Jump to content

Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff


HeloDude

Recommended Posts

FIFY.

Let's talk apples to apples here. If it happens long-term, the sequester = $1.2 trillion over 9 years, revenues raised from the fiscal cliff deal = $600 billion over 10 years. Which sounds larger now? The spending cuts, which are exactly twice as big as the revenues raised.

And all this is on top of the ~$1 trillion in spending cuts (over 10 years), and $0 in additional revenues, signed into law in the Budget Control Act of 2011.

If you want to talk apples to apples then you should probably do that. I must have missed that day in civics class in high school or that day in my college PoliSci class where Congressional rules were completely thrown out the window. POTUS simply proposed $1 Trillion in "proposed" spending cuts over a 10 year period. 1) cutting proposed spending doesn't cut anything. If you spent $50 million on a program this year, but proposed spending $100 million on it next year... actually spending only $75 million on it is what POTUS claims is a $25 million budget cut instead of the reality where it is a $25 million increase. 2) Since all money is appropriated by Congress then the President can propose all he wants and it means nothing. So when did the Congressional rules change that says the sitting Congress today can dictate the budget/appropriations of future Congresses?

I'm only a pilot, therefore I'm not too smart. When you take what the Federal Government spent this year and then take what the Government is going to spend next year... if the number for next year is bigger then you didn't cut spending. Only in Washington would that make sense...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

POTUS simply proposed $1 Trillion in "proposed" spending cuts over a 10 year period.

What are you referencing here? The $1T I am talking about were the cuts signed into law with the BCA of 2011, not any "proposed" cuts that someone would like to see.

1) cutting proposed spending doesn't cut anything.

Ok then genius, how do you cut spending then? Cuts on spending that is actual no-shit law are real cuts because if nothing changed, that money would be spent.

So when did the Congressional rules change that says the sitting Congress today can dictate the budget/appropriations of future Congresses?

They can't, that's the problem with long-term planning because people and circumstances change. That's pretty much part of life though, not sure how you can really expect Congress to somehow legislate around the desires and circumstances of their successors. You can make it more difficult to change by institutionalizing a program or a budget or by mandating this or that, but like you said, anything is waiverable.

When you take what the Federal Government spent this year and then take what the Government is going to spend next year... if the number for next year is bigger then you didn't cut spending. Only in Washington would that make sense...

When you take what Washington was going to spend next year under current law and compare it to new law that decreases that number, that's called cutting spending.

Are you looking for absolute cuts in spending year to year until we reach, what, zero? Are you adjusting for inflation? If you literally just kept debt growth below inflation you would eliminate all deficits right there in time [debt sustainability].

I just don't your criticism...all sides in Washington are working off of CBO projections for the future based on current law, there literally isn't another way to look at it.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how much it cost Michelle Obama to attend the Oscars tonight? Who picked up the tab?

Edit - I'm an idiot...didn't notice it was via VTC. My bad. Nonetheless, I still think its inappropriate.

Highly inappropriate. She's setting quite the precedent.

http://www.nytimes.c...s-audience.html

Edited by Vertigo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok then genius, how do you cut spending then? Cuts on spending that is actual no-shit law are real cuts because if nothing changed, that money would be spent.

Are you looking for absolute cuts in spending year to year until we reach, what, zero? Are you adjusting for inflation? If you literally just kept debt growth below inflation you would eliminate all deficits right there in time [debt sustainability].

Well Genius... you freeze Government spending at a minimum. You don't hire anymore Federal employees. I'm sitting in meetings everyday right now talking about sequestration and the SES bosses keep saying how terrible things are going to be and then in the same breath say that there is no hiring freeze and to keep the process going. I run a small office of just 6 people and was just told last week that two more positions were funded making $90-110K per year! Let’s see... how about we eliminate the countless programs that just don't work. How about we eliminate entire Departments that the Federal government has no business running in the first place... we'll start with the Department of Education. How about we stop aid to foreign countries... and I'm not talking about just the countless poor third world countries where we don't want them to harbor terrorists; let’s stop aid to Ireland and Spain. Yeah, we give foreign aid to effing Ireland and Spain!!!

How about this novel concept... "What did we spend last year? Hmmm... let’s not spend as much this year!" Saying you will take money from the Military and give it to some Green Energy company instead isn't cutting spending. When what you spend next year is billions of dollars more than what you are spending this year, you did not cut spending!!!

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting take on all of this by Ben Shapiro.

President Obama is one of the great political knife-fighters in modern history. He is a failed president -- his economy is bleak, his foreign policy bleaker, his vision for American even bleaker still. But he wins.

He wins by losing.

President Obama has only had two major policy victories during his tenure: the stimulus package and Obamacare. Both are massively unpopular. The stimulus package launched the tea party movement. Obamacare led to the Republican wipeout of 2010.

Then Obama began to lose. He wasn't able to push forward climate change legislation or immigration reform or gun control or increased taxes before the election of 2012. And he won a sweeping electoral victory. The strategy was -- and is -- simple. Obama pursues policies that are widely popular and then purposefully sinks them by casting Republicans as obstructionists.

He is not truly interested in immigration reform; Republicans are fools to think that he is. Obama wants to raise the issue of immigration reform so that he can demonize Republicans as anti-Hispanic. That's why Obama ignores the broad support for an immigration plan that would provide border security once and for all and then deal with the illegal immigrants who live here. Instead, he proposes an immigration plan that would do nothing for border security while essentially granting gradual amnesty to those already here -- and to millions more who will cross the border unmolested.

By doing so, Obama puts himself in a no-lose situation: If immigration reform passes, he takes credit; if not, he blames Republicans as racists who simply don't like Hispanics. The media will abet this little game. Suddenly a failed proposal from Obama becomes a political winner for him.

The same holds true of the sequester. President Obama originated the sequester. It was his idea to put into place an automatic cut in the rate of spending increase, and it was his idea to focus those cuts on the defense industry. Republicans, idiotically believing that Obama was interested in honest negotiation, voted for sequestration. Now Obama runs to the cameras to suggest that if these cuts go forward, the world will end. All he asks to avert this earth-shattering crisis is a few tax increases. The media helps him pimp this narrative.

Again, it's a no-lose for Obama. If sequestration is averted, Obama takes the credit. If not, he gets to cast Republicans as hard-hearted Scrooges who want Tiny Tim to starve to death. Another failed proposal, another victory for Obama.

What does all this achieve? It achieves electoral victory. Once Democrats have enough votes in the House and Senate to ram through their agenda, the game is over: Obama forces through his policies. America moves to the left.

Obama understands what Republicans do not: Politics is a waiting game. If nothing gets done with a split government, Obama is happy to live with that. Meanwhile, he'll demagogue each and every issue until he gets the votes he needs to truly transform America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least Shapiro gives Obama credit to being a good politician, I'm sure that point was not conceded in 2009/2010. But hey, at least the President isn't taking money from the Friends of Hamas like his ole' buddy Hagel huh? SMH...

I honestly don't know what his criticism is. He's accusing the President of proposing policies that are popular, blaming Republicans if they don't pass them while taking credit if they do pass. Sounds pretty par for the course if you ask me.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least Shapiro gives Obama credit to being a good politician, I'm sure that point was not conceded in 2009/2010. But hey, at least the President isn't taking money from the Friends of Hamas like his ole' buddy Hagel huh? SMH...

I honestly don't know what his criticism is. He's accusing the President of proposing policies that are popular, blaming Republicans if they don't pass them while taking credit if they do pass. Sounds pretty par for the course if you ask me.

Let me spell out the criticism for you. Obama does not care about making anything better. He wants what he wants, not what you or I want. To get that, he needs to win the house. To win the house, he needs to manufacture enough crap to make everyone else look bad. Then we're fucked. So I hope that the dear people of the dear US finally see that the current President is not trying to help Americans achieve. Its like they voted for a Decepticon. Sure he looks like a shiney clean super duper SUV, but underneath, he's a robot in disguise. Someone make a picture and add it to the thread.

Out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama does not care about making anything better. He wants what he wants, not what you or I want.

Although the President's proposed solutions to many of our most recent problems consistently poll higher those of his opposition...but we won't worry about that since clearly you disagree and you are always right. He's clearly purposefully and willfully destroying the country. There couldn't possibly be a large number of people who actually agree with his policies or political approach. Inconceivable!

Sure he looks like a shiney clean super duper SUV, but underneath, he's a robot in disguise.

More than meets the eye indeed.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no you are right there are a lot of people that do and they are idiots or want their government aid check. This isn't a democracy, so just because the majority (barely) wants something doesn't mean the other half just rolls over and gives them free reign. Socialism/big government has yet to be sustainable anywhere in the world and its not inline with the founding intent of this nation, so yes the other side should continue to fight any proposals towards that end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no you are right there are a lot of people that do and they are idiots or want their government aid check.

I'm am educated, informed, and not on welfare. I generally support the President's policies. I'm also able to get it through my brain that other smart, informed people are able to disagree and don't denigrate the (entire) other side to a bunch of idiots. Are you able to do the same? I'm not some person on youtube talking about my Obama phone, if you wanna have a real policy debate don't focus on those people because we've all got em.

This isn't a democracy, so just because the majority (barely) wants something doesn't mean the other half just rolls over and gives them free reign.

True, but while the minority does have rights and a significant amount of power in our system of government, the fact that something has majority support among the populace should probably signal that it will be supported by many reasonable politicians. They're supposed to be representing the people's interests, aren't they? Popularity doesn't always make good policy, but it makes no sense to elect others to represent your interests in Washington and then get all mad when they tend to support what is popular with their constituents.

Socialism/big government has yet to be sustainable anywhere in the world and its not inline with the founding intent of this nation, so yes the other side should continue to fight any proposals towards that end.

Opinions noted. While it can be dramatic and sometimes effective, falling on your sword out of principle typically only works once, technique only.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm am educated, informed, and not on welfare. I generally support the President's policies. I'm also able to get it through my brain that other smart, informed people are able to disagree and don't denigrate the (entire) other side to a bunch of idiots. Are you able to do the same? I'm not some person on youtube talking about my Obama phone, if you wanna have a real policy debate don't focus on those people because we've all got em.

Blah blah blah

Where did you grow up? Ever know anyone on welfare? Ever had friends or family on public assistance? Ever work or know someone that worked welfare stuff? Ever know a lady that wanted more kids to get more welfare? When a President/Political Party/Government works hard to get more people on the gov't dole and tie political office to those people's livlihood of no work and pay, its a no brainer that they want Dems in office. If you know these types of people, then you begin to see their mentality that its cool/wonderful/fine/widely accepted/just dandy to be on any form of welfare and the more the better.

All those speeches basically say, hey, richie rich wants to cut your checks. Richie Rich needs to pay more, not you poor people.

I'd rather the man say something more like, get off your ass, get a job, and start taking care of yourself. Nah, would never happen, not his style.

Nevermind, I'd rather not know where you grew up.

PS: Strangely, this whole debate reminds me of that discussion about a jet trying to takeoff from a gigantic treadmill.

Out

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did you grow up? Ever know anyone on welfare? Ever had friends or family on public assistance? Ever work or know someone that worked welfare stuff? Ever know a lady that wanted more kids to get more welfare?

So do you really wanna know or what?

When a President/Political Party/Government works hard to get more people on the gov't dole and tie political office to those people's livlihood of no work and pay, its a no brainer that they want Dems in office. If you know these types of people, then you begin to see their mentality that its cool/wonderful/fine/widely accepted/just dandy to be on any form of welfare and the more the better.

Well if that's your assessment of the Democratic party no wonder you don't support them. I obviously have different views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do you really wanna know or what?

Fuck no.

Well if that's your assessment of the Democratic party no wonder you don't support them. I obviously have different views.

I would like to know what you think the Democratic party's plan is for the future of this country. In other words, if your party had complete control, where would we be in 20 years? Speak to the welfare state/entitlement programs, debts and deficits, size and capability of the military, immigration, gun control and education. I'd like to hear your views and see if they line up with what we have seen over the last 4 1/2 years or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to know what you think the Democratic party's plan is for the future of this country. In other words, if your party had complete control, where would we be in 20 years? Speak to the welfare state/entitlement programs, debts and deficits, size and capability of the military, immigration, gun control and education. I'd like to hear your views and see if they line up with what we have seen over the last 4 1/2 years or so.

Dude, didn't you know that it would be a hand-holding Utopia where children play in lollipop fields? Lazy shitbags would find a work ethic and contribute to the grand socialist nation while our one-time enemies vacationed to and lauded our beautiful land.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to know what you think the Democratic party's plan is for the future of this country. In other words, if your party had complete control, where would we be in 20 years? Speak to the welfare state/entitlement programs, debts and deficits, size and capability of the military, immigration, gun control and education. I'd like to hear your views and see if they line up with what we have seen over the last 4 1/2 years or so.

If you're curious I'd check out the whitehouse.gov issues page and the 2012 Democratic Party planks, I'm pretty sure the answers are 6-9 seconds of googling away. I'm sure you know those things are aspirational rather than realistic, but it's not like this information is hidden.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're curious I'd check out the whitehouse.gov issues page and the 2012 Democratic Party planks, I'm pretty sure the answers are 6-9 seconds of googling away. I'm sure you know those things are aspirational rather than realistic, but it's not like this information is hidden.

Sorry, I was asking you for your opinion. The White House isnt the one posting 82000 replies on these threads. FWIW, your answer is exactly what I expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...