WSB Forum » Open Discussion

(31 posts)

New "Fiscal Cliff" deal?


  1. wakeflood
    Member Profile

    wakeflood

    According to some, Pres will propose raising the rates above $400K (not $250k), return to old SS deducts, drop the infrastructure $ and get a deal done this weekend. Leaves the debt ceiling extension and other cuts for later negotiations.

    If Boehner and McConnell go for it, what say you, fellow Progressives?

    IMHO, this is going as Obama planned. Everything we progressives hold dear is a bargaining chip for clawing back a few percentage points of rates on the very rich.

    Maybe we'll figure out how to elect a real progressive someday...

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  2. hooper1961
    Member Profile

    $400K is a pragmatic value.

    but still where are the cuts?

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  3. The cuts will come with the debt ceiling increase. The one intelligent thing the Republicans have done in this debacle is to be consistent that for every dollar of increase in the debt ceiling, we need a dollar of savings in government spending.

    Now if they could only be reasonable on tax policy, then we might get actual fiscal responsibility on the part of the government...

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  4. wakeflood
    Member Profile

    wakeflood

    Let's start with eliminating corporate subsidies, and take $200B/yr. out of the defense budget in 2013/14 and another $200B/yr. every year after that until they spend $300B/yr. total. And we can defund the warrantless surveillance of US citizens while we're at it.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  5. hooper1961
    Member Profile

    but when the government can't even agree on raising the retirement age that is a flat out no brainer; you wonder.

    cutting subsidies is appropriate and needs to include farming subsidies, flood insurance et al

    wakefield i agree that cutting defense spending as a part of the answer.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  6. wakeflood
    Member Profile

    wakeflood

    I suspect the difference between our views then is that I'd take that savings from the defense dept. and corporate subsidies and INVEST it in our decrepit infrastructure and education of our youth.

    I suspect you'd rather do other things with it.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  7. Word just out that Obama is holding firm. Not raising the threshold.

    Markets are plummeting but only 15 minutes left on the clock.

    More sell-off coming Monday - better sell now!

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  8. wakeflood
    Member Profile

    wakeflood

    Relax, Smitty, it's called a negotiating ploy. If he gets solid confirmation that Boehner will take his offer to the floor for a vote, he'll cave. The issue is whether the teabaggers will take yes for an answer.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  9. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    hooper: how many times do i have to tell you how much obama has offered in spending cuts already?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2012/12/06/reminder-obama-has-already-agreed-to-big-spending-cuts/

    in addition to the $400 billion he's proposing now...

    With last year’s Budget Control Act — which resolved the debt ceiling crisis, and set the stage for the “fiscal cliff” — President Obama agreed to cut discretionary spending by $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. If you split defense spending — which accounts for $600 billion in savings — from that total, you’re left with $900 billion in cuts to non-defense discretionary spending, accomplished by an across-the-board cap on appropriations.

    see also:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/335881/obamas-counteroffer-12-trillion-revenue-122-trillion-spending-cuts-patrick-brennan#

    http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/110606/obama-deficit-reduction-offer-spending-cut-tax-increase-boehner#

    hooper, give up the "raise the retirement age" nonsense. you're approaching wingnut territory on that one. not even mean old republicans like it:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/postabc-poll-support-reducing-nations-budget/2012/11/28/083a0a26-3952-11e2-9258-ac7c78d5c680_page.html

    67% opposed. in what world is that a "no-brainer" for support of your position?

    on the other hand, 60% support raising the top marginal tax rate.

    based on polling numbers, it seems to me that congress doesn't represent the nation's interests very well right now.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  10. hooper1961
    Member Profile

    redblack - no one likes raising the retirement age; but it is the one best item to reduce government spending. the simple fact is people live far longer than in the past and the retirement age needs to be raised to reflect this fact.

    essentially raising the retirement age is a no brainer fiscal pill that needs to be taken to rain in spending

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  11. I keep thinking...hooper, if you "know" so much better than those in congress, or anyone else, for that matter, about raising the retirement age, what are you doing talking to us....talk to them...run for a position where you can actually do something about your beliefs...

    Here, it's just incessant arguing...

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  12. hooper1961
    Member Profile

    i have contacted my representatives; they are deaf to fiscal reality.

    they remind me of a housemate i had many many moons ago who got a credit card. he then would buy stuff and max it out then he got his credit limit raised and repeated the cycle. eventually paying interest on the mounting debt becomes horrendously expensive and the proverbial $%^& will hit the fan.

    politicians simply do not have the stomach to make the hard choices. term limits would likely lead to much better governance because then the politician could vote the hard choice knowing they can't run for office again regardless.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  13. we all contact our representatives. I meant, join in, do something more than just grouse about it...

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  14. hoop

    raising the retirement age is just another way to pass breaks for the wealthy on to those who can afford it the least

    and it's a false savings anyway...
    as the retirement age climbs, the disability rates climb.

    you are so focused on the pennies you think other people are taking from you that you can see the dollars you hand away without even thinking

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  15. wakeflood
    Member Profile

    wakeflood

    Looks like the deal has been struck. Dems will likely have given in on everything save initial cuts to the safety net. No stimulus, the debt ceiling hovering again in the near future, no cuts to defense, etc. Again, we bargain against ourselves.

    Our only hope is that even this major cave by the Dems won't pass muster with the Teabaggers and the deal gets tossed. Let's see what the Boehner can do with his gang of fools...

    They'll probably pass something with amendments that gets even worse in reconciliation.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  16. hooper1961
    Member Profile

    what major cave by the D's. entitlement spending is going to eventually lead to bankruptcy.

    it is extremely frustrating watching the debacle both the D's and R's can shove it as far as I am concerned and the T's are idiots.

    solutions:

    - raise taxes on the truly wealthy $400k plus ($200k/adult worker)
    - raise the retirement age
    - reduce the SS COLA formula
    - reduce military spending
    - do not extend unemployment (see next response that would increase jobs)
    - increase fuel use fee (say 10 cents/gallon) and send back to the states $ for $ to spend on infrastructure

    I am sure the R's, D's and T's won't be happy; thus it must be a reasoned compromise.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  17. FionaEnzo
    Member Profile

    Keeping post 65 folks in the full time job market deprives young people of work. There are never enough jobs - there is a built-in unemployment percentage in our economy. People fall off that radar so aren't counted after a certain time limit. and older folks have paid into social security for 45-50 years. It's not a handout -- it's a pot of money so irresistible to those who want to steal it through "privatization." Hands off. Tax the uber wealthy millionaires who are feeding off the misery of underpaid "right to work" proletariat and students crushed by college debt. And stop the damn wars which have only benefitted Haliburton etc al. Again! Stop the wars and you will find your funding!!

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  18. hooper1961
    Member Profile

    FionaEnzo - ? older folks paid into SS for 50 years that is mathematically not correct.

    i think people forget SS was never intended to be the sole source of retirement income and it is very unfair to those that saved to be forced to pay for those that do not!

    students crushed by debt is because the State spends has taken money from education funding to spend on social services. the State pays only about 30% of the cost of UW education where in the not so distant past it was over 50%. it is time the State increase funding for higher education and cut spending on social services

    and there is work for those that work hard to find it.

    i agree the legions need to be brought home!

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  19. FionaEnzo
    Member Profile

    I'm not 65 but I started paying into SS when I had a workers permit at age 15 to work at Chicken Unlimited and Winsbergs Dept Store in Chicago. By 65 I will have paid in 50 years.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  20. hooper1961
    Member Profile

    FionaEnzo - you are the exception

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  21. wakeflood
    Member Profile

    wakeflood

    No she ain't. Not in my generation. Born in early 60's. Most of my friends did too.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  22. hooper1961
    Member Profile

    i too was born in the early 60's and the people I know did not start working full time until after HS 18+

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  23. wakeflood
    Member Profile

    wakeflood

    Worked my way through college, too, Hoop. As did a number of my friends...

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  24. hooper1961
    Member Profile

    i also worked while i was in college!

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  25. wakeflood
    Member Profile

    wakeflood

    All of which is to say that lots of folks will have been paying in for 40+ to 50+ yrs. when they hit 65. And I don't think anyone who's got their eyes and ears open thought that SS was meant to be their sole income upon retirement.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  26. Lindsey
    Member Profile

    Lindsey

    I was born in the mid 80s. My first taxable income was a paper route at the age of 9, and I've been working ever since.

    Also hoop, since everything in your world seems to be fair and square in regards to SS, where do I sign up to receive a refund on behalf of my father in law? He worked full time from the age of 16, only to pass from a heart attack a week after he retired this summer. He never got a single SS payment. So where's his money?

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  27. hoop..

    you got to wait till you were 18 till you got your first job?
    lucky you.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  28. Geez hoop!

    Why do you hang with people that are so damn lazy that they weren't working full time by age 5?

    The company you keep....

    Mike

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  29. hooper1961
    Member Profile

    JoB i did yard work at 12-15 and washed dishes in a bowling alley at 16 and 17.

    Lindsay - my first lovely wife passed away at 49 and had contributed more than $100k into the system that then paid back a paltry 30 cents on the dollar.

    SS is a ripoff to dual middle income couples that could be reduced by allowing a cap on contributions based on combining the couples income. A married single bread earner making $150k contributes less to SS than a dual income household where both partners make $75K.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  30. hoop..

    but it did pay back 30cents on the dollar hoop
    and i am guessing you had no trouble accepting it.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  31. btw hoop..
    are we to understand that you worked illegally at a bowling alley before you were 18?
    just asking.. because i filed my first tax return in 1965.. at the age of 16.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2014, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
Header image by Nick Adams. ABSOLUTELY NO WSB PHOTO REUSE WITHOUT SITE OWNERS' PERMISSION.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^