or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › What Obama needs to do now.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What Obama needs to do now. - Page 2

post #41 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

The fiscal cliff has some potentially very damaging spending cuts on defense and non-defense discretionary spending amounting to around 10% of current levels or roughly $110B, with a total reduction of the 2013 federal deficit of $500M - $600M.

 

$110B in spending cuts is "potentially very damaging?" Are you serious?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #42 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And yes, I know that you hope he doesn't so that you can continue to lambast him for it.

 

1oyvey.gif You don't know any such thing. 1rolleyes.gif

 

Other than because you keep saying just that.

post #43 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Other than because you keep saying just that.

 

I have not.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #44 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

The fiscal cliff has some potentially very damaging spending cuts on defense and non-defense discretionary spending amounting to around 10% of current levels or roughly $110B, with a total reduction of the 2013 federal deficit of $500M - $600M.

 

$110B in spending cuts is "potentially very damaging?" Are you serious?

 

$110B in cuts will not hurt the economy? Are you serious?

post #45 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Other than because you keep saying just that.

 

I have not.

 

Yes you have. An example:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

But that's okay. I'm fine with it. I hope he continues to behave stubbornly and uncompromisingly.

post #46 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

$110B in cuts will not hurt the economy? Are you serious?

 

No it won't. Yes. The US economy is about $14 TRILLION. That $100B is less than 1% of the total economy.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #47 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Yes you have. An example:

 

Yes. I said that. But I never said "so I can keep bashing him." Which is what you claimed. That's your (incorrect) assumption about my intentions.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #48 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

$110B in cuts will not hurt the economy? Are you serious?

 

No it won't. Yes. The US economy is about $14 TRILLION. That $100B is less than 1% of the total economy.

 

If the cuts were somehow uniformly distributed across the entire economy then that would be correct, but they are not. 10% of spending is very significant.

post #49 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Yes you have. An example:

 

Yes. I said that. But I never said "so I can keep bashing him." Which is what you claimed. That's your (incorrect) assumption about my intentions.

 

OK - then what are your intentions in wishing that he keeps exhibiting a behavior that you do not approve of?

post #50 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

True but there will be new taxes as well.

 

I'm aware of that. But you seemed to be responding to my comment about not hearing enough about spending cuts. The so-called "fiscal cliff" has virtually no spending cuts.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I seriously believe we will have to hit rock bottom before anyone is going to notice or actually take measures to really identify and correct the problem which of course will end in failure just like every other great civilization that came before us.

 

Probably.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

The main issue as I see it is the general population of the US are a bunch of selfish, irresponsible spoiled brats who have no consideration for other people or the natural world. They just want more cake until their ass is so big that that can't even work. They have to live on public assistance. All you have to do is watch how people drive to come to the conclusion that they don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.

 

 

 

Quote:
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." - Alexis de Tocqueville

 

Quote:
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship” - Alexander Tytler

 

I don't know if Tytler is correct about dictatorship always following, but he's probably right about the first part. At some point it becomes a simple question of mathematics.

See that is the problem that the Republicans have with minority voters. Although many are conservative such as Latinos, which BTW I distinguish as completely separate from Hispanics, we just don't trust a rich white wall street insider even if some of the Republican purposed fiscal policies from a historical perspective  are agreeable. We just can't vote for a white racist bigot and that is what we perceive the Republican party is. You guys need to be much more inclusive and accepting of our culture before you will ever earn our vote. We recognize fake patronizing from a mile away.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #51 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

If the cuts were somehow uniformly distributed across the entire economy then that would be correct, but they are not. 10% of spending is very significant.

 

I'll await your support for this claim. Until then I'm unconvinced.

 

P.S. It's not 10% of spending. It's more like 3% of the federal budget.


Edited by MJ1970 - 11/14/12 at 7:56pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #52 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

OK - then what are your intentions in wishing that he keeps exhibiting a behavior that you do not approve of?

 

That it will lead to government gridlock.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #53 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

See that is the problem that the Republicans have with minority voters.

 

I understand. Personally I don't presume this is a problem limited to minorities or any specific group.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

We just can't vote for a white racist bigot and that is what we perceive the Republican party is. You guys need to be much more inclusive and accepting of our culture before you will ever earn our vote. We recognize fake patronizing from a mile away.

 

Who is "you guys?"

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #54 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Who is "you guys?"

Totally ineffectual deflection. You and your ilk. 

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #55 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Totally ineffectual deflection.

 

What?! What are you talking about?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #56 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

If the cuts were somehow uniformly distributed across the entire economy then that would be correct, but they are not. 10% of spending is very significant.

 

I'll await your support for this claim. Until then I'm unconvinced.

 

Somehow I doubt that I'll be able to convince you. I would have thought that it was fairly obvious that a 10% cut in federal spending in those areas would be damaging, but perhaps not. You could take a look at the CBO analysis that estimates a rapid loss of around 40000 jobs and negative impacts to military capability and a number of other important programs (FEMA, FDA, FAA etc.), and which, combined with the lapse of the tax breaks, would be likely to drive a new recession. On the other hand, you might think all that sounds just great.

post #57 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Somehow I doubt that I'll be able to convince you. I would have thought that it was fairly obvious that a 10% cut in federal spending in those areas would be damaging, but perhaps not. You could take a look at the CBO analysis that estimates a rapid loss of around 40000 jobs and negative impacts to military capability and a number of other important programs (FEMA, FDA, FAA etc.), and which, combined with the lapse of the tax breaks, would be likely to drive a new recession. On the other hand, you might think all that sounds just great.

 

Well the tax increases, which amount to about $500B, would certainly have a greater impact.

 

But more to the point...we have $1.2T deficits. No one seems serious about addressing this if they're claiming that a mere $100B in spending cuts would be nearly catastrophic.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #58 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

OK - then what are your intentions in wishing that he keeps exhibiting a behavior that you do not approve of?

 

That it will lead to government gridlock.

 

So if that's your desired outcome, why do you keep lamenting his lack of bi-partisanship? Obviously he's on your side after all.

 

On the other hand:

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post
 
I reject the premise of the so-called "fiscal meltdown." But that aside, I want to see spending cuts larger than any tax increases. I'd prefer to not see any tax increases at all though.

 

Gridlock won't get you spending cuts larger than tax increases. Gridlock will get you significant tax increases and spending cuts that you just dismissed as negligible. Are you sure you want gridlock?

 

post #59 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Somehow I doubt that I'll be able to convince you. I would have thought that it was fairly obvious that a 10% cut in federal spending in those areas would be damaging, but perhaps not. You could take a look at the CBO analysis that estimates a rapid loss of around 40000 jobs and negative impacts to military capability and a number of other important programs (FEMA, FDA, FAA etc.), and which, combined with the lapse of the tax breaks, would be likely to drive a new recession. On the other hand, you might think all that sounds just great.

 

Well the tax increases, which amount to about $500B, would certainly have a greater impact.

 

But more to the point...we have $1.2T deficits. No one seems serious about addressing this if they're claiming that a mere $100B in spending cuts would be nearly catastrophic.

 

I think that both the Republicans and Democrats are both very serious about addressing it, but neither has a way to wipe out the annual deficit instantly. Both wish to decrease the deficit by a combination of revenue and spending adjustment while trying not to tank the economy, with the view that revenues will increase further as the economy continues to recover. It's not terribly complicated - they just disagree on how best to stimulate the economy.

post #60 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

So if that's your desired outcome, why do you keep lamenting his lack of bi-partisanship? Obviously he's on your side after all.

 

I'm not lamenting it. That's your inference. I'm just amused by the alleged "bi-partisanship and "compromise" rhetoric.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Gridlock won't get you spending cuts larger than tax increases. Gridlock will get you significant tax increases and spending cuts that you just dismissed as negligible. Are you sure you want gridlock?

 

The concern is that some kind of "deal" will amount to tax increases with virtually no spending cuts. At this point at least the deficit reduction that comes from the so-called "fiscal cliff" would be better. Beside, it might get enough of these guys booted at mid-terms.

 

So the options are like this:

 

1) Fiscal cliff: $500B tax increases + $100B spending cuts = $600B deficit reduction

2) Compromise: $100B tax increases and no spending cuts = $100B deficit reduction

3) Better: $600B spending cuts = $600B deficit reduction

 

4) Even better: $1.2T spending cuts = balanced budget

 
3 & 4 won't happen.
 

I'll take option 1 over option 2 actually. Seems to have more long term benefits politically and fiscally. At least reduces deficit. Any economic affects might actually lead to the ouster of some people at mid-terms.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #61 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I think that both the Republicans and Democrats are both very serious about addressing it

 

Good for you.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

but neither has a way to wipe out the annual deficit instantly.

 

I'd argue they don't have the will do what needs to be done.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Both wish to decrease the deficit by a combination of revenue and spending adjustment while trying not to tank the economy, with the view that revenues will increase further as the economy continues to recover. It's not terribly complicated - they just disagree on how best to stimulate the economy.

 

Well I agree it's not all that complicated. However it gets complicated by the faulty Keynesian economic thinking that's mixed in here. What they ought to do is start cutting taxes (probably start with capital gains taxes) and spending in lock step with spending going down faster (I'd say $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax cuts). These two combined will create the economic growth that might generate additional revenue, giving a 3rd leg to the deficit reduction strategy.

 

Of course the ultimate spending problems won't be solves without getting out of the entitlement game.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #62 of 89
Thread Starter 
The biggest problem is the business and war lobbies and what they cost us. Cutting those related expenses to reasonable levels and we'll slash or even eliminate the deficit. I'm talking about things like non-competitive bidding for government contracts. Unnecessary spending for defense. Medicare paying five times as much for drugs compared to what The Canadian government pays for the same drugs, because big pharma has a staff in Washington all earning six figure salaries to do nothing short of blatant bribery,

It's the $150 hammer or the $500 toilet seat in its truest form.
post #63 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

So if that's your desired outcome, why do you keep lamenting his lack of bi-partisanship? Obviously he's on your side after all.

 

I'm not lamenting it. That's your inference. I'm just amused by the alleged "bi-partisanship and "compromise" rhetoric.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Gridlock won't get you spending cuts larger than tax increases. Gridlock will get you significant tax increases and spending cuts that you just dismissed as negligible. Are you sure you want gridlock?

 

The concern is that some kind of "deal" will amount to tax increases with virtually no spending cuts. At this point at least the deficit reduction that comes from the so-called "fiscal cliff" would be better. Beside, it might get enough of these guys booted at mid-terms.

 

So the options are like this:

 

1) Fiscal cliff: $500B tax increases + $100B spending cuts = $600B deficit reduction

2) Compromise: $100B tax increases and no spending cuts = $100B deficit reduction

3) Better: $600B spending cuts = $600B deficit reduction

 

4) Even better: $1.2T spending cuts = balanced budget

 
3 & 4 won't happen.
 

I'll take option 1 over option 2 actually. Seems to have more long term benefits politically and fiscally. At least reduces deficit. Any economic affects might actually lead to the ouster of some people at mid-terms.

 

Thankfully you are right about 3 and 4. As for option 1, reducing the deficit will not help if it drives a prompt recession. It's hard for me to imagine any compromise that does not include spending cuts at some level. I would expect that a combination of Boehner's ideas on closing tax loopholes, a compromise increase on marginal rates, plus some targeted spending cuts would be the most likely outcome.

post #64 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

It's hard for me to imagine any compromise that does not include spending cuts at some level.

 

Fascinating that you believe this. You've just told me that $100B in spending cuts would be "very damaging". At what level of cuts would they not be damaging?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #65 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I would expect that a combination of Boehner's ideas on closing tax loopholes, a compromise increase on marginal rates, plus some targeted spending cuts would be the most likely outcome.

 

Unfortunately these will not substantially reduce the deficit (which will continue to be a drag on growth) and, depending on the tax increases (and the ones Obama won't compromise on are in this category), would likely negatively impact the growth we all hope for.

 

We've got some serious problems.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #66 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

It's hard for me to imagine any compromise that does not include spending cuts at some level.

 

Fascinating that you believe this. You've just told me that $100B in spending cuts would be "very damaging". At what level of cuts would they not be damaging?

 

Why is it fascinating that I can't imagine there won't be spending cuts? What bearing does that have on whether I think they will be damaging?

 

I'm not sure what level of cuts would not be damaging, and it probably depends on what is targeted. The CBO report estimates that defense spending cuts would be the most economically damaging. Note that I'm not opposed to defense cuts per se, but as others have pointed out, it would be better to eliminate waste and inefficiencies before going after the core infrastructure and capability.

post #67 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Fascinating that you believe this. You've just told me that $100B in spending cuts would be "very damaging". At what level of cuts would they not be damaging?

Whatever level of cuts that forces the recall of all of our troops from overseas is the minimum that I would agree with. Place all of the recalled soldiers on our borders and quit meddling in other country's affairs is a good first step.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #68 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Why is it fascinating that I can't imagine there won't be spending cuts? What bearing does that have on whether I think they will be damaging?

 

You just spent time claiming that $100B would be "very damaging." I presume this is one of the major problems with the so-called "fiscal cliff." Yet you still think they will cut spending to any degree near that amount?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm not sure what level of cuts would not be damaging, and it probably depends on what is targeted. The CBO report estimates that defense spending cuts would be the most economically damaging. Note that I'm not opposed to defense cuts per se, but as others have pointed out, it would be better to eliminate waste and inefficiencies before going after the core infrastructure and capability.

 

Yes, indeed. We'll see how that whole waste and efficiency thing works out. 1rolleyes.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #69 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I would expect that a combination of Boehner's ideas on closing tax loopholes, a compromise increase on marginal rates, plus some targeted spending cuts would be the most likely outcome.

 

Unfortunately these will not substantially reduce the deficit (which will continue to be a drag on growth) and, depending on the tax increases (and the ones Obama won't compromise on are in this category), would likely negatively impact the growth we all hope for.

 

We've got some serious problems.

 

Depends what you mean by substantially. The budget deficit reduction strategy has to be multi-year - it's not going away any time soon.

post #70 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Whatever level of cuts that forces the recall of all of our troops from overseas is the minimum that I would agree with. Place all of the recalled soldiers on our borders and quit meddling in other country's affairs is a good first step.

 

I mostly agree.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #71 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Depends what you mean by substantially.

 

I mean probably not more than $200B of the $1.2T.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

The budget deficit reduction strategy has to be multi-year

 

Why?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #72 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Why is it fascinating that I can't imagine there won't be spending cuts? What bearing does that have on whether I think they will be damaging?

 

You just spent time claiming that $100B would be "very damaging." I presume this is one of the major problems with the so-called "fiscal cliff." Yet you still think they will cut spending to any degree near that amount?

 

I spent a little time pointing out that the projections indicate that it would be very damaging. However, I don't expect the Republicans to agree to a deal that does not include spending cuts at some level. Do you disagree?

post #73 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I don't expect the Republicans to agree to a deal that does not include spending cuts at some level. Do you disagree?

 

I have no idea what to expect from them at this point. I hope they would hold out for at least as much in spending cuts as in tax increases. Preferably more. I don't trust them though. I also don't trust Obama. I'd say history is generally on my side here.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #74 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Depends what you mean by substantially.

 

I mean probably not more than $200B of the $1.2T.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

The budget deficit reduction strategy has to be multi-year

 

Why?

 

A 20 - 30% reduction this year may be all we can hope for.

 

It needs to be a multi-year strategy because trying to achieve it in one year would produce the mother of all fiscal cliffs, the economy would crash and most of us would be rather displeased. You would be fine in your cabin in the woods though.

post #75 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

It needs to be a multi-year strategy because trying to achieve it in one year would produce the mother of all fiscal cliffs, the economy would crash and most of us would be rather displeased.

 

That's the theory, yes.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You would be fine in your cabin in the woods though.

 

How cute. 1rolleyes.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #76 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I don't expect the Republicans to agree to a deal that does not include spending cuts at some level. Do you disagree?

 

I have no idea what to expect from them at this point. I hope they would hold out for at least as much in spending cuts as in tax increases. Preferably more. I don't trust them though. I also don't trust Obama. I'd say history is generally on my side here.

 

I think that both sides are well aware of the dangers of depressing the economy too much. I'm hopeful that they figure out a reasonable compromise, and it will be interesting to see the balance between net tax changes and spending changes.

post #77 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You would be fine in your cabin in the woods though.

 

How cute. 1rolleyes.gif

 

You mean you don't have one? That's totally ruined my image of you.

post #78 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
you would be fine in your cabin in the woods though.

Cabin is ready. Of course it is 3,000 sq ft. and has a spectacular view of the Pacific Ocean.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #79 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You mean you don't have one? That's totally ruined my image of you.

 

Then you probably need to stop talking to the caricature you've created of me in your head.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #80 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
you would be fine in your cabin in the woods though.

Cabin is ready. Of course it is 3,000 sq ft. and has a spectacular view of the Pacific Ocean.

 

Now I'm jealous.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › What Obama needs to do now.