Good Fun Going Over The Fiscal Cliff

[Amskeptic]

The dysfunction between these two political parties is proof that they ARE the problem.
We are going to get more of the same as they fight around the edges about tax rates/future proposed spending cuts and do nothing about our 17 trillion tab.

I am not so sure that it is the parties that are the problem. We have had two parties for centuries.
Corporate lobbying is new. Cash= Speech is new. The entrenched interests just love it when we bicker impotently against the Not The Problem. The new revolving door between government service and private employment is a problem. Corporate influence is why 62% of the American people wanted taxes to go up on the 250K line, but noooooooooo. Corporate influence is why 60% of NRA members want the gun show loophole closed, but noooooooooo. Corporate influence. How We Lost Our RepresentativeDemocracy . . .
Colin

[Bleyseng]

Well we all know that politicians must always be looking money for election or re election so getting tons of money from Corporations is easy money. That's why they have the biggest voice now instead of the little guy giving $5 instead of big money interests.
I have to agree that we have lost our Representative Democracy into a bought & paidfor special interest government. I would much rather have a Socialist government like in Europe than this crap!
I can't believe the next GOP issue is cutting Social security and Medicare benefits. We can't afford SS and its underfunded? That's total BS as its funded until far into the future and IF they raised the taxing limit from $113,000 to say 1 million we'd have a lot more funding and it could last until the far distant future or increased benefits.

[Amskeptic]

Well we all know that politicians must always be looking money for election or re election so getting tons of money from Corporations is easy money. That's why they have the biggest voice now instead of the little guy giving $5 instead of big money interests.
I have to agree that we have lost our Representative Democracy into a bought & paidfor special interest government. I would much rather have a Socialist government like in Europe than this crap!
I can't believe the next GOP issue is cutting Social security and Medicare benefits. We can't afford SS and its underfunded? That's total BS as its funded until far into the future and IF they raised the taxing limit from $113,000 to say 1 million we'd have a lot more funding and it could last until the far distant future or increased benefits.

You said it . . . =D>

[hippiewannabe]

The defense budget is so colossal and so much of it non-vital that we could pretty much start AND stop with the military budget.

I am amazed that so little discussion of the military budget is occurring on this side of the cliff. Therefore, I am all for the fiscal cliff. It is morally indefensible that these people on both sides of the aisle won't bring it up.
Colin

Because it won't solve the problem. You could eliminate the entire defense budget, and it won't fix the deficit.

Defense can certainly be trimmed; if Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines want to stop China from taking over all the resources of the South China Sea, let them pay for it.

The crux of the problem is demographics. We promised benefits to people based on them dying young; now they live longer, and there isn't enough young working people to support the retiring baby boomers. Current retirees are collecting more than double what they paid in.

Not to mention, we are spending close to 20% of our GDP on health care (vs. 5% on the military). It is unsustainable, and Stein's Law says if something is unsustainable, it will stop.

[hippiewannabe]

..We can't afford SS and its underfunded? That's total BS as its funded until far into the future and IF they raised the taxing limit from $113,000 to say 1 million we'd have a lot more funding and it could last until the far distant future or increased benefits.

I guess this is progress, recognition that SS is not a pension or savings program funded by the contributions of beneficiaries. It is simple welfare, a wealth transfer from working people to non-working people. And the pyramid scheme is collapsing because of longevity and the slowing of population growth. The benefits received by current retirees far exceeds what would be paid for by their contributions.

[hippiewannabe]

Well, who won? Are we going to go through all of this again?

Looks like we have wrested defeat from the jaws of victory once more, AND the Republicans have managed to neatly disarm Obama but good for the next round. I am disappointed, yes, but more importantly, I am disgusted as hell with Obama and the Democrats for rushing this thing through. They have no leverage now! What are they going to say when the Republicans hold us hostage to the debt ceiling?
Colin

What do you mean? When they got to the brink, the Republicans blinked, and Obama won. He got his tax increase, without the spending cuts he had previously promised.

It's just astounding that for ten years, it was all about the "Bush tax cuts for the rich". But all of a sudden, if we just let them expire, it "would be devastating for middle class workers". Huh? It can't be both ways. The fact of the matter is the middle class got tremendous benefit from the Bush tax cuts, and now they get to keep it. If anyone still denies that the mainstream media is in the pocket of the Democrats, hopefully this will finally wake you up.

[Bleyseng]

The defense budget is so colossal and so much of it non-vital that we could pretty much start AND stop with the military budget.

I am amazed that so little discussion of the military budget is occurring on this side of the cliff. Therefore, I am all for the fiscal cliff. It is morally indefensible that these people on both sides of the aisle won't bring it up.
Colin

Because it won't solve the problem. You could eliminate the entire defense budget, and it won't fix the deficit.

Defense can certainly be trimmed; if Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines want to stop China from taking over all the resources of the South China Sea, let them pay for it.

The crux of the problem is demographics. We promised benefits to people based on them dying young; now they live longer, and there isn't enough young working people to support the retiring baby boomers. Current retirees are collecting more than double what they paid in.

Not to mention, we are spending close to 20% of our GDP on health care (vs. 5% on the military). It is unsustainable, and Stein's Law says if something is unsustainable, it will stop.

Hmm, I must be looking at the wrong graphs as the ones I have seen show the military budget at around 20%. Yep, I checked it out and the Defense budget is 19% which is about $700billion. So cutting the military budget to 10% WOULD DO A LOT.

[Amskeptic]

I am amazed that so little discussion of the military budget is occurring
Colin

Because it won't solve the problem. You could eliminate the entire defense budget, and it won't fix the deficit.

Defense can certainly be trimmed;

The crux of the problem is demographics. We promised benefits to people based on them dying young; now they live longer, and there isn't enough young working people to support the retiring baby boomers. Current retirees are collecting more than double what they paid in.

Not to mention, we are spending close to 20% of our GDP on health care (vs. 5% on the military). It is unsustainable, and Stein's Law says if something is unsustainable, it will stop.

Not looking for a quick "solve", but rather an incremential balanced approach.
So, looking through history:
Top tax rates are at a historical low.
Revenues as a percentage of GDP is less than 1950.
Income inequality is at an almost all-time high.
Social Security could be "fixed" instantly by removing the cap and means test.
Healthcare does NOT have to be this bloated inefficient patchwork of profit seeking private corporations.

Unsustainable? You bet. Cowardice? I think so. Greed? Definitely.
Colin

[Velokid1]

The defense budget is $700 billion. PER YEAR.

Cut it by 50%, we still have far more military might than necessary to fend off whatever paranoid doomsday fantasy Americans want to fall for, and we save $350 billion PER YEAR. Over a decade, we have more than accounted for the money needed to take care of one another.

I wish people would stop pretending that the problem is fiscal responsibility. "I have to balance my checkbook... the government should have to balance theirs." What they're so pissed about isn't responsibility. It isn't that revenue isn't reconciling with spending. What they're pissed about is *what* it's being spent on. They want it spent on subsidies for industries that are killing us, like oil, gas, coal, corn, GMOs. They want it spent on the Drug War. They want huge religious organizations to operate tax-free while they launder money. They want it spent on war. They want it spent on everything except food, shelter and health. Social ills are 1000x the problem that national defense is. Until we are ready to talk about cutting the defense budget in 1/2 AT LEAST and putting that money toward making sure our people are healthy and warm, then let's stop the bullshit about "responsibility."

And if you're going to defend the military industry, the criminal justice industry, subsidies for Big Business that has ZERO regard for people or the planet, then you better stop bitching about taxes and be willing to PAY for those things.

There's a reason the GOP is crumbling. Their huge house of cards is built on a foundation of b.s., lies and contradiction. The Democratic Party is incredibly flawed, as well, because they too are controlled ultimately by Fear & Money rather than Love & Compassion... but conservatives are what are sinking the ship. They're taking everyone else down with them, which goes right along with their doomsday, Jesus-is-coming-so-hallelujah! delusions. What the Hell do they care about the future?

[Amskeptic]

I wish people would stop pretending that the problem is fiscal responsibility.
What they're pissed about is *what* it's being spent on. They want it spent on war.
They want it spent on everything except food, shelter and health.
Social ills are 1000x the problem that national defense is.

You go . . . =D>

[hippiewannabe]

The defense budget is so colossal and so much of it non-vital that we could pretty much start AND stop with the military budget.

I am amazed that so little discussion of the military budget is occurring on this side of the cliff. Therefore, I am all for the fiscal cliff. It is morally indefensible that these people on both sides of the aisle won't bring it up.
Colin

Because it won't solve the problem. You could eliminate the entire defense budget, and it won't fix the deficit.

Defense can certainly be trimmed; if Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines want to stop China from taking over all the resources of the South China Sea, let them pay for it.

The crux of the problem is demographics. We promised benefits to people based on them dying young; now they live longer, and there isn't enough young working people to support the retiring baby boomers. Current retirees are collecting more than double what they paid in.

Not to mention, we are spending close to 20% of our GDP on health care (vs. 5% on the military). It is unsustainable, and Stein's Law says if something is unsustainable, it will stop.

Hmm, I must be looking at the wrong graphs as the ones I have seen show the military budget at around 20%. Yep, I checked it out and the Defense budget is 19% which is about $700billion. So cutting the military budget to 10% WOULD DO A LOT.

GDP is Gross Domestic Product, the sum of all goods and services produced in the economy. That's what the 5% for defense and 20% for health care refer to. You are correct, the Defense budget is $700B, 19% of the Federal Budget. The deficit, however, is $1.1 trillion, 31% of the budget. Cutting defense 10% would be something, maybe repair a few bridges, but it won't make a dent in the deficit.

[Amskeptic]

You are correct, the Defense budget is $700B, 19% of the Federal Budget.
The deficit, however, is $1.1 trillion, 31% of the budget.
Cutting defense 10% would be something, maybe repair a few bridges, but it won't make a dent in the deficit.

Neither will ending NPR and cutting food stamps and ending Pell Grants and indexing Social Security to the CPI, and disabling collective bargaining rights and ending green energy subsidies and cutting higher education and research grants and cutting off debate on raising the minimum wage. It is clear that we are a consumer economy so why do we not prime middle class consumer income? Because the ideological battle lines have been drawn and rational discussion cannot be allowed? We can't even discuss taxing that worthless useless cancerous casino known as derivatives trading, or hitting capital gains a little harder, we have to go straight to granny's social security? Really, look at Mitch McConnell tell the American people (like he is the boss of us) that tax reform is off the table because he says so, well, 60 million Americans and I agree with President Obama that taxes should go up at least to Clinton years rate for those making more than a quarter million dollars, and Republicans just could not allow it? For what rational reason? Balanced approach, said Obama, no way said Republicans, their amnesia that Obama already cut a trillion on the spending side at the last 2010 bargaining session.
Colin

[Bleyseng]

The defense budget is so colossal and so much of it non-vital that we could pretty much start AND stop with the military budget.

I am amazed that so little discussion of the military budget is occurring on this side of the cliff. Therefore, I am all for the fiscal cliff. It is morally indefensible that these people on both sides of the aisle won't bring it up.
Colin

Because it won't solve the problem. You could eliminate the entire defense budget, and it won't fix the deficit.

Defense can certainly be trimmed; if Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines want to stop China from taking over all the resources of the South China Sea, let them pay for it.

The crux of the problem is demographics. We promised benefits to people based on them dying young; now they live longer, and there isn't enough young working people to support the retiring baby boomers. Current retirees are collecting more than double what they paid in.

Not to mention, we are spending close to 20% of our GDP on health care (vs. 5% on the military). It is unsustainable, and Stein's Law says if something is unsustainable, it will stop.

Hmm, I must be looking at the wrong graphs as the ones I have seen show the military budget at around 20%. Yep, I checked it out and the Defense budget is 19% which is about $700billion. So cutting the military budget to 10% WOULD DO A LOT.

GDP is Gross Domestic Product, the sum of all goods and services produced in the economy. That's what the 5% for defense and 20% for health care refer to. You are correct, the Defense budget is $700B, 19% of the Federal Budget. The deficit, however, is $1.1 trillion, 31% of the budget. Cutting defense 10% would be something, maybe repair a few bridges, but it won't make a dent in the deficit.

I said "cut the Defense spending to 10%" so no more than $350 billion a year which is what it was in Clinton's years of "Lean Military" That's still the largest military budget in the world!
Cutting the subsidies to corporations is nice but maybe a adjustment of who gets the subsidies is in order. Making sure this money goes to small business instead of major corporations would spur the economy more.
Revenue is the problem as the Bush years slashed the revenue side cutting taxes mostly for the richer folk and corporations. Raising the Capital gains rates, taxing dividends as regular income, plus cutting a lot of loopholes would raise revenue without a negative on the economy. Again SS is paid for and just fine and could raise even more money IF the cap of $113,000 was raised or eliminated. People with retirement incomes over a certain limit shouldn't receive SS IMHO, say over $50,000.

[glasseye]

Cutting defense 10% would be something, maybe repair a few bridges, but it won't make a dent in the deficit.

Agreed. A 10% cut in defense spending would free up $70B. The budget deficit was in the order of a thousand billion last year.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/ ... 7620121012

America persists in spending more than it earns. We can all agree, this is unsustainable.

So, hippiewannabe, what's your plan for reducing this number?

[yondermtn]

60 million Americans and I agree with President Obama that taxes should go up at least to Clinton years rate for those making more than a quarter million dollars
Colin

In 2000 the top tax rate was 39.6%. That was for income of 288,350 and above.
288,350 in 2000 dollars is equal to 371,870 in 2012 dollars. So that top tax rate would hit a lot more people than it did during Clinton's time.
It seems that Obama and the media want to make this comparison to the Clinton years, but what really is/was proposed with the 250,000 income level is a substantial increase in the number of taxpayers included in the top rate.