or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Fiscal Cliff: Will House Republicans cave on taxes? Will anyone actually cut spending? Have $1T deficits become the new norm?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Fiscal Cliff: Will House Republicans cave on taxes? Will anyone actually cut spending? Have...

post #1 of 238
Thread Starter 

There are some early signs that Boehner may cave on higher taxes.

 

This would be a strategic political error and a tactical fiscal and economic error.

 

Of course the deficit needs to be reduced, but this should happen through spending cuts. Will House Republicans be courageous enough to make these cuts?

 

Now the idea of simpler, streamlined tax code could be a good step as long as it doesn't raise net taxes. Ideally it would lower net taxes, but that's unlikely. At least simpler at the same level would be a minor improvement.

 

Bottom line, will the difficult spending decisions be made or will they kick the can down the road?

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 #2 of 238

Not only will they kick it down the road, they will double down on stupid.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #3 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Not only will they kick it down the road, they will double down on stupid.

Stupid is thinking that the Greek way is better than the Dutch way.
post #4 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Not only will they kick it down the road, they will double down on stupid.

Stupid is thinking that the Greek way is better than the Dutch way.

 

Stupid is thinking that the Greek way represents austerity.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #5 of 238

The Greek way represents austerity. Just does. Bloody hell. Try and at least speak the same language as the rest of us.

post #6 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald II View Post

The Greek way represents austerity. Just does. Bloody hell. Try and at least speak the same language as the rest of us.

 

The establishment wants you to believe the Greek way represents austerity.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #7 of 238
Christ, it's undeniable that the Greek way has been multiple times more austere than other European solutions. Remember Ireland? They were in financial turmoil as well, at the same time Greece was. Greece went the austerity path, and Ireland went the Keynesian path. Greece has been a major clusterfuck, and Ireland has been notably successful.

Greece went austere enough to cause rioting and people who can't buy food, and you're saying greece's failure is that it didn't go austere enough?

FFS, doubling down on stupid doesn't make one smart.
post #8 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald II View Post

The Greek way represents austerity. Just does. Bloody hell. Try and at least speak the same language as the rest of us.

This. Greece shows evidence that austerity doesn't work, and you guys can't handle that, so you say the Greece policy isn't really austerity.

Every news source in the world links Greece with austerity. Look at what they have done in Greece. They have slashed budgets 75%. Doesn't get much more austere than that.
post #9 of 238

MJ, I read today that Boehner was not referring to actually raising tax rates, but an overall reform package that raises revenue.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #10 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

MJ, I read today that Boehner was not referring to actually raising tax rates, but an overall reform package that raises revenue.  

 

You'll forgive me if I don't find any comfort in that at all.

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 #11 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

You'll forgive me if I don't find any comfort in that at all.

 

Absolutely.  I don't either.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #12 of 238
Thread Starter 

I see Obama hasn't really changed his tune on taxes. No surprise here.

 

Time will tell if he's actually interested in cutting spending. I'm guessing not. He thinks he got an electoral mandate. All intransigence will be blamed on the Republicans.

 

We won't see much progress 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 #13 of 238

I apologize. I just started a thread on this not realizing this one was already here. I'll do a copy/paste. It's a giant brain fart on my part.

 

In the "lameduck" time between now and January where the next session of Congress begins and President Obama is sworn in for second term, there is massive amount of work (or perhaps not) related to avoiding the Fiscal Cliff as some are calling it.

 

 

CNN.com

 

Businessweek.com

 

How hard is this problem to tackle? The Businessweek article does a good job of summarizing it.

 

 

Quote:

In the coming months the same president and largely the same Congress will try to fix the same problem: How to bring the $1.1 trillion federal deficit and $11.3 trillion public debt under control. More immediately, they need to avoid the brutal automatic cuts and tax hikes that will take place in January unless President Obama and congressional Republicans can reach some sort of deal. Although Republicans and Democrats persist in making it seem like bringing spending in line with revenue is some form of particle physics, there’s actually no mystery to the calculations. The money will come out of the nation’s $2 trillion entitlement programs. It will come out of the Pentagon’s $680 billion budget. And it will come from tax increases. There will be plenty of arguing over what to cut. There’s no arguing where the money is.

 

Except, of course, in Washington. Even after the failed 2011 debt negotiations set the country on course to this fiscal cliff, Republicans insist that the savings can be found elsewhere, no military cuts or tax hikes necessary. Paul Ryan, still the chair of the House Budget Committee—he lost the vice presidency but won an eighth congressional term with 55 percent of the vote in his district—has proposed, over the next 10 years, to cut in half the “nonsecurity discretionary spending” that makes up the rest of the federal budget. “That sounds OK until you start to look at what’s there,” says Philip Joyce, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy who spent five years with the Congressional Budget Office. “You’re talking Commerce, you’re talking NOAA, the weather service, the Economic Development Administration … they do real things.”

 

Outside the Capitol, nonsecurity discretionary spending is what people think of as “the government.” It includes the Treasury Department, the Department of Justice, the EPA, the FBI, and FEMA. These are services that are mostly necessary and desirable even by the standards of many small-government Republicans. They’re cheap, too. In 2011 this spending cost $371 billion, 10 percent of the total federal budget.

 

In a primary debate last November, Texas Governor Rick Perry remembered two departments he’d eliminate as president: Commerce and Education. Together last year, that duo cost $74 billion—2 percent of federal outlays, and 6 percent of the deficit. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which Mitt Romney said he’d cut out of the budget, requested less than $500 million this year, a comically small slice of the problem. But let’s make the calculation easy, and cut it all—the whole federal government aside from the Pentagon and entitlements. Fire every one of the 2.8 million federal employees, close the buildings they work in, and eliminate the government services they provide and … you wouldn’t even get the budget-cutters a third of the way toward eliminating the annual federal deficit. What’s more, since the projected growth in costs over the next decades comes almost entirely from entitlements, the amount that goes to the rest of government will become an even smaller part of the problem in the future.

 

Yes, there’s maddening inefficiency in government agencies. Getting rid of it is hard. “There is no line item in these departments that reads ‘waste, fraud and abuse,’” says Joyce. Almost all 20th century presidents have attempted to reorganize agencies or make them more efficient; but entropy keeps winning. That isn’t to say it’s not worth doing. It’s just a matter of priorities—and of recognizing that the conversation we can have about whether to shrink the Department of Education is not the same as the one we must have about how to shrink the federal debt.

 

The bottom line: Eliminating all government spending except military and entitlements will only save $371 billion—a third of the federal budget deficit.

 

The conservative argument will be that with all defense spending and the "discretionary spending" which amounts to what the government ought to be doing, you are at a trillion dollars. As the article notes outside of defense and entitlements, you are only talking about ten percent of all federal spending. It is impossible to avoid this cliff by only tackling 10% of the budget.

 

Most conservatives do not appear to want any military cuts to occur. However many libertarians and paleocons (including myself) wouldn't not mind for the U.S. to stop being the cop of the world and to start handling business at home and that would certainly save some money.

 

That said, the biggest and likely most untouchable piece of the pie is entitlements. Also with regard to "revenue" as the NBC chart shows, most tax increases will bring slower economic growth along with them.

 

So what can and should be done in your opinion?

 

I'll share additional thoughts but my first thought is that President Obama should simply avoid extending the "Bush" tax cuts for any additional amount of time. His claim was that they were responsible for fiscal sanity and economic growth during the Clinton years. Clearly a return to those rates, per his reasoning, should bring about a similar result. Democrats also claimed that the cuts didn't really give or return much to the middle class or working poor so they wouldn't have much to lose if they expired. You can't have your cake and eat it too though. If the rich got the majority of the cuts, then they should feel the majority of the pain when the cuts end. The best part about it from his perspective is it costs zero political capital and can't be stopped by supposedly obstructionist Republicans because they are simply set to expire. It takes action to carry them foreward. Do nothing at all and the rates and claimed prosperity of the Clinton years returns with no effort, no votes and no action by the President himself.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #14 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'll share additional thoughts but my first thought is that President Obama should simply avoid extending the "Bush" tax cuts for any additional amount of time. His claim was that they were responsible for fiscal sanity and economic growth during the Clinton years. Clearly a return to those rates, per his reasoning, should bring about a similar result. Democrats also claimed that the cuts didn't really give or return much to the middle class or working poor so they wouldn't have much to lose if they expired. You can't have your cake and eat it too though. If the rich got the majority of the cuts, then they should feel the majority of the pain when the cuts end. The best part about it from his perspective is it costs zero political capital and can't be stopped by supposedly obstructionist Republicans because they are simply set to expire. It takes action to carry them foreward. Do nothing at all and the rates and claimed prosperity of the Clinton years returns with no effort, no votes and no action by the President himself.

 

And, strategically, the Republicans should "let" him too pretend to put up a fight, but make it Obama's decision (one he doesn't really want to make.)

 

Anyone with a brain knows this will not only not create any economic prosperity, it also won't close the fiscal gap and will almost certainly assure the impending recession.

 

Now what do you have:

 

1. An Obama recession (and probably another percentage point in unemployment.) We'll be able to discuss how it was avoidable but for Obama's tax increases.

 

2. New "Obama tax increases" (on everyone) that we'll be talking about for years.

 

3. A deficit that is not likely to be any smaller because the tax increases won't raise the revenue it is assumed to account for.

 

Politically speaking this should decimate Obama, his "legacy" and the Democrats for a decade or so.

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 #15 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'll share additional thoughts but my first thought is that President Obama should simply avoid extending the "Bush" tax cuts for any additional amount of time. His claim was that they were responsible for fiscal sanity and economic growth during the Clinton years. Clearly a return to those rates, per his reasoning, should bring about a similar result. Democrats also claimed that the cuts didn't really give or return much to the middle class or working poor so they wouldn't have much to lose if they expired. You can't have your cake and eat it too though. If the rich got the majority of the cuts, then they should feel the majority of the pain when the cuts end. The best part about it from his perspective is it costs zero political capital and can't be stopped by supposedly obstructionist Republicans because they are simply set to expire. It takes action to carry them foreward. Do nothing at all and the rates and claimed prosperity of the Clinton years returns with no effort, no votes and no action by the President himself.

 

And, strategically, the Republicans should "let" him too pretend to put up a fight, but make it Obama's decision (one he doesn't really want to make.)

 

Anyone with a brain knows this will not only not create any economic prosperity, it also won't close the fiscal gap and will almost certainly assure the impending recession.

 

Now what do you have:

 

1. An Obama recession (and probably another percentage point in unemployment.) We'll be able to discuss how it was avoidable but for Obama's tax increases.

 

2. New "Obama tax increases" (on everyone) that we'll be talking about for years.

 

3. A deficit that is not likely to be any smaller because the tax increases won't raise the revenue it is assumed to account for.

 

Politically speaking this should decimate Obama, his "legacy" and the Democrats for a decade or so.

lol.gif Most likely if anything goes south at this point ( especially anything to do with the fiscal cliff ) the blame will fall squarely on the Republicans due to their long record of saying " No! " to anything that wasn't their idea or directly in line with their policies ( No compromise really ). That's where we are.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #16 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

lol.gif Most likely if anything goes south at this point ( especially anything to do with the fiscal cliff ) the blame will fall squarely on the Republicans due to their long record of saying " No! " to anything that wasn't their idea or directly in line with their policies ( No compromise really ). That's where we are.

Yep, that's one of the reasons they're so unpopular, especially since they were the protagonists in creating this mess. Also, MJ's point that all the blame will fall on Obama leading to ten years in the wilderness for Democrats is laughable. The stumbling block to getting this sorted out is the Republican objection to not extending the Bush tax cuts cuts for those earning over $250,000. However, the American people overwhelmingly think that they should not be extended, as Obama has put forth. Indeed 72% of Americans agree with Obama here, so there's a lot of moderate Republicans and Independents who think it's the best plan as well as Democrats.

 

"Two new polls suggest there is broad support for raising taxes on households making more than $250,000 a year, and all in the name of deficit reduction.

A full 72% of adults approve of increasing federal taxes on households making more than $250,000 starting in 2013, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Fifty-five percent of Republicans want the tax hike, along with 74% of independents and 83% of Democrats.

In case you need more convincing, an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Wednesday asked a similar question. The results: Seventy-two percent of respondents want to raise taxes on the rich to help reduce the deficit, with a similar breakdown by political party."

~ http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/22/news/economy/budget_taxes_poll/index.htm

The reality is that the GOP had better start playing ball or their toast.

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #17 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Most likely if anything goes south at this point ( especially anything to do with the fiscal cliff ) the blame will fall squarely on the Republicans due to their long record of saying " No! " to anything that wasn't their idea or directly in line with their policies ( No compromise really ). That's where we are.

 

That's certainly a possibility.

 

 

However, Obama will have hard time explaining why extending the tax cuts last year was good for the economy and would create jobs but it isn't this year.

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 #18 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

That's certainly a possibility.

 

 

However, Obama will have hard time explaining why extending the tax cuts last year was good for the economy and would create jobs but it isn't this year.

MJ, he only extended them for those earning over $250,000 because otherwise he couldn't get them extended for those earning less than $250,000. How many times does it take for you guys to get this? Sheesh. 

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #19 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Yep, that's one of the reasons they're so unpopular, especially since they were the protagonists in creating this mess. Also, MJ's point that all the blame will fall on Obama leading to ten years in the wilderness for Democrats is laughable. The stumbling block to getting this sorted out is the Republican objection to not extending the Bush tax cuts cuts for those earning over $250,000. However, the American people overwhelmingly think that they should not be extended, as Obama has put forth. Indeed 72% of Americans agree with Obama here, so there's a lot of moderate Republicans and Independents who think it's the best plan as well as Democrats.

 

"Two new polls suggest there is broad support for raising taxes on households making more than $250,000 a year, and all in the name of deficit reduction.

A full 72% of adults approve of increasing federal taxes on households making more than $250,000 starting in 2013, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Fifty-five percent of Republicans want the tax hike, along with 74% of independents and 83% of Democrats.

In case you need more convincing, an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Wednesday asked a similar question. The results: Seventy-two percent of respondents want to raise taxes on the rich to help reduce the deficit, with a similar breakdown by political party.

 

They may all think that and believe that now. But if those taxes go up and we go into a recession and the deficit continues to soar. It won't be hard to convince them of the error in this policy. People generally have an correct intuitive understanding that tax increases are bad for the economy even if their envy, greed and entitlement attitudes occasionally cause them to push for greater theft from those who are more financially wealthy.

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 #20 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

MJ, he only extended them for those earning over $250,000 because otherwise he couldn't get them extended for those earning less than $250,000. How many times does it take for you guys to get this? Sheesh. 

 

I know the politics of that deal. I know Obama had to capitulate to not stealing more from those would were wealthier. Good for the Republicans for holding him off. I only hope they'll do the same this time. But now he's on record as telling everyone that extending the tax cuts would be good for the 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 #21 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

They may all think that and believe that now. But if those taxes go up and we go into a recession and the deficit continues to soar. It won't be hard to convince them of the error in this policy. People generally have an correct intuitive understanding that tax increases are bad for the economy even if their envy, greed and entitlement attitudes occasionally cause them to push for greater theft from those who are more financially wealthy.

We need to pay down the debt. The wealthiest have seen massive gains in their income and can well afford to pay extra. According to the CBO a couple of days ago, they say this-

 

"If the tax rates were extended only for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earnings less than $250,000, CBO said growth would rise by 1.25 percent -- just a quarter point less than extending all of the cuts."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/taxes-on-the-rich_n_2094592.html

 

And what's critical here is what's taken directly out of the economy. If you take a lot of money out of the economy you'll see lower GDP growth. That's why fundamentally it's critical America end the Bush tax cuts on the top 3%.

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #22 of 238
Thread Starter 

The bottom line here is that Obama thinks he has a mandate for higher taxes, (but does he really?) and he won't compromise (BTW...saying that you won't compromise and insisting that the other side compromise isn't "working together").

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 #23 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

We need to pay down the debt.

 

Yes. Raising taxes on the rich won't do it. Spending cuts are the only path to that destination.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

According to the CBO a couple of days ago, they say this-

 

"If the tax rates were extended only for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earnings less than $250,000, CBO said growth would rise by 1.25 percent -- just a quarter point less than extending all of the cuts."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/taxes-on-the-rich_n_2094592.html

 

They are almost certainly wrong, and it will also do nothing for the deficit:

 

 

Quote:
Congress's Joint Tax Committee estimates that raising taxes on income over $250,000 ($200,000 if you're single) will raise $823 billion over 10 years on a static revenue basis. That includes all revenue from increases in marginal income tax rates, capital gains, dividends, reinstating the phaseouts of deductions for the wealthy and also treating dividends as ordinary income.
 
That's only $82 billion a year in extra revenue when the federal deficit in fiscal 2012 was $1.1 trillion. So even if Mr. Obama gets his way, his tax increase would only cut the deficit by about 7.5%. And that assumes the tax increase would have no impact on economic growth. If growth slows below its already paltry pace, tax revenue would rise by less than expected despite the higher rates.

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 #24 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

But now he's on record as telling everyone that extending the tax cuts would be good for the economy.

That's nothing new. Why do you think he gave the biggest middle class tax cuts ever in his stimulus? To stimulate the economy obviously.

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #25 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Yes. Raising taxes on the rich won't do it. Spending cuts are the only path to that destination.

 

 

 

They are almost certainly wrong, and it will also do nothing for the deficit:

 

 

That's much better than nothing, and like I say, there's another added effect of not taking the money out of the economy in cuts. That decreases GDP. 

 

That said we could give much bigger tax cuts to 97% of Americans and still pay down the debt if we massively cut the military budget and stopped locking everyone up and got healthcare costs down through true universal healthcare. 

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #26 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

That's nothing new. Why do you think he gave the biggest middle class tax cuts ever in his stimulus? To stimulate the economy obviously.

 

So we agree, tax cuts stimulate the economy. Then it is stupid at this time to increase taxes. So, Obama's insistence on doing so indicates he's either stupid or explicitly against stimulating the 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 #27 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

That's much better than nothing

 

Not really, if a) it actually results in nothing (which is highly probable), and b) it becomes a stumbling block to other more serious fiscal changes (i.e., spending cuts) that will reduce the deficit.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

there's another added effect of not taking the money out of the economy in cuts. That decreases GDP. 

 

What?!

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

That said we could give much bigger tax cuts to 97% of Americans and still pay down the debt if we massively cut the military budget and stopped locking everyone up and got healthcare costs down through true universal healthcare. 

 

Come back when you know what you're talking about. This statement clearly indicates that you don't.

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 #28 of 238

And since 2008 insurance companies have massively increased their fees (see graph below). The UK is on track to be spending less than a third per year than the US per head within a couple of years. The US is already spending $3 trillion each year. If they had the same type of truly excellent healthcare we have here in the UK, that would save Americans and the US government who pay over half the costs, more than $2 trillion a year. By 2020 Americans are projected to be paying half of all the healthcare spending that the entire world spends. So unless you object to me saying we should spend less on the military and less on locking people up, which I don't think you disagree with, then you're wrong that I don't know what I'm talking about. 

 

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #29 of 238
Thread Starter 

Setting aside your mixing of health care costs and insurance premiums and your unsupported claims of quality and failure to recognize non-monetary costs to to mention your implicit (and incorrect) assumption that ALL healthcare spending in the US is done by the US federal government...

 

Yes, the government should spend less on healthcare. It should spend none. Zero. Nada. Zilch. It should get out of that market entirely. Minimally, it should: a) repeal any number of price controls and coverage mandates, b) (to equalize tax treatment of health insurance) either make individual premiums 100% tax deductible or make employer-provide premiums a taxable benefit, and c) allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines.

 

Defense spending isn't going to get you there. Yes this can and should be reduced. But this won't get you there. The big issues are entitlements. Those are what will bankrupt the country.

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 #30 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Setting aside your mixing of health care costs and insurance premiums and your unsupported claims of quality and failure to recognize non-monetary costs to to mention your implicit (and incorrect) assumption that ALL healthcare spending in the US is done by the US federal government...

 

Yes, the government should spend less on healthcare. It should spend none. Zero. Nada. Zilch. It should get out of that market entirely. Minimally, it should: a) repeal any number of price controls and coverage mandates, b) (to equalize tax treatment of health insurance) either make individual premiums 100% tax deductible or make employer-provide premiums a taxable benefit, and c) allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines.

 

Defense spending isn't going to get you there. Yes this can and should be reduced. But this won't get you there. The big issues are entitlements. Those are what will bankrupt the country.

No MJ, I didn't confuse the two, that's purely your wrong assumption and I stated clearly that the government pays over half, not as you bizarrely say I imply, all.

 

Your healthcare plan needs some serious rethinking. It's like the repub plan on steroids. In other words crappy care for most people and millions of bankruptcies. Until, or unless, you see the light, I don't think there's much to gain by discussing this much more. I've made lots of posts here over the years on the subject if you want more details on why I think the US needs a major overhaul to it's healthcare system and why policies like yours only make matters even worse than they already are.

 

Health, defence and other areas are certainly enough to get America debt free with lower taxes. The poor are already way too poor. Sure, end the cheating and abuse and make better incentives for people to not try and receive government money when they could achieve their own independence themselves, but don't make life even more difficult for those who find themselves in poverty. It's a recipe for disaster. 

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #31 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

No MJ, I didn't confuse the two, that's purely your wrong assumption and I stated clearly that the government pays over half, not as you bizarrely say I imply, all.

 

I missed that. I apologize.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Your healthcare plan needs some serious rethinking.

 

Please do tell why.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

In other words crappy care for most people and millions of bankruptcies.

 

This is merely your speculation. Please prove it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Until, or unless, you see the light, I don't think there's much to gain by discussing this much more.

 

Until you start actually proving your claims and speculations there isn't much point in further discussion.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I've made lots of posts here over the years on the subject if you want more details on why I think the US needs a major overhaul to it's healthcare system and why policies like yours only make matters even worse than they already are.

 

I've read many if not most of those. I've responded to many explaining, in many cases why and how you are wrong. You've clearly not made a very convincing case. You also have not prove how or why what I have proposed would make things worse.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Health, defence and other areas are certainly enough to get America debt free with lower taxes.

 

No, you are wrong. Unless "other areas" includes entitlements.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The poor are already way too poor. 

 

Yes and liberal/"progressive"/leftist/Democratic policies are making them poorer by the day. The left is the worst thing to happen to the poor in the history of this country.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Sure, end the cheating and abuse and make better incentives for people to not try and receive government money when they could achieve their own independence themselves, but don't make life even more difficult for those who find themselves in poverty. It's a recipe for disaster. 

 

No one is proposing that.

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 #32 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I missed that. I apologize.

 

 

 

Please do tell why.

 

 

 

This is merely your speculation. Please prove it.

 

 

 

Until you start actually proving your claims and speculations there isn't much point in further discussion.

 

 

 

I've read many if not most of those. I've responded to many explaining, in many cases why and how you are wrong. You've clearly not made a very convincing case. You also have not prove how or why what I have proposed would make things worse.

 

 

 

No, you are wrong. Unless "other areas" includes entitlements.

 

 

 

Yes and liberal/"progressive"/leftist/Democratic policies are making them poorer by the day. The left is the worst thing to happen to the poor in the history of this country.

 

 

No one is proposing that.

 

 

Damn. I went and deleted my post by accident.

 

Some other time for a healthcare debate from me.

 

In the meantime here's some food for thought. Bare in mind that today the total world expenditure on healthcare, including the US, is $6.5 trillion a year. 

 

"The report by the Medicare Office of the Actuary estimated that health spending will grow by an average of 5.8 percent a year through 2020, compared to 5.7 percent without the health overhaul. With that growth,  the nation is expected to spend $4.6 trillion on health care in 2020, nearly double the $2.6 trillion spent last year."http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2011/july/28/health-care-spending-to-double.aspx

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #33 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

lol.gif Most likely if anything goes south at this point ( especially anything to do with the fiscal cliff ) the blame will fall squarely on the Republicans due to their long record of saying " No! " to anything that wasn't their idea or directly in line with their policies ( No compromise really ). That's where we are.

 

Yes, we should blame the group that controls one half of one branch of the federal government and not blame the group that previously controlled that half for four years, nor the same group that controls the presidency nor the Senate. You are aware that Bush only had control of the Senate for four years of his presidency and for the house for six years of his presidency. Per your reasoning, he wasn't responsible for anything that happened. Hypocrisy much?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

lol.gif Most likely if anything goes south at this point ( especially anything to do with the fiscal cliff ) the blame will fall squarely on the Republicans due to their long record of saying " No! " to anything that wasn't their idea or directly in line with their policies ( No compromise really ). That's where we are.

Yep, that's one of the reasons they're so unpopular, especially since they were the protagonists in creating this mess. Also, MJ's point that all the blame will fall on Obama leading to ten years in the wilderness for Democrats is laughable. The stumbling block to getting this sorted out is the Republican objection to not extending the Bush tax cuts cuts for those earning over $250,000. However, the American people overwhelmingly think that they should not be extended, as Obama has put forth. Indeed 72% of Americans agree with Obama here, so there's a lot of moderate Republicans and Independents who think it's the best plan as well as Democrats.

 

"Two new polls suggest there is broad support for raising taxes on households making more than $250,000 a year, and all in the name of deficit reduction.

A full 72% of adults approve of increasing federal taxes on households making more than $250,000 starting in 2013, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Fifty-five percent of Republicans want the tax hike, along with 74% of independents and 83% of Democrats.

In case you need more convincing, an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Wednesday asked a similar question. The results: Seventy-two percent of respondents want to raise taxes on the rich to help reduce the deficit, with a similar breakdown by political party."

~ http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/22/news/economy/budget_taxes_poll/index.htm

The reality is that the GOP had better start playing ball or their toast.

 

When is it ever unpopular to be able to give yourself goodies and have someone else pay for it? Free lunch is about the most popular position a person could take.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #34 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Yep, that's one of the reasons they're so unpopular, especially since they were the protagonists in creating this mess. Also, MJ's point that all the blame will fall on Obama leading to ten years in the wilderness for Democrats is laughable. The stumbling block to getting this sorted out is the Republican objection to not extending the Bush tax cuts cuts for those earning over $250,000. However, the American people overwhelmingly think that they should not be extended, as Obama has put forth. Indeed 72% of Americans agree with Obama here, so there's a lot of moderate Republicans and Independents who think it's the best plan as well as Democrats.

 

"Two new polls suggest there is broad support for raising taxes on households making more than $250,000 a year, and all in the name of deficit reduction.

A full 72% of adults approve of increasing federal taxes on households making more than $250,000 starting in 2013, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Fifty-five percent of Republicans want the tax hike, along with 74% of independents and 83% of Democrats.

In case you need more convincing, an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Wednesday asked a similar question. The results: Seventy-two percent of respondents want to raise taxes on the rich to help reduce the deficit, with a similar breakdown by political party.

 

They may all think that and believe that now. But if those taxes go up and we go into a recession and the deficit continues to soar. It won't be hard to convince them of the error in this policy. People generally have an correct intuitive understanding that tax increases are bad for the economy even if their envy, greed and entitlement attitudes occasionally cause them to push for greater theft from those who are more financially wealthy.

Gee you almost sound like you're hoping that will happen. Wow.

 

For the record I don't think that scenrio is a given. I think they'll find a compromise. The GOP don't need anymore bad press.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #35 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Gee you almost sound like you're hoping that will happen.

 

Not at all. What I am hoping will happen is quite unlikely to happen.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

For the record I don't think that scenrio is a given. I think they'll find a compromise.

 

Good for you. I'm doubtful. But if there is a compromise it's, more likely than not, one that, will involve, as trumptman suggested, both parties doubling down on stupid: higher taxes, minimal spending cuts, no real reform, trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see and plenty of money printing.

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 #36 of 238

Face it, MJ. You would be much much happier if taxes were slashed even if it meant poor people starving and people rioting and turning to other crime (though you have bought into the disproved theory that that doesn't happen, and that somehow rich people's prosperity does "trickle down" to the masses), than you would if taxes were raised and poor people were as happy as they are in Denmark and Holland, and the economy recovers as a result of the spending of those happy people. You just want to be right. I'm sorry to inform you, in case you haven't been paying attention to history, that that's unlikely to ever happen. Ever.

 

Look at the happy prosperous places and do what they do. That's what needs to be done.

post #37 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Face it, MJ. You would be much much happier if taxes were slashed even if it meant poor people starving and people rioting and turning to other crime (though you have bought into the disproved theory that that doesn't happen, and that somehow rich people's prosperity does "trickle down" to the masses), than you would if taxes were raised and poor people were as happy as they are in Denmark and Holland, and the economy recovers as a result of the spending of those happy people. You just want to be right. I'm sorry to inform you, in case you haven't been paying attention to history, that that's unlikely to ever happen. Ever.

 

Look at the happy prosperous places and do what they do. That's what needs to be done.

 

Face it, tonton. You're a socialist.  You assume that cutting taxes and spending means people with die in the streets.  And you certainly don't understand or appreciate the principles upon which this nation was founded. And comparing Denmark et al to the United States is laughably absurd.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #38 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Gee you almost sound like you're hoping that will happen. Wow.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Face it, MJ. You would be much much happier if taxes were slashed even if it meant poor people starving and people rioting and turning to other crime

 

You know, I'd complain that these two are engaging in nothing but ad-homs but it works for the Democratic party and their supporters. They don't deal in reality. Again look at so many pure blue areas. The one thing to take away from this election is that Republicans shouldn't change a thing because Democrats don't vote reality. They vote identity. All their supporters don't make arguments or have discussions. They spend time noting intentions and labeling opponents.

 

You can't fault them for using what works for their supporters though. They know the mind of their groups and that along with a bunch of give aways and goodies has won the day for this election round.

 

I'll say right now there isn't a change Republicans will make that will change the votes of people who think this way. California is a pure example of it. First in taxes, near last in education spending and tops for welfare recipients. The state infrastructure is crumbling away but we have plenty of money to build a high speed rail to nowhere and provide financial aid for illegal immigrants all while declaring we are broke!

 

The National Republican Party shouldn't change a thing. Go tend your gardens and play with the kids and grand kids. You can't change the mind of someone who votes identity politics.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #39 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Face it, MJ. You would be much much happier if taxes were slashed even if it meant poor people starving and people rioting and turning to other crime.

 

Is that and argument of some kind?

 

I reject your premise.

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 #40 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You know, I'd complain that these two are engaging in nothing but ad-homs but it works for the Democratic party and their supporters. They don't deal in reality.

 

So it seems. The "argument" is always about (assumed) intentions and concerns. It is all about projecting their most dismal and distopian assumptions about what the world would be like if it isn't following their authoritarian policies onto their intellectual and political opponents.

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

Reply

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

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Fiscal Cliff: Will House Republicans cave on taxes? Will anyone actually cut spending? Have $1T deficits become the new norm?