Consider this me trying to parse the difference between "expecting to get" and "being dissatisfied with not getting".

I know 100% success is unlikely (so I don't "expect it") but that doesn't mean it isn't something I desire and/or am content about.

I'm already on blood pressure medication. I can't afford to be pissed off about every little thing the government does that I don't agree with. :)

I think taxation/spending is a big part of it. Again, though, I'm content with my historically low federal tax burden. I don't like a lot of what gets spent(we agree on defense and the War on...) but I don't think I'm overtaxed at the federal level. As my wife and I are looking around at homes in the area I'm much more concerned with the 8k-12k average yearly property taxes. I really don't think I'm getting anywhere near adequate local services for that level of taxation.

Yeah, I can see that (and I recall the same thing when I grew up in NY). Here in Colorado, or in my specific county/city, taxes are very low. I spend twice as much annually on local/state sales tax than I do on property tax (which is under $1k). I send three times those amount combined (I think) to the federal government (non-SS). As I said before, I don't mind giving them what I do, I just want them to be a whole lot smarter before I send them more.

I agree with a lot of what you said. I wasn't arguing that, just when you said we should shift stuff from federal to more local areas. I just don't see a lot of areas where this can be done.

And while it can be better from a decision standpoint, often times it's more affordable to do on a national level. It's much cheaper and efficient to have a CDC on a national level instead of having 50 seperate ones.

Agreed on things like the CDC, the FAA, the FDA, and the like, although aside from the CDC I think many of them need some reform to be actually effective. I would say the Federal government needs to get out of education entirely, given how badly they've botched it.

I agree but with the caveat that the federal government can & should make educational (and many other) guidelines in terms of the minimum content. Putting out additional suggestions as well is fine but in my mind the state and local community needs to be more accountable for these things (and accountability only occurs from the voting base).

Same with social programs. For instance, California is the type of state with a lot of disparity between the top & bottom earners & cost of living(and has more top earners by % then most states). If California has boatloads of millionaires/billionaires and wants to subsidize housing costs, health insurance, social safety nets for retirees, etc. for lower income citizens due to these high income/high cost factors (which also benefit California)...then so be it. They can answer to their own electorate for such ineptitude if they screw it up.

So Social Security and Medicare would be left to individual states?

Public Employees retirement programs and accounts are left to individual states, are they not? (Not saying SS/Medicare should be though.)

Sure, why not?

It is partially why you have such massive subsidization for states like Florida & other sunbelt spots where people retire to, collect their benefits, spend their retirement money there, etc.

All the while, it isn't benefiting the local economy (where they came from) & employers who (presumably) paid their share of the SS & Medicare taxes for all those years.

As an example, if you flipped the switch (I'm not suggesting this to be the best way to do so...just an example) and forced Florida & other states to provide their own social safety net programs and no longer get the benefit of the federal taxes paid in (years ago) and now being spent locally...you'd see a dramatically different local tax structure & system which would necessitate property taxes to be much higher to compensate for the same level of services (among many other things). This would have a very real effect on voters and force them to truly consider the merits of programs on their tax bills rather than some (I know I'm a broken record with this term) obfuscated money sources which come from nowhere (or more precisely...the debt).

Again, my view is to make everybody more accountable for their decisions & societal desires, and part of that is to stop all of the back & forth of money between government organizations that we have little control of.

Dola,

Look at this way as well. When people say we are financing both sides of the same war...we aren't purposely intending to do that...we just are.

So, the same can be said for financing both sides of debt & inequality. We finance both sides of it because giving money to a federal government is not a transparent process. So, my view is let's cut back on the unecessary (by my definition) programs for a federal government to fund since the federal government cannot demonstrate any ability to manage it.

Of course the federal side doesn't look too bad...that's because they aren't collecting enough to cover all of the things they've spent your (future) money on. :)

You'd end up with a lot more elderly people living in poverty. Poor states just couldn't fund SS and Medicare at anywhere close to current levels and in recessions the benefits would have to be cut to balance state budgets. I'm not sure it would make anyone more accountable, but it would certainly set back the gains in quality of life for the elderly that have been made since the New Deal.

Poor states would have problems with the current landscape & concentrations of the elderly that exist today. But I would submit that most retirees don't move to the south only because of the warm weather. Many retire there because of the lower tax liabilities & how far their dollar carries them. If SS & Medicare weren't nationalized programs, they wouldn't have that luxury unless the state was trying to cater to them.

Either way, I don't think you can say with any level of certainty that states would cut elderly benefits first in a different SS/MediCare structure. Not to mention, in states like Florida you aren't getting re-elected if you think cutting benefits to the elderly is a good thing. They WILL turn out and vote you out.

A lot of poorer states aren't getting major influxes of retirees, they're homegrown. MS, AL and a lot of western states just couldn't afford to pay the same benefits as retirees currently receive.

I don't think they'd cut SS/Medicare first, but with deficits in the billions they'd eventually get to those programs. You can argue that on balance this would be a better approach, but you can't say with a straight face that this plan wouldn't lead to benefit reductions in poorer states.

And if it wasn't benefit reductions it'd be reduction in spending on education, public safety, etc.

I think you are both hitting on the fundamental problem (and missing the solution) though. We are already spending more than we take in from tax revenues. This does have to stop.

And the problem I presume that the progressive standpoint sees is that conservatives do not want to raise taxes to pay for these programs. But the beauty of such state-accountable programs is that you can have a more progressive state, with more progressive taxes, which funds such programs adequately. While the more conservative states which may not fund these programs adequately, would need to answer to its electorate (which one might believe would lead to the same rate of taxation...or at least an ousting of elected leaders who can't balance the dynamic).

I would think such a level of accountability would make a progressive happy as the conservative elected leaders would then need to be upfront about the taxes needed to support the services (or the cuts to them).

Naturally, the more conservative states could also have a policy that they don't support such programs. But again, you'll find that they are simply doing what their voting base accepts & allows them to do (over time).

Win/Win in my book. :)

But I think there are some things a society should do even if 51% are against it. A decent quality of life for our elderly is a moral imperative AFAIC. Again, you can argue otherwise, but there is no way a state like MS can support the retiree population at the same level. Pension and healthcare will be largely dependent on where you live and I don't think that's beneficial for our society.

My contention is that the states that you think would leave old people dying in the street would not. They would not because that is somebody's grandmother, uncle, etc. so they would generate enough tax revenue directly (via property, state income, & sales tax) to account for it.

What about if they can't raise the revenue except through ridiculously high levels of taxation though? Either because of a low # of citizens or because of a poor corporate tax base? Then you would just say "well jack the rates up on those people" which would just exacerbate the flight of jobs/people out of those states.

Who is going to live/do business in a Mississippi with a tax rate X% higher because they have to pay for their seniors/people on medicare & medicaid/etc. themselves (not to pick on Mississippi - just tried to pick a state that I imagined would fit the bill)? And because all their money is going to that they're going to have shitty schools that are going to churn out stupid people who won't be able to innovate and create jobs. So more people & businesses will flee from them, only accelerating the problem.

You're basically talking about creating a permanant underclass of states that can't compete with the states that have thriving business communities and big tax bases.

I'm not sure how that would be possible though under a republican controlled state. Republicans have defined the line quite clearly that taxes are evil and I don't see how they would raise taxes, even for a state's aging citizens. Unless there is some kind of fundamental change within that party...those old folk are going to be dying in that scenario.

Here is the problem. Our definitions of underclass, and the need to compete, are not altruistic concepts that require intervention.

First, you'd have to operate on the premise that the masses in MS are ignorant and need to have people 1000 miles away determine their life pursuits because they aren't mentally competent enough to make such decisions for themselves. While we joke about such things...I don't seriously think the state of MS is incapable of advancing itself...albeit at a pace I may or may not like. Hence why I have a choice to live there or not.

And why would you want to determine a mass amount of peoples' lives (sounds like Iraq)? All in the hopes that some day the light will go on and they will all of a sudden thank all of us really smart outsiders & validate our sense of purpose or self? Or are we just trying to send them more jobs because we have too many already? Is it because we secretly want to live there but can't stand living amongst the ignorant?

Also, perhaps some states aren't really trying to "compete" with NY, CA, CT, or MA for high tech jobs...so what is the reason for forcing different philosophy & values on people? Are people not allowed to be less techie, less materialistic, and lead a more basic lifestyle? Or if they aren't actively trying to be the next Silicon Valley then they must be ignorant crazies? What if we applied the same logic to the Amish?

We all know politicians are liars...yet we continue to take them at face value? :banghead:

Don't let the talking points used by Repubs in any way confuse you with their desire to be (re)elected. They will turn on a dime & raise taxes. Also...don't forget, state senates (made up of plenty of R's & D's alike) aren't nearly as bashful at raising your property taxes, income taxes, and sales taxes. Why? Because they can't just spout talking points....they have to actually balance a budget.

Aww yay. I knew someone would take my argument the wrong way and try to make it like that.

We want people all over the country to innovate and succeed (in whatever their business is) because it fuels economic growth as a whole. That doesn't mean that EVERYBODY has to succeed and innovate, because lord knows there's room for all different types of people in society, but it does mean that you should create an environment/society where people are afforded every opportunity to innovate/succeed. That's how we end up with some of the amazing technological breakthroughs that create whole new industries and drive big engines of economic growth for regions/sectors of the economy.

I don't want to "determine the life goals" of people in MS. I just want to ensure that they're afforded every opportunity to succeed and to bring whatever unique talents they may have to both their benefit, as well as everybody else's benefit (whether that's in flipping burgers, or creating toys, or solving world hunger by creating a new strain of rice). Underfunded schools severely reduce the likelehood of that happening. As do communities where other basic services are curtailed.

If you're poor or retired, or bound to the state by something other than your job (say sick family or a highly specific job location) why should you suffer, as well as your children suffer just because of that. Or why should you be forced to make the decision to abandon that so that you/your kids don't have to suffer in that environment. That's not right.

Your last paragraph is pure BS, and frankly I'm not even going to respond to it, because my responses to the first two already indicate that that wasn't what I was trying to say, and you're just going off on a tangent accusing me of thinking everyone else is an ignorant crazy. I wasn't aware that "access to decent public education and a basic standard of living (say ensuring environmental safety, law&order) was "imposing values and a philosophy on people." That's just being silly on your part.

Actually, I'm a firm believer in that, a politicians first and second responsibilities are to get re-elected. Everything else is a distant 5th at best.

The corner that that republicans have painted themselves into by cow towing to the tea party, is; "No taxes" or they won't get re-elected. Now that may change, but, as it stands right now, pretty much any incumbent republican politician will not get that re-election or support if they vote for any tax increases. Yes, at the state and local level, they are more apt to not follow what's happening at the national level, but, the tea party influence is being felt at those levels too. So, they are carefully walking on egg shells. I think Minnesota is a good example of that.

In this discussion I'm primarily concerned about people that can't take care of themselves. If you're right, decades from now MS will be closer to average economically, but in the meantime thousands of elderly have been denied the same healthcare and pension that people in other states would receive.

Right. You want them to have the same opportunity that you are willing to fore go their own right to choose the opportunity in the first place. This is what is meant by that. I'm just challenging the concept, not the intention.

I'm not saying you are consciously stating that they are ignorant, but when you say that an entire state cannot be trusted because they will underfund themselves and undereducate themselves...that's really not much different, in my view. You are saying "we have to save them from themselves". And that, IMO, is only necessary for the mentally incompetent of society.

Why would somebody necessarily suffer because they are poor in MS? Again...you are saying that an entire state cannot be trusted to provide for their elderly, sick, and incapable.

Take it however you choose to take it. I was only extrapolating on the concept that a federal government is needed to tell MS not to leave their elderly homeless in a hypothetical scenario with hypothetical questions related to how far you take those concepts.

No different than asking how my HOA would finance its own police force.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying they are being denied healthcare & pensions right now which apply in other states strictly due to MS leadership?

Or are you saying an initiative to move towards state-based SS/MC would be disastrous right now?

I'd agree with the latter. I don't think I know the details behind the former.

The Tea Party influence is certainly there...but in my view it only exists & continues to feed because of the influence & power of the federal government. With no more federal government trying to institute "socialism" any more(in my hypothetical scenario of pushing more social safety nets to the states)...the tea party would fizzle out. It wouldn't be interesting to hear "no more building socialized hospitals on 4th st near our kids!!!" any more. :)

This.

But the Norquist tax pledge exists in most state houses. There's also a very organized effort to push identical corporate written legislation through GOP controlled statehouses.

Well if it exists, they must not be following it very well because my taxes have not failed to go upwards every year, save for maybe 2009 (and that's only because my property value went down so far that it couldn't be helped.).

Now that begs a question, is it because it's the federal government in general or is it the inefficiency of the federal government that is the problem? It would be nice in a non hypothetical situation if the tea party did fizzle out. Unfortunately, their stand on issues is too absolute. One size doesn't always fit all and they don't seem to comprehend that or be willing to compromise, which I think is what will be part of what brings them to an end.

Haha! Those damn socialized hospitals! I'm not sure I'd want to be admitted to the Stalin Memorial Hospital, not sure if I'd ever be seen again. :)

I think its blamed on the inefficiency (or wastefulness) coupled with the debt level being run up but imo its really because of the amount of money in play at the federal level. SS & Medicare have astronomically huge numbers associated to them so you will get a lot of backing & funding to protest whatever it is you want to protest that can benefit people/corporations with lots of money & a lot to gain or lose.

But that's why I don't like these things at the federal level. Not only does it dilute the average voters' authority on the issue...but it also lends itself to being the type of thing where it takes big bucks to actually protest (for any prolonged period anyway). And that's not to even mention the very real fact that the fed level has pretty much proven they are unwilling & incapable of truly keeping our debt under control. Hence my desire to truly hold elected leaders accountable by having them be directly responsible at the state level.

Any system is imperfect and has flaws. But at least I'd like to be able to see the flaws, year to year, and vote accordingly with some worth to that vote.

The Federal Government clearly has a role, as defined in the Constitution. But they have abused their power and have made it very difficult to affect change, compared to smaller governments and consumer-centric corporations.

Chalk up this one as yet another Federal Law of Good Intentions. Basically, instead of just offering the choice of equal opportunity, the federal one-size-fits-all approach turned it into forcing equality by denying opportunity to others.

What is your solution to the Civil Rights Act then? Just let each town vote on whether black people can attend school?

*shudders at the thought*

I certainly hope not. Because that would be reeeeeally ugly on all sides.... :(

Poor word choice here. These may be their PRIORITIES, but in no way shape or form are they RESPONSIBILITIES. And a key problem is that their PRIORITIES don't match those RESPONSIBILITIES.

Interesting end game coming up. Wonder how much the stock market will fall next week.

Boehner pulls out of White House debt talks - politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com

I knew I should have pulled the trigger on selling off some investments yesterday. If the market isn't in the shitter Monday I'll probably do it.

I wish Obama had the balls to say the deal is there for the taking, but if the GOP refuses he'll use the Constitutional option and dare the Supreme Court to stop him. It will mean a Constitutional crisis of some degree, but at least the global economy wouldn't be shit on.

I don't want to come across as saying balanced national budgets are in any way practical in the real world... the phenonmenon of what happens in a downturn is quite real and I'm sure you can find some countries with less friendly economies than the U.S. to serve as case studies.

However, the notion of a nation having positive surplus 'rainy day funds' does have its merits if you can pull it off. A government does not need to be in debt (there is some interesting capital creation economics involved that some economists might mention but I think they overstate things a bit too much and too naively). If the U.S. was capable of running a surplus it can almost be thought of as a really large corporation, they can return the money to 'shareholders' (dividends in the form of tax cuts) or they retain the earnings to get a bigger long-term ROI (spending on infrastructure to keep TECHNOLOGY growing which is necessary in the long term for economic growth in the private sector if you break the debt bandwagon line of thinking).

All budgets balance in the long term, either through decreased services to my generation (as for any kids I might have I might as well strangle them in their sleep, it may be a gentler fate) or through a hidden tax of inflation which is nice for maybe 1-5% of Americans but will make the rest of us into a third world country. Luckilly I have my ticket to the 1-5% so ya'll can enjoy stagflation, I am mostly immune.

Balanced budgets have existed since ancient times, all debt provides is another tool for liquidity like currency.

I love whenever inflation is about to happen they decide it is time to change the consumer price index. It is wonderful to have a completely made up statistic at your whim.

I also love how they manage to put in yet another tax cut for the rich, who already are floating in cash but still haven't had the balls to invest it. Tax cuts only effect capital... we gots plenty, more capital doesn't stimulate shit if you do not spend the capital you got. Arguments about people accounting for getting a bigger return due to perceived lower future tax cuts are bullshit... no investor worth his ass stops to think about whether he is going to pay 34% or 29% on his profit, he needs to profit either way to make a living.

Economic studies show consumer spending is tied to lower tax brackets when it comes to taxes... that is why they are so eager to give those dinky refunds to everyone, because it almost immediately gets turned into spending. I also love the reduced corporate tax rate, again corporations are floating in capital and lower tax rates doesn't impact the parts of the balance sheet that need to get moving for an economic rebound to occur (the country should want increased expenses at businesses which are 100% tax deductible and create jobs and future wealth at the expense of the ability to distribute out wealth today to the equity holders, tax cuts actually are a mal-incentive in many ways for economic growth).

The Gang of Six are scum.

Part of me wonders if House leadership wouldn't love for him to do exactly that. If SCOTUS rules against POTUS on something like that, you know the next step for the House would be introduction of impeachment charges.

Remember, the goal for the Republicans isn't anything so noble as "Country First."

It's "Obama's Waterloo." Other consequences are secondary as long as they can "destroy" President Obama.

Dola,

Think about it - what's the downside, from that perspective? The adults in the party, for whatever definition of "adults" you care to use, know that the debt ceiling has to go up. I have family who are as hardcore tea party on the spending issue as you'd care to name, and even they're adamant that "default is not an option."

So that part of it is going to happen anyway.

But realistically, the genie isn't going back in the bottle on spending cuts, no matter how the ceiling gets raised and default gets averted. And the President has been on the record in recent days talking about how "tough choices have to be made" etc with respect to entitlement reform and so forth, so no matter how the ceiling gets raised, the House can hold his feet to the fire on spending cuts in those areas in future budgets. This isn't a case of "If we don't get $3 trillion in cuts right now we never will."

So you know the ceiling is going to get increased, and the only question is whether Congress will take the responsibility and do it, potentially inviting blowback from their own base, or whether they'll force Obama's hand somehow.

If President Obama directs DoTreasury to ignore the ceiling on Constitutional grounds and he ultimately wins, again - the genie isn't going back in the bottle on addressing the deficit. If anything, that's a scarecrow campaign issue for the Republicans moving forward - "vote for us because if you give the Democrats control there's nothing to stop their tax-and-spend ways!"

If he loses, then he's done something that SCOTUS has decided is in contravention to the Constitution, and now the House has the ability to pursue impeachment charges that might actually carry some weight with the public, and to do so before the re-election campaign. Even if they can't impeach him, they can hang that albatross around his neck and try to make it an issue.

If you accept that the ceiling is going to increase any which way, it's really a no-lose proposition, at least for GOP House members.

Even if someone is adamant about cutting spending and getting out of debt, isn't there some honor in paying back your debt? We borrowed it and should pay it back.

That's an interesting read on it SA. While I suspect they would be happy to see Obama try that route, I don't know if its something they planned that way.

I think they are just backed into a corner to do precisely what they have been campaigning against. And since raising the debt ceiling & continuing the massive deficit are things that most assume they will do ultimately...I just think they are trying their best to put a scare into Obama & Dems in the hopes that they can get some concessions & at least go back to their base with "something".

I don't think it is working though. It is scaring a lot of people, but I don't think Obama is one of them. And as a consequence...he's pretty much hanging them out to dry on it.

They can get a three trillion deficit reduction package at 4 to 1 cuts/tax increases. That's an historic victory for the GOP if they would only say yes.

What "something," though? What concessions beyond the existing $3-4 trillion in cuts on the table can they honestly expect to get? The President isn't going to say "Okay, let's defund the health care law," neither he nor the Senate Democrats are going to agree to a cuts-only bill, so what does that leave? Planned Parenthood and NPR? Are they really willing to have the financial equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis over those two issues?