I think that was my example about the city parks. I'm just happy that this is taken a little bit more seriously by both parties, but obviously not seriously enough. I recall late last year some here were bemoaning all this "fiscal responsibility" talk, esp. as it was being linked to the tea party. Maybe it was (and is) a real issue after all, as some have been talking about for several years now?

Isn't this why we have nuclear missiles and troops all over the world? Who is coming to collect these bills? I hate the military industrial complex but that doesn't mean I don't understand its purpose. You say the world will stop using the US dollar as its reserve currency if the US goes bankrupt. I disagree.

Anyways I don't want a default anyways I want major cuts and could even deal with more taxes. I think it is such bullshit to say there are only two choices and ignoring this completely (default or raising the debt limit). How disingenuous is that?

It's pretty ridiculous to turn this into a D vs R issue. That Republicans are the wise financial people who just want to control our spending. They ran up most of the fucking debt. They spent out their ass. But a black man is in office so we all have to pretend they care about spending.

LOOK....even with massive cuts today and more taxes (both of which are needed) YOU STILL HAVE TO RAISE THE DEBT LIMIT TODAY!!!!!

What about that don't you understand???:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:


And yes - both sides are to blame for voting to raise it for years and years and pushing the burden onto my generation instead of dealing with shit.

I will point out that AGAIN that if we're talking fiscal responsibility - the last president to actually ya know...get a balanced budget passed and leave office with a SURPLUS was a Democrat.

You (RainMaker) and I and everyone else know what is going to happen in the short-term. Instead of accepting the status quo right away, let's see if some (or a little bit of) real changes can take place. Too many people trying to protect their little fiefdoms, perks and massive beauracracies. Taxations can be raised if people know that it won't go towards even more out-of-contol expenditures. But first they have to prove they can enact real cuts (not piddling $40-60 billion).

I think it's bullshit to say that you can somehow balance the budget in the middle of the year by just making some cuts. Most of our spending is entrenched in our system. We can't just say "well we don't need these things this month". We have contracts for things that are years in advance. We have entitlements that have been promised to people. Fixing the deficit is a long term proposition, not just crossing out a few things on the budget.

Oh come on. Voting to raise debt limits without any agreement whatsoever on any spending cuts or tax increases is just letting these mother fuckers continue to do whatever they want. But we are going broke exponentially. We do study civilizations that do this exact thing throughout ancient history. They didn't want to try and deal with the problem either.

OK, but they aren't even trying. I don't know where in this thread the last debt limit debate was but they did nothing since that one to change how Washington DC works at all. Nothing.

Oh great, DT showed up. :rolleyes:

Guess you won't ever add "and a Republican Congress" after that, will you? Or was that before your time?

Because the debt limit issue is as simple as vote for it or default. The budget issues are complicated and difficult, but the debt limit isn't. Like I said earlier, even if the Ryan budget was passed tomorrow there would still need to be nearly a decade of debt limit increases. And if you could somehow find enough cuts to balance the budget now you'd still need to raise the debt limit for day to day transactions. Even then, the examples we've seen from GB and Ireland point to a contraction in the economy that would reduce tax revenues and force an increase in the debt ceiling.

All of the budget issues should be fought out vigorously, but fucking with the debt ceiling is a dangerous game. At some point before we reach an end game the markets are going to panic. When that happens we're in trouble.

It's not they, it's all of us. The public isn't too keen on cutting Social Security, Medicare, and the Defense budget. So find a group of people willing to do that and have them vote for guys willing to do for it. Or talk people into raising taxes so we can pay for that stuff.

The problem is that the biggest expenses are also the ones that the public wants the most.

JPhillips added an important point. While you guys debate the complexity of the budget and deficit, the debt limit vote is very simple. Pay our bills or default. It's one of the more simple votes out there.

Again, if the GOP would agree to a return to some Clinton era tax rates they could get a lot of spending cuts. They won't, though, so now we're going to play chicken with a catastrophe.

Like I said we all spent a lot of time in high school and college studying different civilizations throughout history and wondering "Why did they do that?". Don't know why we think the United States empire is infallible if we continue spending the way that we do. Maybe its time to become the next England or Soviet Union who gave up their world empire. Things certainly sucked in those countries when that happened but life went on.

Turn that around and it's just as unlikely. You saw the outcry when anyone tried suggest a cut or a reduction in the rate of increase.

But things are different now. Obama would go along with a lot of cuts and in there are enough votes in the Senate to form a block that could get something passed. Couple that with a GOP House and I'm certain a 50/50 cut/tax increase package for a balanced budget in five years could get plenty of Dem support.

Which brings up 2012. I have no idea as to the Senate election cycle (if there's one for 2012) but you know I have long advocated a split executive/legislative to do exactly what you proposed. But how do we get such a block in the Senate?

It's already there if the GOP will be flexible and it never will be there if the GOP won't be flexible. Just off the top of my head I'd say Lieberman, Macaskill, Conrad, Webb, Nelson, Tester and Manchin would favor a package and Reid would have to go along for it to get to a vote. That's not filibuster proof, but there's certainly enough there for a deal if the GOP would be at all flexible.

This is jackassery at its finest. Someone should have caught on that the general public put Obama in office because they wanted real change. Both sides have proven that they are totally out of touch with a voting public that will likely look for new alternatives sooner rather than later. It's embarrassing.

The problem is that they are perfectly in touch with the voting public. The public wants the things that we are spending money on. They just want to complain about how much it costs but not want to get rid of it or pay more to get it. It's real easy to hop on a message board and tell everyone how dumb they are for not balancing the budget without having to actually state how it can possibly be done and supported by the public.

So lets say Obama gets up tomorrow and says we are going to fix the budget problem by cutting things that actually will cut the deficit. Immediate cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Veterans, and the Defense budget.

Does he get 10% of the vote in 2012 after that?

Who knows? Maybe it actually works and he gets 50%+ of the vote from the people who kept their jobs and prospered? Seems like its worth a shot doesn't it? If the politicians are aware that the ship is sinking they have to do something don't they? Its like being a doctor whose patients are all dying of cancer but they keep telling them everything is going to be ok. Are they our parents or our leaders? You might argue that some of them are out of touch. I will give you a few from each party might be but most of them know exactly what is going on and are too scared about losing their part in the system to do anything about it.

That's what Leadership is about. You see CEOs doing that, you have seen generals taking the risk and making the sacrifies, you see Governors and Mayors doing that and you've seen leaders of non-profits doing that. The public will go along (and shift in the wind depending if it's American Idol week or not) if they are led (as FDR did during WW2). They will not go along if the system is corrupt and all that is important is to get fucking re-elected. Real sacrifice is giving yourself up for re-election and caring more about the country's finances instead of political party.

Despite your simplification of the raminfications of those cuts, things in our economy are inter-connected. When you cut every Senior's SS check by 20%, they have new budgets that need to be met, they have mortgages they can't pay, lifestyles they can't support. When you cut Medicare, you have doctors who don't get paid, you have people who can't get proper health care, and people who die. When you cut our defense immediately, you have a massive loss of jobs and whatever other ramifications towards our immediate safety. When people lose jobs, they don't make income and then don't pay in taxes. This leads to even bigger revenue loss from our government and even more cuts (a convenient consequence left out by many on your side).

This isn't a game of Sim City. You can't just walk in and say "lets cut everything by 20% and see what happens".

If they started cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Defense, the last thing on their mind would be getting re-elected. It would be getting out alive. If you think people are pissed now, imagine the fun of telling them that they aren't going to get back the money they paid into Social Security for the last 45 years.

Fuck man. You have to cut something. How is it oversimplifing that this can't continue for very much longer? This isn't a slow build of debt like previous down periods. This is off the chart crazy. You are on a sports sim board I am certain you have some understanding of mathematics. Seriously you can't keep making excuses about how you can't do anything...

I'm not saying you can't do anything, I'm saying you can't just walk in a room and fix the deficit overnight by cutting everything. The system is much more complex than you are making it out to be. Cuts and/or increased revenue needs to be made over the course of years and in a way that it won't completely destroy our economy.

I generally think the Dems are spineless, but you can't make real progress on the deficit without public buy-in. It's great to say the president should just lead, but future congresses aren't bound by the actions of previous congresses. If Obama and Ryan somehow gutted Medicare the 2012 congress could just create a new Medicare, and that's exactly what would happen if their isn't public buy-in.

That's why this is so hard. The public wants a balanced budget with no cuts to anything they like or tax increases on them personally. Now I think there's a good argument that public opinion can be swayed by effective leaders, but only a little at a time. It can't be flipped dramatically outside of a crisis.

On the bright side, not raising the debt limit could possibly fix our illegal immigration problem.



So there's that.

In the short/medium term going back to Clinton levels of taxation and military spending comes close to solving the structural budget deficit(all things except lost revenue from the recession). In the long term it's all about medical spending. I don't think the projections are accurate, as I think there will be an eventual leveling off of the increase in the growth rate, but even with that it's still the big problem. There's two ways to fix that problem, either lower the growth in reimbursements or limit the amount of care, neither of which is likely to get off the ground.

There's a deal to be made on the short/medium term budget that's a mix of cuts in discretionary spending/military spending and tax increases. The problem is that deal won't happen as long as the GOP says no revenue can increase.

Saying "no revenue increase" isn't seriously attempting to fix the problem - it's political posturing. You can't fix a problem by ignoring 50% of it/50% of the potential solution.

Yeah, let's nuke the hell out of all of those American retirees, mutual fund investors, pension participants and city and state governments who own trillions of dollars of US treasury bonds. That'll show 'em.

As much as I agree some are maybe underestimating the impact of actually not increasing the debt ceiling, I think others are maybe underestimating the impact of of the status quo. It really doesn't matter, ultimately, if "people don't like it". At least now, for the first time, we're having some real, mainstream discussion on the consequences of this, and a sense of the lengths some are willing to go/threaten to try to get some movement on this process that will of course, take decades whenever we actually get around to starting it. Threatening an action that causes crisis is the closest we've gotten to actually taking that step. What is the Democratic plan, how exactly do they expect to get around the "people won't like it" idea?

Agreed, but stating hypothetically that you'd like "Clinton era tax cuts" without any plan to accomplish that (even during a time when your party controls both houses and the presidency) isn't seriously attempting to fix the problem either. Nice ideas stated out loud are not enough. If we need less spending and more taxes - and Dems don't even seems serious about the more taxes part - how much faith can we have that they're serious about the less spending part? The GOP of course, can't be counted on for the taxes part, but at least they seem to be throwing the kitchen sink at the spending issues. (when are the Dems going to throw anything at the tax issue?)

I think its fair to say that (almost) nobody in power actually wants to fix the problem, because it would be too painful politically. So we're all just going to wait until we're at the point of no return. Unless maybe we luck into a crisis/debt ceiling situation that will be disastrous, but perhaps be shorter term and less severe than the real, final correction down the road, and might require us to address this whether or not "people like it" .

I know you're into the politics as sport crap, but what has the GOP thrown at the spending issues? Can you cite some examples? And I'm not talking about the token cuts that have little to no impact on the deficit. I have yet to see the party get behind cuts to SS, Medicare, or the Defense budget.

I'm just talking about the current game of chicken. No, you're right, I didn't mean that they've thrown the kitchen sink at anything beyond that, they've been completely ineffectual as well. But this, at least, seems like a potential game changer if the dems cave, with is always a decent bet to take. And I'd maybe feel more sympathetic about their attacks on that strategy if they had any real strategy of their own (besides giving speeches about wealth inequality, etc.) Who's going to be the first to actually do anything and change this suicidal course? This at least feels like its the closest we've been.

Edit: Where's the Dem high-risk strategy to actually accomplish the "taxing the rich more" idea? What can the Dems ever accomplish if not that? I could get behind that too. We need bolder leadership. Is there really no political will to tax even the very rich more? Because it sure seems like a lot of people would be OK with that.

Neither side has a real strategy, it's just trying to score political points. If the GOP cared, they'd be talking about cutting SS, Medicare, and the defense budget. If the Dems cared, they'd be talking about plans to increase taxes. Instead they'll argue about this to get their soundbytes in and that's it. Neither side cares about the deficit and taxpayers don't either as long as they can watch American Idol this week.

The best solution is probably a mix of both. Medicare tax rate should probably increase half a percent or so as medical costs have gone up over the years. Social Security should probably start being taxed again at either $250k or $500k. And getting back to Clinton era tax rates is fair considering we've put ourselves so far in debt. We can discuss lowering them when we've gotten back on track.

Spending should also be cut in areas where it can. The military could definitely deal with some cuts and streamlining other areas. Ending some of these wars probably helps too. Medicare needs massive reform and it needs to be written by politicians in favor of constituents and not by the pharmaceutical industry. There should be effort put into finding areas of government that are bloated and cutting them back when it's feasible.

Both sides are unreasonable. It's silly to ask for more in taxes without reforming areas that are wasting money. While it's also silly to pretend we can avoid problems without looking at the biggest spenders.

Agreed. The parties had a historically large anti-"wall street", and even a more irrational "anti-rich" sentiment to work with and completely squandered it. I mean, they could have almost gotten away with hanging bankers out in the town square, if they were so inclined (a little exaggeration there, but really, that was the time for reform if anyone was interested in it). The only possibility for change is for the train to come completely off the tracks at some point. All this debt ceiling talk I guess just made me perk up with some thought such a thing might be possible, but that was probably just wishful thinking. We'll get our comprimised deal that puts the issue off and accomplishes nothing. The Republicans won't forfeit 2012 for their (claimed) principles, and the Dems wouldn't (i.e. don't want to) accomplish anything even if they swept the elections in 2012.

Which is exactly my point. The time has come for these officials to start acting like real leaders. This isn't a situation where you can accomplish the needed changes and keep everyone happy. Hard decisions need to be made.

Yup. Stop the bread and circuses, stop buying votes, accept that it may get you thrown out of office, whatever, do what's RIGHT for the country for a change.

Stop pandering to the vocal minority that makes for great soundbites.

I'd love to see the news people start reporting actual NEWS. They help stir up all the fears about social security, medicare, etc without being honest about costs. If they were being honest and reporting the facts, folks would be far more scared of NOT cutting these programs. They could also be honest about tax cuts / raises as well isntead of fear-mongering.

I put defense in a separate category, I think the media in general would be happy with that cut, but it makes for great political argument when you talk about job losses due to closing bases / factories and that needs to be cut off.

If those two things happened, the politicians might not even need to fear re-election. But alas, we'll just have to drive this bus right off a cliff before either side does what's right. We can blame Republicans all we want, all this debt ceiling thing does is drive the buss off the cliff a bit sooner, the fact remains that the Dems don't want to hear about spending cuts either.

Both sides need to just cave. If they both piss off large chunks of the country, who is really going to lose in the next election? Roll back the Bush tax cuts, cut social security, medicare, and defense, and both sides lose, which means we all win.

But you need the media on board to make it happen.

But the problem is that there isn't a single RIGHT thing to do. The parties have vastly different views of what the U.S. government should do and those views can't easily be reconciled. The GOP wants to dismantle large portions of the New Deal and the Dems aren't willing to do that, meanwhile the public seems to want both at the same time. Without arguing about who is right, how do you bridge that gap?

Throw in the argument over who should do the paying for whatever remains funded and you'd have a downright enthusiastic +1 from me.

I don't think that's true. The parties are rather similar but portray themselves as being far apart. If you look at legislative acts, they don't deviate much from one another anymore. It's just a game for those who like to play it as a sport. There are a few social issues they bring to the forefront that don't really matter and won't really change but make people think they are standing up for something.

I think you're wrong if you believe the GOP and the Dems have the same view on SS and Medicare. I'll give you that everything else is on the table, but there's no way the Democratic Party survives if they allow the dismantling of their two greatest accomplishments.

Republicans massively expanded Medicare less than a decade ago. If anything, they've been more aggressive in expanding it and increasing money towards it. And despite a few fringe members, I haven't seen any mainstream ideas pushed to do anything with Social Security. The closest was a comment made about maybe increasing the age which caused an uproar and clarification.

There are different views on how they should be run. But there isn't a debate over whether we should have them. What kind of stuff are you seeing that shows otherwise?

I don't think there was as much anti-rich, anti-Wall Street sentiment as you think. Sure people were mad here and there, but ultimately it wasn't a big deal to most people. In fact, you had a lot of people buying into the notion that this was all caused because we allowed black people to get loans. I'm not kidding, we had people on this board touting that talking point which was patently wrong.

Despite what's been done to us, the anti-government contingent is often as strong as the anti-corporate establishment. There are people who actually think banks care about them and will do what's best for them. That turning over hundreds of billions of dollars to these people and not having any strings attached is perfectly acceptable. There were actually people arguing that we couldn't tell insolvent banks what kind of bonuses they could give out with our own fucking money that saved the bank.

The Donald Trumping of our country has taken full effect. I'm not talking about his recent stuff, but this glorification of wealthy businessmen as some saintly figures who do everything great.

All but four GOP House members voted to replace Medicare with vouchers and cut Social Security benefits for the median family by nearly 40%. The GOP did expand Medicare Part D, but the current crop is on record as wanting to eliminate what we know as Medicare and severally curtail Social Security.

When was the Medicare voucher program votes on by the House?

It's the centerpiece of the Ryan budget. Without it that budget comes nowhere close to balanced over a seventy-five year projection.

The fact that we talk about balancing budgets over a period of 75 years is ridiculous frankly. If it takes a budget 75 years to get balanced then it's not a true balanced budget - there's some unrealistic assumptions or something going on in there (and yes, that's true regardless of if it's a (D) or an (R) budget).

Repealing tax subsidies for oil companies just died through filibuster.

Regular person welfare has never been less popular, but corporate welfare lives on and is seemingly untouchable.

My bad, I forgot about that. It's one of the dumbest ideas ever and I can't believe people didn't throw a hissy fit over it.

I mostly agree with you. I kinda think there is a third party that should get off their butts -- the populace.

I don't know how or even feasible (probably not) but if there was enough of a groundswell to tell both parties to fix it ...

These people are morons. I can't believe how many in the GOP seem thrilled to throw the nation into a depression. From Rep. David Nunes:

Corporations have been raped by the tax rate for years in order to help fund the welfare state for individuals. Kind of nice to see the change frankly.

I take it you're meaning the largest American corporations .... the ones which pay no tax and often receive subsidies from the government? (ie. Car companies, banks etc.).

If so could I please have a little of that sort of 'financial rapage' in my pay check :D

This is the old "you need a revolution every so often to keep people on their toes" thinking. If we put another band-aid on, does anything actually change? I don't think David Nunes is actually in favor of a depression, but rather saying that may be what it takes to get Washington to wake up and get some fiscal sanity.

Nah, we really need to keep spending. Maybe even increase the budget another trillion. What kind of morons would think otherwise? Oh and we need to print more money. Prices of food and gas going through the roof well the government says there is no inflation! (They don't figure energy or food into their index? Of course not what Americans eat or drive cars?)

Defaulting on the debt is not the answer to waking Washington up and creating fiscal sanity though. It's fiscal INsanity.

How much are you all paying for a gallon of milk these days? This month's class III price comes out to myself (the farmer) getting about $1.41 per gallon with cost of production around $1.37 per gallon.

Cost of production has risen some on my end, but I know damn well that the people getting you your milk/dairy products in the grocery store are jerking people around. When the farmers were getting about $.86 per gallon for their milk (with costs of production still in that $1.25-$1.40 range) the price of milk in the store sure as hell didn't drop all that much.

This is where the difference between marginal and effective rates really benefits corporations. Our marginal rate is very high, but no corporation pays that. The effective rate for corporations is one of the lowest in the developed world.

Whether or not Nunes is in favor of a depression, that's where this line of thinking will lead. It's like treating a major cut on your leg that could develop gangrene by preemptively cutting off the leg. Whatever you think might happen eventually with an out of control deficit is likely to happen if you let the government default.

A gallon of Publix milk is somewhere in the $5.75 range, half gallon about $3.50.

Yikes, your milk is expensive. Maybe because we just get the store brand, but 1 gallon of stop and shop milk here was like $3.29 last week when I went to the store.

It's not the Republicans' answer either, just a threatened means to a hopeful end. But what is the Democrats' answer? Not hypothetically, what is their actual practical strategy to attack this aggressively? I'd be willing to sign on, but it just doesn't seem like a priority.

Edit: It seems like what we'll have is no tax increases, but negotiations over spending cuts, which will result in no real spending cuts. How are we going to shake this up and do something more?

Tax increases combined with meaningful spending cuts are the only realistic answer that will actually solve anything. One without the other isn't an actual grownup answer.

What party supports that? And what party has made any progress towards that end, if they claim some that approach as something they support?

I think we probably just need to bail out the banks some more.

Edit: Worst case scenario for the dems might be the Republicans wrecking the economy again, allowing Dems to dominate congressional elections again for a while. They might run out of excuses before long.

Thread over. Good job winning the thread, DT.

Taxes are at historic lows. Entitlement spending is higher than it has ever been and going to go up, up, up.

And, go figure, we have a long-term deficit problem.

Increase my taxes AND cut really spending (i.e. cuts to the Big Three: Social Security, Medicare, and Defense) and I will march along happily. Pretend that you can do one without the other and I have no reason to go with the program.

That didn't answer my question, though, that's a total hypothetical and not a real, practical, option. Apparently, the problem is that no politician can have this stance and get elected or stay in office - (even though it sure seems like there's a growing sentiment in America that what you say does make sense) - and nobody has the spine to risk their jobs as idiot congressman X.

I guess there's no answer. The plan of the Dems in power is literally to do nothing except react to Republicans and paint them as the bad guys so they can win elections. It's a good election strategy, I guess. It kind of sucks for the rest of us.

Funny, I seem to remember the ACA cutting 500 billion from Medicare spending and reducing the projected deficit over twenty years by 2 trillion dollars. I also seem to remember Obama's budget froze discretionary spending and cut the projected deficit by nearly 1 trillion over the next decade.

Now that may not be enough, but don't act like there have been no efforts to reduce the deficit.

So how DO you wake Washington up? That's the point, nothing else seems to be doing it.

I get the other point about the leg, but to continue the analogy how does the wife get the husband to go to the doctor to treat that cut? Hit him over the head and throw him in the car? Washington needs to get hit over the head, or they'll never do the unpopular cut spending / raise taxes that needs to get done.

On taxes being at "historic lows", an honest question here: how do taxes now compare to pre-Depression taxes before the introduction of social security, medicare, welfare programs, and all the other entitlements that have been added over the 20th century?

And yes, I do realise that defense spending before then was pretty miniscule as well, I'm already on record as being willing to make defense contractors tighten their belts if entitlements go down as well, and also willing to take a reasonable tax increase if the spending cuts come with it as well.

:eek:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Also, there's a deal to extend soon-to-be expired portions of the Patriot Act, that thing that everyone hated when Bush was president, through 2015, unchanged.

"Now more than ever, we need access to the crucial authorities in the Patriot Act," Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I don't feel like chasing absolutely unimpeachable sources in the middle of a busy day but for a quick point of reference this snippet from a WSJ article back in '09 (a broader piece about New Deal era policies) said

From 1930 to 1940, the top marginal income-tax rate rose to 79% from 25% while the corporate income-tax rate doubled to 24% from 12%. In addition, Roosevelt tacked on an excess profits tax and undistributed profits tax. He imposed an excise tax on dividends. Even the new Social Security payroll tax added 2%.

Even more iffy for reliability (since I haven't doublechecked them) is a chart on Wiki that shows the tax rate for various income levels starting with 1930.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_...es#1930_-_1980

But I think what you're looking for is most complete at this link. They've got the various rate tables starting with 1913 through 2011.
The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011

I'll leave you to find the median household income data for those earlier years yourself ;)

I've seen that chart before and its very interesting. Someone making $250k+ per year paid 94% tax during WW2, 70% tax in 1980, and now pays 35%. I don't think reverting it back to Clinton era 39.8% would be too much to ask.

What about looking at tax brackets themselves? I'm a proponent of progressive taxation but the brackets just seem out of whack. Top bracket seems too low. Why no $1 million and up bracket?

Because the more people that are in the top bracket the harder it is to raise the rate. It's all part of the game.

I wouldn't argue that taxation rose during the thirties and forties, but you can't look solely at income taxes. I think it was in the thirties that we went from a system funded primarily on excise taxes to a system funded primarily on income and corporate taxation.

But it really doesn't matter in a practical sense. We aren't going to get rid of SS and Medicare and the Defense budget will be close to what it is now. We simply can't afford the levels of government that the populace demands on this level of taxation. Whether or not it's higher or lower than in the past is interesting, but not that helpful moving forward.

Just for clarification, I posted those in response to a question about the historic rates, not in order to make a point or anything.

It does matter in a practical sense, since those programs are why the deficit is so huge right now, and when people talk about taxes being at a "historical low".

However, if this statement remains true:


Then we're screwed. That's the whole point: if regular conversation isn't bringing fiscal responsibility, what will it take to do it? Raising taxes alone will NOT fix the issue, you ALSO need spending cuts. Real cuts, not a few million here or there.

I'm all for BOTH, but won't take one without the other. I'm not flushing more money down the toilet. I'll give on taxes and defense, if you'll give on social security and medicare. Neither side will give on either, hence the cliff we're driving off of.

I'm not willing to give an inch on anything until we've reformed a tax code that penalizes success. Until that's resolved, I begrudge most every dime they take.

I imagine that when it comes to it, we would disagree on about 80% of major political issues. But I think that, given a long weekend, a calculator, a case of beer, and free pizza delivery (NY Style Pizza and Pasta on the corner of Walnut and Cary Towne Center Blvd. is AMAZING by the way), you and I could probably come up with a compromise that would do more to steer us away from the cliff than anything Congress has managed to even come close to doing.

It's sad how our leaders seem constitutionally incapable of actually leading us anywhere we need to go.

The GOP has made a calculation that they can force a crisis and get 100% of what they want. They might be right, too. The starve the beast plan has been talked about since Reagan at least and it's finally bearing fruit.

If the price is a global depression and millions out of work, well that's the price necessary for going back to the elderly poverty rates of the fifties.

While the tax / spending revolution is going on, we can either scrap the current income tax and start over with a much more streamlined easy-to-understand one, or dump it entirely and go the Fair Tax route. Either way, however, the key factor is "simple", not hundreds and hundreds of pages of exceptions that change every single year, to the point that the IRS has to delay processing returns so even they can get the programming straight for the new rules...

When the first Democrat gets up and says "fine, we'll cut social security and medicare, but only if you'll agree to a defense cut and repealing the Bush tax cuts across the board" I'll be with you.

Instead it's just "raise taxes on the rich, that'll fix it!". Both sides are being idiotic here.

Nobody, not even the Progressive Caucus is calling for only tax increases. Most Dems aren't even calling for higher rates anymore, just some vague revenue increases through closing loopholes. I think that's not going to help much, but contrary to molson's beliefs, I don't run the Democratic Party.

This actually isn't far from something I was thinking myself ... except that in reality I'll admit that I'm not sure it's really that simple.

On the surface it is: We want X dollars to spend, there's Y amount of money available. What % of Y does X equal? Problem solved, budget balanced, let's eat.

But the pizza gets cold while we try to determine:
What is X?
What is Y (i.e. what's taxable)?
What is Z (the 6,437,231 and 1/3rd adjustments required to determine Y)

The easiest of those to solve via compromise seems to be X, it's the least complicated figure to reach ... but if you can't get to Y & Z then you're left with something like what we've got now: solve for X, screw Y, Z, and the rest of the alphabet.

I don't think I've tried them yet, may have to. I'm partial to zPizza, and just had lunch at Bella Mia (Harrison and Weston up near SAS) which was awesome.

Social Security really isn't much of a problem and the ACA cuts 500 billion from Medicare over the next decade. Reports out of the Gag of Six had Dems agreeing to another 400 billion in Medicare cuts and an increase in the retirement age.

Now, unfortunately the Dems are too spineless and fractured to call for a return to Clinton era taxation and military spending, but there are plenty of Dems willing to compromise on Medicare and SS.

Who will you vote for? Somebody who will implement tax increases and program cuts? Or somebody who will implement tax cuts and improved program spending? (Speaking in general, of course.)

Here in Florida, our new govenor turned down $2.4billion dollars in federal tax money thathad been put aside to build what is essentially an unneeded high speed rail between Orlando and Tampa. People want his head on a platter because of the jobs that weren't created. Did he make that decision simply to commit political suicide? I'm guessing, "no", but the point is well taken, a politician that wants to keep his job will lean towards tax cuts and more program spending. It's how we are where we are afterall.

Doesn't our system work the other way? If you get succesful enough, your business is not allowed to fail no matter how bad your decisions are.

Why are high speed rails such a big issue? It seems like we have a lot of people opposed to catching up to the rest of the industrialized world.

Which "people"? Again I'll come back to the media does not do their jobs, because it's more fun to talk about the disaster his turning down the money was and trot out all the doomsayers talking about job losses than turn out someone who talks about fiscal responsibility and how he kept your taxes low by not wasting the money.

And yes, we've created a culture of bottom-feeders who rely on the government to do everything for them, and will thus vote for whoever promises to take money from those above them and hand it down to them. And government has been good at creating more of those folks.

Stupid bottom feeding banks, car, and oil companies. Always getting those bail outs and tax incentives. I hate those guys too.

Man do I hate bottom-feeders who need jobs from the government.

On another note, are there any no-bid contracts we can hand out this week?

Once in a very blue moon that happens, and (as you know) I was highly critical of it when it did. The remaining most recent 70+ years have largely been spent penalizing success in order to prop up our dead weight.

This. The fantasy that Social Security is in crisis is a hallmark of the uneducated.

And Medicare/Medicaid spending can be made more efficient (and thus ultimately reduce wasteful spending).

They aren't the ones voting to keep these guys in office, and they aren't the ones screaming bloody murder when we threaten entitlement programs. They aren't the ones keeping us driving off the cliff.

But yeah, I'm all for closing loopholes that allow Exxon to pay essentially no taxes, or going to a Fair Tax where loopholes like that won't exist at all.

Because we love our cars!!!

I hear those commercials about the high-speed rails in China that go 400mph and I'm like "well...we lose again."

You do realize by the definition that the "successful" would use that you're dead-weight yourself, right?