there's not any big philosophical divide between those two. If I make pasta and serve it to you on a plate, that's services. If I make pasta, freeze it and put it in a box, that's manufacturing.

/Yes, I get a lot of this from Matt Yglesias, I find him enlightening
2012-11-28 09:51:36 AM
1 votes:

Zasteva: incendi: Zasteva: Personally, I'd rather see it use the newly created money to buy high interest rate individual debt (say from credit card companies or payday lenders), and then change the payment terms on that debt to be at prime interest rate and with much more forgiving repayment terms.

I'm not quite sure how I'd feel about it if one day I suddenly was in debt to the federal government instead of my bank. A few points off would go a long way towards reducing that unease, but still...

And how would you feel about it if the interest rate dropped from 25% to 2%, which would be fairly typical of a payday loan.

Dunno about you, but the easiest debt I've ever had to deal with was my consolidated student loan. Owed directly to the government, but with all kinds of nice rules about forbearance and graduated payback levels and none of the overly harsh penalties for missing a payment (actually, never have missed a payment, but I do know they don't double your interest rate because of it).


There is a downside to owing the government money, you can't escape it. Like Federal student loans: they're not dischargeable in bankruptcy. On the other hand that may well be worth the reduced interest rates, forbearances, etc.

I've though such a model might work well for post-crisis underwater-homeowner rescue. The government refinances the mortgage for the amount owed at low interest rates, with the caveat that the debt follows you forever until paid off (like student loans) even if you walk away from the house. A nice dose of "personal responsibility" to go with the macroeconomy-friendly bailout.
2012-11-28 09:45:28 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: The problem is, people don't see money printing as a method to pay off our debts, and then live within our means. Instead, they see it as a method to continue living beyond our means, simply with accounting trickery. This is not a solution, and does not fix the problem.

It is the difference between saying "let's fund Medicare via money printing indefinitely" and "let's print money, pay off our current Medicare obligations, then pay for all future Medicare costs out of our revenue." The former is not a solution (and in my opinion, is downright idiotic), whereas the latter has some merit to it.


What, exactly, is "unsustainable" about our national "lifestyle"? It seems to be a basic assumption of yours. Are you assuming that spending growth rates must always increase, and/or that tax rates may never ever increase?

I'm not sure who is advocating never ever decreasing the deficit (it never has to decrease to 0 or go into surplus, only to be less than the growth in the economy). Are you assuming (I've seen this from other Farkers but not IIRC from you) that US taxes can never ever be more than X% of GDP because they haven't gotten higher than that before? If that were true, what's different about America that makes it impossible when other countries do just fine with higher taxes?

Health care cost growth is clearly unsustainable, and that's what drives our projected long-term Federal budget problems. But simply chanting "cut cut cut" (that is, have the Federal government just stop paying for anybody's health care) isn't a solution at all. The same problem would apply, just to States and individuals. (A voluntary-suicide movement as you hint at upthread is unlikely to take off).

The best way to but health care costs is to have the government take it over. I know the solution "solve the problem of government spending too much by having them take on more spending responsibility" lacks appeal to your intuition, but it works. (See: everywhere else).

If you think everyone else's health care costs are low because the rest of the world is free-riding on our innovative-y-ness, run the numbers. Check out theincidentaleconomist.com. In pharma in particular there's a lot of low-hanging fruit; the much-vaunted high R&D costs are a small fraction of the US total expenditure on drugs (not to mention the rest of the world).
2012-11-27 06:00:11 PM
1 votes:

jigger: Coming back to this thread after about 5 hours and I see that some fark posters have absolutely no life.

Well, anyway.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x512]


Go ahead. Do it. Tell us what you can do with just spending cuts and no new revenue:

Try to Stabilize The Debt
2012-11-27 04:02:40 PM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: Philip Francis Queeg: The word "military" is not used in the Constitution. It only refers to Armies and Navies specifically. I'm sure a strict constitutionalists like you will agree that the Air Force as it is now established is wholly unconstitutional and should be abolished. You wouldn't want to see the Founders clear specific words interpreted to include other things.

With the stroke of a pen, the air force could be absorbed into the Army Air Corps and Naval Air command. One could argue also that the air force supports the Army and Navy and is thus constitutional.

the "General welfare" on its own doesn't exist. it is defined by the enumerated powers. If General welfare was supposed to be an overarching, open-ended power, why did Madison bother to enumerate 18 powers of congress?


Nope, even then the Air Force is Unconstitutional.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

Congress can only make rules and regulations for land and naval forces. As a strict Constitutionalists, you must agree that Congress has greatly overstepped it's bounds for over a century for allowing any sort of an Air Force. The language of the Constitution is precise and clear.
2012-11-27 03:12:03 PM
1 votes:

Zasteva: Budget simulator:

Link


I was just poking at that a few minutes ago. There's a lot of missing options I wish they would add.
2012-11-27 03:04:52 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: So our best option is to overturn a law requiring hospitals to treat people regardless of their ability to pay and to let them get sick and die in the streets?

Well, I have bad news for you, if we continue on our current path it is going to stop being an option and simply become reality. Eventually the borrowed money is going to run out, and when that happens, it doesn't matter what option you want, our only choice will be to let them die. Better to start cutting back now.


Another flawed premise. Mostly anyway.

Old people aren't just going to disappear if we, say, get rid of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Ones with no family left may well just starve away.

But old people who still have family alive will go move in with them. Unless that family turns out the old person, now they're burdening people who *are* productive.

Eliminate Medicaid, and watch all the people whose nursing home care is funded thereby (about 75% of nursing home residents IIRC) move in with kids, then a bunch of those kids drop out of the workforce (shrinking the economy) to take care of them.
2012-11-27 03:00:07 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Eventually the borrowed money is going to run out, and when that happens, it doesn't matter what option you want, our only choice will be to let them die.


Personal and international finances are different beasts entirely. I was willing to give you some credit up till this point.
2012-11-27 02:59:57 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: the borrowing on money isn't a good thing.


Your premise is wrong when interest rates are negative, you know.
2012-11-27 02:56:32 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: That doesn't answer whether or not they are productive or not. And no, spending is the main driver of our current deficit. If an individual spends twice as much money as he makes, I doubt you would say the main driver of his deficit is that he doesn't make enough money.


Tax cuts are the main driver of the deficit when we were making enough for how much we spent, then decided to willingly make less. Thus, they drove the deficit.

See how that works?

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: You're right, you're not buying it. But they are. You know there is such a thing as "the economy" right?

Explain to me how an old person who does absolutely nothing productive is productive. All they do is consume. Although I'm sure you of the belief that consumption is god's gift to the economy, particularly when that consumption is funded by debt. Which is absolutely idiotic.


Okay, please cite any study that shows that consumption is not the main driver for the US economy.
2012-11-27 02:51:53 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: But the idea that I get from many of the people on the left in this thread


MattStafford: I just sort of assumed he thought


Gee I wonder if these two things are related in some way.

The People's Budge is the least painful for the majority of Americans, the middle class and poor. Which is apparently why none of the big news networks talks about it. Funny how that works.
2012-11-27 02:49:07 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: operating under the assumption


You're operating under a hell of a lot of assumptions, and very little reality.
2012-11-27 02:25:35 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: But you have to choose between the two. You just can't say to hell with that person, we can't afford to treat you. It's against the law to deny medical treatment to anyone in an ER.

So one way or another, we have to spend money to keep this "unproductive" person alive.


I understand that. But I'm arguing that we shouldn't be spending the 100,000 or the 1,000,000. Just because the 100,000 is better than the 1,000,000 doesn't mean I shouldn't argue against both.


Except we are require by law to spend at least the 100,000. That's the reality you seem to want to ignore.

That's why I'm asking if it's smarter to pay 100,000 so that we don't have to pay 1,000,000 later.
2012-11-27 02:21:32 PM
1 votes:

Ardilla: How about this?


That's the budget I want, and the budget, when polled on the items individually, most American people want. Which is of course why we heard nothing about it on the super liberal media and spent the last 2 years talking about the Ryan budget.
2012-11-27 02:13:48 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: odinsposse: The government does not work solely to create economic benefit. Why can't you get this?

I understand that. I am entirely for wealth redistribution. But borrowing money and spending that on unproductive things destroys our economy.


Unproductive things: tax cuts and 2 wars

Productive things: healthcare and social security
2012-11-27 01:56:23 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: So letting them get severely sick before seeking medical treatment at the ER is more cost effective how?

I suppose it is more cost effective to buy a steady steam of booze than to buy a ton of booze at once. Doesn't change the fact you're buying booze with borrowed money.


Booze is a terrible analogy and you're smart enough to know that.

ER's are not allowed to refuse any patients regardless of whether or not they can pay. One way or another, these seniors are going to get medical treatment, whether it's with Medicare or through the ER (which tends to cost a lot more).

So...explain to me why it's smarter to just wait for these people to get sick enough to go to the ER and unable to pay the medical bill which then rests on the taxpayer (ie: us) to pay for?
2012-11-27 01:38:23 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: mcwehrle: dafuq?

Tell ya what. Fark you and any elderly in your family, let's go with that. YOU FIRST.

And I'll even volunteer to drive your sorry ass into the wildnerness and drop you off when you hit 70.

farkyoufarkyoufarkyou and the horse you rode in on, and welcome to ignore, you ignorant fark.

Ignorant? You're attempting to counter my arguments with appeals to emotion. Just tell me what productive thing the elderly do for the economy, and I will take it back. What are they producing? Who is buying their services? Seriously, if I'm wrong, just let me know.


Your premise, that the government exists only to promote policies and programs that are economically productive, is flawed. You understanding of Civics is on par with your understanding of economics. I really hope you are trolling because if a person as ignorant and outspoken as you really exists I weep for our public education system.
2012-11-27 01:18:01 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: odinsposse: Except keeping people alive isn't the equivalent of wasting money on booze and hookers. This is exactly why looking at spending as a risk/reward investment makes sense in business but is unfathomably stupid in government.

It is wasteful spending. Explain to me how keeping an 80 year old person who does absolutely no work alive for another 10 years, at a massive cost funded almost entirely by borrowing is somehow beneficial to our economy. All you are making is an appeal to emotion.


The government does not work solely to create economic benefit. Why can't you get this?
2012-11-27 01:11:11 PM
1 votes:
When we tried to avert this disaster the first time, Obama offered $2.50 in cuts for ever $1 in revenue. The GOP said no.



Now they can sleep in the bed they made.

fark em.
2012-11-27 01:04:09 PM
1 votes:

mcwehrle: MattStafford:
The elderly produce very little, and the vast majority of money is spent on their final, completely unproductive years.)
MattStafford:
Well, we're spending it on keeping our unproductive, retired elderly alive, maintaining an unproductive military, servicing interest on the debt, and as welfare to the poor. I'm not arguing that these aren't important things for a country to spend money on



dafuq?

Tell ya what. Fark you and any elderly in your family, let's go with that. YOU FIRST.

And I'll even volunteer to drive your sorry ass into the wildnerness and drop you off when you hit 70.

farkyoufarkyoufarkyou and the horse you rode in on, and welcome to ignore, you ignorant fark.


I think he's about as much of a prick as anyone else, but shiat, this is just the internet. Calm down killer.
2012-11-27 12:56:35 PM
1 votes:

hasty ambush: Large cuts to everything are unavoidable even with tax increases.

"If you took every single penny that Warren Buffett has, it'd pay for 4-1/2 days of the US government. This tax-the-rich won't work. The problem here is the government is way bigger than even the capacity of the rich to sustain it."

"According to the Congressional Budget Office "the Buffett Rule" will raise $3.2 billion per year. Or what the United States government currently borrows every 17 hours. So in 514 years it will have raised enough additional revenue to pay off the 2011 federal budget deficit.

"There is only one Warren Buffett. He is the third-wealthiest person on the planet. The first is a Mexican, and beyond the reach of the U.S. Treasury. Mr. Buffett is worth $44 billion. If he donated the entire lot to the Government of the United States, they would blow through it within four-and-a-half days. OK, so who's the fourth-richest guy? He's French. And the fifth guy's a Spaniard. No. 6 six is Larry Ellison. He's American, but that loser is only worth $36 billion. So he and Buffett between them could keep the United States Government going for a week. The next-richest American is Christy Walton of Wal-Mart, and she's barely a semi-Buffett. So her $25 billion will see you through a couple of days of the second week. There aren't a lot of other semi-Buffetts, but, if you scrounge around, you can rustle up some hemi-demi-semi-Buffetts: If you confiscate the total wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it comes to $1.5 trillion, which is just a little less than the Obama budget deficit for year."

Link


What individual cut will solve the deficit problem entirely on it's own?
2012-11-27 12:50:50 PM
1 votes:
Large cuts to everything are unavoidable even with tax increases.

"If you took every single penny that Warren Buffett has, it'd pay for 4-1/2 days of the US government. This tax-the-rich won't work. The problem here is the government is way bigger than even the capacity of the rich to sustain it."

"According to the Congressional Budget Office "the Buffett Rule" will raise $3.2 billion per year. Or what the United States government currently borrows every 17 hours. So in 514 years it will have raised enough additional revenue to pay off the 2011 federal budget deficit.

"There is only one Warren Buffett. He is the third-wealthiest person on the planet. The first is a Mexican, and beyond the reach of the U.S. Treasury. Mr. Buffett is worth $44 billion. If he donated the entire lot to the Government of the United States, they would blow through it within four-and-a-half days. OK, so who's the fourth-richest guy? He's French. And the fifth guy's a Spaniard. No. 6 six is Larry Ellison. He's American, but that loser is only worth $36 billion. So he and Buffett between them could keep the United States Government going for a week. The next-richest American is Christy Walton of Wal-Mart, and she's barely a semi-Buffett. So her $25 billion will see you through a couple of days of the second week. There aren't a lot of other semi-Buffetts, but, if you scrounge around, you can rustle up some hemi-demi-semi-Buffetts: If you confiscate the total wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it comes to $1.5 trillion, which is just a little less than the Obama budget deficit for year."

Link
2012-11-27 12:35:34 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: That's right folks, keeping grandma from starving to death is exactly the same as spending on booze and hookers.

In terms of how much it helps the economy? Yeah, they are rather similar. How does keeping grandma alive in a nursing home from when she is 70 to when she is 80 help the economy?

And if you argue it creates a health care industry...well guess the fark what. Once we are forced to stop spending money on grandma, that health care industry dies along with it. There is no long term gain to keeping grandma alive.


So I assume you have urged your unproductive grandparents to off themselves for the greater good, rather than continuing to consume resources, right? You will of course blow your own brains out if you ever cease to work.
2012-11-27 12:28:44 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Dusk-You-n-Me: Yes, we should borrow while rates are zero or near zero. We should not spend it on booze and hookers.

Well, we're spending it on keeping our unproductive, retired elderly alive, maintaining an unproductive military, servicing interest on the debt, and as welfare to the poor. I'm not arguing that these aren't important things for a country to spend money on, but I will argue that we should not be spending borrowed money on them. We are spending on the equivalent of booze and hookers.


That's right folks, keeping grandma from starving to death is exactly the same as spending on booze and hookers.
2012-11-27 12:20:47 PM
1 votes:

Rain-Monkey: Because they have said all along they would be willing to cut spending programs as a part of a balanced package?


Also, probably because they never signed a pledge to a lobbyist to never ever cut spending no matter what.
2012-11-27 12:18:29 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: ps69: People are giving us free money. We ought to be doing stimulus, not committing hara kiri through idiotic austerity. Our debt is not a problem.

To make an analogy: suppose banks were lending an individual money at near zero interest rates, with absolutely no indication that they would raise rates in the near future. Do you think it would be financially prudent for that individual to borrow as much money as humanly possible and spend it on booze and hookers?


Spend it on booze and hookers? No. Spend it on acquiring new better/job skills or investing it into your own private business? Yes.

I don't put renovating our crumbling, decrepit infrastructure and investing in the emerging technologies that will run the world in future generations in the "booze and hookers" category.
2012-11-27 12:14:31 PM
1 votes:

jst3p: mrshowrules: That's all interesting but it is Constitutional and you are therefore wrong and are still wrong if you think it isn't.

For now, if the court revereses itself it isn't. It has happened before so it isn't exactly carved in stone.


It's Constitutional now and he is wrong now. If I divorce my wife 10 years from now, it doesn't change the fact that I was legally married today.
2012-11-27 12:14:11 PM
1 votes:

Dr Dreidel: What other SCOTUS decisions shall we ignore because their ceremonial robes are silly? Wickard/Filburn? Kelo/New London? Roe/Wade? Miranda/Arizona? Marbury/Madison (which would be HILARIOUS)? Brown/Board of Ed? Dover/Kitzmiller? Flynt/Falwell?


Ask him about Bush v Gore.
2012-11-27 12:10:10 PM
1 votes:

jst3p: mrshowrules: That's all interesting but it is Constitutional and you are therefore wrong and are still wrong if you think it isn't.

For now, if the court revereses itself it isn't. It has happened before so it isn't exactly carved in stone.


I guess one could argue that nothing is truly Constitutional or not, then. How useful.
2012-11-27 12:09:22 PM
1 votes:

Gaseous Anomaly: jigger: mrshowrules: Well it is constitutional so anyone who thought it wasn't was clearly wrong.

Says 5 people in black dresses.

Who happen to be the designated arbiters of what's constitutional.

Are you saying we need a Supremer Court?

There is a check on the Supreme Court, the justices can be impeached. If their ruling is plainly blatantly contrary to the Constitution then impeaching them should be easy, right?


The SCOTUS gets its authority from the Constitution. The Constitution comes directly from God. I think they should take their appeal right to the big guy. If Jesus finds out that Obama is been trying to get health care for more people, He's going to be pissed. The last guy who pulled that shiat on God was Romney, and you saw what happened there. He shoved a hurricane right up his ass to give the election to Obama.
2012-11-27 12:03:45 PM
1 votes:

jigger: mrshowrules: Well it is constitutional so anyone who thought it wasn't was clearly wrong.

Says 5 people in black dresses.


Who happen to be the designated arbiters of what's constitutional.

Are you saying we need a Supremer Court?

There is a check on the Supreme Court, the justices can be impeached. If their ruling is plainly blatantly contrary to the Constitution then impeaching them should be easy, right?
2012-11-27 12:03:17 PM
1 votes:

tony41454: Because Dems are idiots who want to break America's bank. It's not the Republicans that have gotten us into this mess, it's the liberal spendthrifts.


The reason that there is no pressure on the Democrats to cut spending is that the Democrats got us into this mess with their idiotically high spending? That's the potato you brought to the party? Go. Go and be ashamed of yourself.
2012-11-27 12:02:01 PM
1 votes:

jst3p: If we only had some real world example that shows that austerity measures can make "bad" into "worse"


Ayup. We should fix our stubbornly high unemployment problem and extraordinary income inequality. Fix those, you'll fix revenues, you'll fix the deficit and the debt. Not the other way around.
2012-11-27 12:01:18 PM
1 votes:

tony41454: Because Dems are idiots who want to break America's bank. It's not the Republicans that have gotten us into this mess, it's the liberal spendthrifts.


Damn libs and their unfunded medicare pat D and two unfunded wars while giving tax cuts!

Spending is the problem*!


*when someone else is doing it
2012-11-27 12:00:11 PM
1 votes:

jigger: mrshowrules: Well it is constitutional so anyone who thought it wasn't was clearly wrong.

Says 5 people in black dresses.

and to make it "constitutional" Roberts had to use some pretty twisty logic. First read this about Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. This case rightly decided that if Congress does not have the power to regulate something, then it can't regulate it through taxation, because it can't regulate it period. Roberts said that the mandate is outside Congress's power of regulating interstate commerce, but that it could regulate it using a tax, which would not be a penalty and wouldn't overturn Bailey v. Drexel Furniture because the tax wouldn't be too "burdensome." That's some pretty farking stupid logic and when SC justices use pretty farking stupid logic (Scalia is notorious) it just means they wanted a certain outcome for some reason or other and concocted an opinion to support it.


That's all interesting but it is Constitutional and you are therefore wrong and are still wrong if you think it isn't.

You could write a 14,000 page dissertation on the subject and it wouldn't change anything.

Obamacare is Constitutional in the same sense the SCOTUS has the Constitutional authority to say it is. One cannot be divided from the other. If you feel cheated, it the Constitution itself that has cheated you, challenged your reality.
2012-11-27 11:56:56 AM
1 votes:

jigger: qorkfiend: So no, it doesn't clearly say that and it's subject to interpretation? Fascinating.

It clearly does not grant Congress the power to impose a mandate on individuals to engage in commerce. The power does not exists. Well, it does now. Thanks Supreme Court. It's a terrible precedent.


Well if some guy says so on the Internet then it must be written in stone.
2012-11-27 11:50:10 AM
1 votes:

Tigger: If the Constitution clearly bans us from providing something that every single other Western Civilization operating today can do without much fuss then the farking problem is the Constitution.


The Constitution was designed with the thought that mature adults who can agree to disagree would run the country.

God knows, the Founding Fathers were expecting the idiots like the ones running the GOP to be the ones running the show.
2012-11-27 11:45:58 AM
1 votes:

jigger: mrshowrules: Well it is constitutional so anyone who thought it wasn't was clearly wrong.

Says 5 people in black dresses.


They are "right" because they are final. They aren't final because they are right.
2012-11-27 11:35:49 AM
1 votes:

James!: Lando Lincoln: James!: When you lose you're expected to make concessions.  Republicans lost.

Well, yeah, sure...a rational political party would think that.

I'm really fond of the "We didn't lose enough seats in the house to have to turn over leadership so America wants US!" argument.


Or Mitch McConnell's "If the President wants to compromise, he should just give us what we want. Then we'll compromise."

// he actually said words to the effect of "If the president wants compromise, he needs to compromise his principles, because we're not compromising ours."
2012-11-27 11:18:13 AM
1 votes:
Because they've been offering spending cuts since the beginning, you stupid motherfarkers.
2012-11-27 11:14:01 AM
1 votes:

SunsetLament: Headso: SunsetLament: the country voted for Republican control of the House of Representatives.

With a little help from Mr. Gerry Mander
[assets.motherjones.com image 630x566]

Oh, that sucks. Maybe you should control state legislatures next time re-districting comes around.


Blatantly antidemocratic gerrymandering is OK if it benefits your side? Fascinating point of view.
2012-11-27 11:05:11 AM
1 votes:

SunsetLament: EyeballKid: SCOREBOARD: 303 to 206. That's how come, biatch.

If only they had similar results in the House of Representatives, they could do whatever they wanted. Sadly, the country voted for Republican control of the House of Representatives.

/Not really going to matter
//House Republicans will cave and cave quickly


Technically speaking the state legislatures voted for the House of Representatives using our hilariously undemocratic gerrymandering system.
2012-11-27 11:05:03 AM
1 votes:

Gaseous Anomaly: The fiscal cliff isn't a cliff nor is it irreversible. There's no point to anyone trying to reach a deal before it kicks in.

Just let Jan 1 come and go, tax rates kick up and spending kicks down automatically.

If you really believe the deficit is a problem, you're done, the deficit's pretty much fixed. Otherwise:


Pretty much. If you truly believe our national debt is our #1 threat, there's a pretty easy way to cut it in half.

dailydish.typepad.com
2012-11-27 11:04:17 AM
1 votes:
What was it that Republicans said in 2010? Oh yeah . . . Elections have consequences.
2012-11-27 11:04:17 AM
1 votes:
Because you're a farking moron, whoever wrote this article.
2012-11-27 11:02:33 AM
1 votes:
irregulartimes.com

Pick the group that has gained the most, and start there.
If you need more, let us know, mmmay?
2012-11-27 11:01:16 AM
1 votes:

CPT Ethanolic: As anyone who's studied the federal budget knows, the problem isn't too little taxes. Even if we kept all the Bush tax cuts in place, federal revenues as a share of GDP will soon exceed historic averages.

Uhmm... HUH?? Do these historical averages include the time before income taxes or something?


If you average it out from today back to the time that the continents split apart (going back any farther would just be silly because we weren't a separate country then), the average rate starts to approach 0. Therefore, we are being greatly over taxed. It's simple math, really.
2012-11-27 10:57:26 AM
1 votes:
I'd imagine it has something to do with the fact that they have been offering up spending cuts all along.
2012-11-27 10:56:24 AM
1 votes:
...because plenty of Democrats are willing to work out balanced cuts in social programs and military spending that far exceed the increased revenue from the Bush tax cuts to those making over $250K/yr?

...because the GOP's modus operandi all along has been, when offered pre-emptive cuts, to reset the debate with those offers as the new baseline?

...because only a fool would contend that THE logjam here isn't Republicans refusing to raise taxes on the rich?

They wanted a presidential race on the economy and the debt and which vision of how to resolve our government's fiscal problems would prevail, and they got it. The people spoke. They chose Obama. And that should be his message, again and again, like a hammer to an anvil. We laid out our plan, you laid out yours, and the people chose ours. You either respect that or you don't.
2012-11-27 10:55:48 AM
1 votes:

SunsetLament: As a side note, does anyone remember 18 months ago when the original "fiscal cliff" debates started. Wasn't it an argument about something completely different? As I remember it, we were going to go off the fiscal cliff if we didn't raise the debt limit and our national credit rating was subsequently downgraded. "Going over the fiscal cliff" had nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts not being extended. If I didn't know better, I would start to believe the media (and the Democrats) were just declaring we were "about to go over the fiscal cliff" anytime they wanted to do something financially related - and that it doesn't really have anything to do with the country's finances teetering on the edge of cliff. Hmmm .....

Oh, and while we're at it, why is it that no one ever says "Hey media (and Democrats), you said the country's finances would go over a cliff 18 months ago if the credit rating was downgraded ... it was downgraded ... and life went on as though nothing changed. If you were so wrong then, how do we know you're not completely wrong now?"


18 months ago the republicans caved and we raised the debt limit.  And just to correct your chronology the downgrade in our rating happened before the republicans caved and was directly tied to fears that they would not allow the debt limit to be raised.
 
This situation is related to the bipartisan comission that was intended to come to a deficit deal as a response to the debt limit crisis.  Both parties agreed to a series of consequences should that comission not be able to come to an agreement.  They weren't able to (republicans regected everything that hinted at a tax increase) and so now we are dealing with those consequences.
2012-11-27 10:47:02 AM
1 votes:

The Jami Turman Fan Club: I thought Obama offered 4 trillion in spending cuts?


$4 trillion in savings (cuts + revenue). And Obama's already enacted $1.5 trillion in cuts but gotten not one dollar in revenues. 

Spending cuts are actively detrimental to this economy. That we're actually debating how much bigger a cut to make is genuinely insane.
2012-11-27 10:45:59 AM
1 votes:
The fiscal cliff isn't a cliff nor is it irreversible. There's no point to anyone trying to reach a deal before it kicks in.

Just let Jan 1 come and go, tax rates kick up and spending kicks down automatically.

If you really believe the deficit is a problem, you're done, the deficit's pretty much fixed. Otherwise:

THEN work out a deal to cut taxes and increase spending from that baseline.

Since you can get to a place with less deficit than today, without any politician having to support any tax increase or spending cut, politically everything's a lot easier.

Bonus: Republicans then have an incentive to actually make a deal; if they just blindly obstruct so nothing happens, taxes are higher than they like, and defense spending is lower than they like.
2012-11-27 10:45:21 AM
1 votes:

Citrate1007: "We got 90% of what we wanted" - Boehner


This post brought to you by the margin of error of 10%.

//98% - respect
2012-11-27 10:43:06 AM
1 votes:
There is no negotiation to be had. The "cliff" will happen, and then we can work to restore some bits of it. Most likely Congress will be incapable of doing anything as simple as passing another tax cut, and we will get on with our lives as the economy continues to improve and no one really notices the change in tax rates
2012-11-27 10:42:51 AM
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: Daily reminder: The GOP's backing of the tax plan pushed by the loser of the presidential election is not a concession.- Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) November 27, 2012


+1. How many of the Congress critters that got re-elected were campaigning on cutting entitlements. Obama campaigned on raising taxes on the rich and protecting entitlements. If Congressman didn't campaign on protect the tax cuts for the rich and cutting entitlements, they should STFU.
2012-11-27 10:42:34 AM
1 votes:
Because of the liebral-leftist-driveby-lamestream-media-conspiracy. So only get your news from right wing conspiracy sites who tell the truth.
2012-11-27 10:41:52 AM
1 votes:
Because we have as much government as we want. The reality is nobody wants to cut entitlements, nobody and whining about it only shows how ignorant of the issue you really are.
2012-11-27 10:41:13 AM
1 votes:
"We got 90% of what we wanted" - Boehner
2012-11-27 10:40:46 AM
1 votes:

EyeballKid: SCOREBOARD: 303 to 206. That's how come, biatch.


You left out Florida. The EVs have to total 538.
2012-11-27 10:36:04 AM
1 votes:

tnpir: It's Investor's Business Daily. Pay it no mind.


IBD is WND for the semi-literate.
2012-11-27 10:20:35 AM
1 votes:
"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." [IBD, Atlanta J-C, Ezra Klein]
 
Displayed 94 of 94 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report