True Leadership in the Budget Battle

[lawrocket 3]

It is nowhere to be found, is it?

President Obama created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform on February 18, 2010 by Executive Order. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-national-commission-fiscal-responsibility-and-reform

The mission is

Quote

The Commission is charged with identifying policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run. Specifically, the Commission shall propose recommendations designed to balance the budget, excluding interest payments on the debt, by 2015

On December 1, 2010, the Commission put forth its report and recommendation. http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

The first words were:

Quote

Throughout our nation’s history, Americans have found the courage to do right by our children’s future. Deep down, every American knows we face a moment of truth once again. We cannot play games or put off hard choices any longer.

Also,

Quote

In the weeks and months to come, countless advocacy groups and special interests will try mightily through expensive, dramatic, and heart-wrenching media assaults to exempt themselves from shared sacrifice and common purpose.

And:

Quote

After all the talk about debt and deficits, it is long past time for America’s leaders to put up or shut up.

On Page 8:

Quote

Over the long run, as the baby boomers retire and health care costs continue to grow, the situation will become far worse. By 2025 revenue will be able to finance only interest payments, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Every other federal government activity – from national defense and homeland security to transportation and energy – will have to be paid for with borrowed money. Debt held by the public will outstrip the entire American economy, growing to as much as 185 percent of GDP by 2035. Interest on the debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion by 2020. These mandatory payments – which buy absolutely no goods or services – will squeeze out funding for all other priorities.

So the President today put forth a proposal to reduce the deficit by $100 billion per year for ten years and without touching Medicare or Medicaid.

Quote

White House allies argued that, given the nature of politics today, the president would be foolish to expect a genuine policy debate if he were to lay out ideas as controversial and provocative as his deficit commission suggested.

"Floating proposals that swiftly get blown up as politicians jockey for political advantage does not advance the cause of fiscal responsibility," said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

Yep. So what this guy says is that there was a Commission created to say what needs to be done, but the proposals just are not politically expedient. A very nice explanation from the guy. No balls. The Commission failed to account for politica expediency

Quote

Greenstein said administration officials recognize that the budget proposal "does not go nearly far enough to keep the debt stabilized in later decades." But he pointed to language in the document that invites discussions with the GOP on issues such as Social Security.

No leadership. He's saying that the White House is leaving it to the GOP to propose cuts. Of course, Democrats askign for fiscal leadership from Republicans is like Charlie Sheen inviting Lindsey Lohan to open discussions on how to clean up their ives.

Now, the President has stated that his new budget proposal cuts the deficit by $1.1 trillion over ten years - which is a big number but meaningless when the total debt will still be more than triple what it was in 2009.

This is some ridiculous shit going on. Mr. President - you've made no tough decisions. Instead, you've proposed cuts that the Senate won't stick with because they are gutless, and I have zero belief in the balls of the GOP controlled House.

A balanced budget won't work. We've got to have budget surpluses that are used to pay off the debt that has already been run up. Without agressive cubacks to Medicare, Social Security, Defense and Medicaid, no meaningful progress will be made with the budget.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Without agressive cubacks to Medicare, Social Security, Defense and Medicaid, no meaningful progress will be made with the budget.

Someone around here has been saying that for a while.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Many have.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It is nowhere to be found, is it?

It was a pretty unimpressive show. 1.1T less deficit spending over the next decade is a bit sorry when this year the red ink may be 1.6T.

Kind of looks like the standoff we've been seeing in Sacramento for a couple years - each side wants the other to step forward first. I suppose this is an opportunity to see if the deficit hawks in the GOP are ready to lead their party, or if election interests will mean another 2 years of stalling.

[wmw999 2,452]

What I heard on NPR was that the first submission doesn't have anything ugly on it because he expects others to submit suggestions, and if he submits some those will be seen as a starting point, rather than an end point.

Probably true, but, well, we have to cut some of that.

Just remember -- if only the poor suffer, then it's really not a great plan. And telling poor folks "get richer" isn't much of a solution, either.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What I heard on NPR was that the first submission doesn't have anything ugly on it because he expects others to submit suggestions, and if he submits some those will be seen as a starting point, rather than an end point.

This has been a popular dodge of his, even passing the buck to his own party. 'I oppose this, but if Congress (then dominated by the Democrats) pass it, I'll consider it.'

Typically, the White House budget is the starting point, but cuts don't get added, they get subtracted.

The only politically safe way to stick unpopular stuff on is via a broad bipartisan panel, but since he's going to ignore their suggestions, why would any individual legislators dare to do so?

[Niki1 1]

The only way to cut the deficeit is to cut the bullshit. Both sides need to do it but my bet is that neither will be willing to do it. They will posture to get the other side to make the unpopular proposals. There is no leadership anywhere to be seen.

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

What I heard on NPR was that the first submission doesn't have anything ugly on it because he expects others to submit suggestions, and if he submits some those will be seen as a starting point, rather than an end point.

Probably true, but, well, we have to cut some of that.

Just remember -- if only the poor suffer, then it's really not a great plan. And telling poor folks "get richer" isn't much of a solution, either.

Wendy P.

True - the only solution now is to take more from the ones that earn it.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

What I heard on NPR was that the first submission doesn't have anything ugly on it because he expects others to submit suggestions, and if he submits some those will be seen as a starting point, rather than an end point.

Probably true, but, well, we have to cut some of that.

Just remember -- if only the poor suffer, then it's really not a great plan. And telling poor folks "get richer" isn't much of a solution, either.

Wendy P.

True - the only solution now is to take more from the ones that earn have it.

You can't take more from those that don't have anything. Having it does not imply earning it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What I heard on NPR was that the first submission doesn't have anything ugly on it because he expects others to submit suggestions, and if he submits some those will be seen as a starting point, rather than an end point.

Probably true, but, well, we have to cut some of that.

Just remember -- if only the poor suffer, then it's really not a great plan. And telling poor folks "get richer" isn't much of a solution, either.

Wendy P.

True - the only solution now is to take more from the ones that earn have it.

You can't take more from those that don't have anything. Having it does not imply earning it.

Just because you are living beyond your means does not mean you don't earn it.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

You can't take more from those that don't have anything

Find a poor person who has nothing. You won't.

Find a poor person who has nothing that the government could seize if it wanted to. You won't.

Half of Americans do not pay any income taxes. That's over 160 million people who, assuming you could squeeze $3000 per year on average, would make $480 billion. Under politics-speak, that $4.8 trillion dollars over ten years that we could "save" from the deficit if we went after them. If one took the "wealthiest 2 percent" of Americans, that's about 6.4 million people. To equal the $480 billion per person of the wealthiest 2% would require the "wealthiest 2%" to pay an $75,000 apiece, on average.

Think of the amount of money that could be "saved" by going after the remaining 50%. Put everybody into the equation and we're taling about balanced budgets. But NOOOOO!

I ask you, John, shouldn't everybody face the consequences? Of should the consequences be faced by a minority?

Why not just say that Native Americans should balance the budget? After all, they haven't done anything to earn the money they have except for make casinos to take money from hardworking Americans.

How about taxing government benefits at a higher rate than wages? That would raise a lot of money AND form an inducement for people to get off the gravy train.

Do you have a problem with everybody doing it?


Here's my problem at the baseline level, John. People like you say, "The wealthiest of Americans should solcve our fiscal issues." THere's a problem and you point to somebody ELSE to fix them.

Hopw about "We all need to fix this?" Nope. People like you don't believe that we all should be fixing problems. Somebody ELSE should fix them. Point your finger at somebody else and say "THEY" should do it.

What's my solution? We ALL have to hurt and hurt hard. I do not tolerate anybody who says "Our cotton is spoiling in the fields. The niggers should be picking it and ginning it. Make the niggers do it and if they don't give them the whip."

I also do not tolerate those who will indenture others to fix problems of everybody. People like you don't look at problems as something "we" should fix - you look at them as problems that others need to fix even if they had nothing to do with it.

Tell me - how have the wealthy caused this federal and state and local budget mess? If you answered, "They are entirely responsible" then you are wrong. Did they have a role? Yep. EVERYBODY had a role.

This is not a country of everybody. This is a country of people out there looking for others to solve problems. It's not about rugged individualism - the belief in personal libwerty and self-reliance. It's about the antithesis of it, a pussified collectivism that seeks to tell those who carry their own weight that they should be required to carry the wqeight of others.

Where the hell is the "WE ALL MUST PAY OUR BILLS?" It isn't withing you. It's called "Class warfare" and also called "Negative reinforcement." I prefer to call it, "Equality of misery."

Come on, John. You are smart enough to understand that you are arguing for a system in which the consequences of financial irresponsibility are borne by a particular group who happened to be financially responsible.

Quote

Having it does not imply earning it.

True.

However, "not having it" also does not imply "I deserve it."

Which seems to be what you argue. "You have it. I don't think you earned it. Therefore others will get it."

Can you provide any justification for the above statement? If so, you are applying moral obligations that are moral-religious in their underpinnings.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Having it does not imply earning it.

True.

However, "not having it" also does not imply "I deserve it."

Which seems to be what you argue. "You have it. I don't think you earned it. Therefore others will get it."

Can you provide any justification for the above statement? If so, you are applying moral obligations that are moral-religious in their underpinnings.

Nice strawman. However, I meant exactly what I wrote, not what you think I "seem" to argue.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Wow, that was an impressive dodge of the entire point of his post.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[airdvr 210]

The first step towards fascism in 1930s Germany was to villanize the financial institutions and those darned Jews who had too much of everything.

I admit I'd like to see the uber wealthy paying a bit more to the country that allows them to flourish, I also want to see the folks closer to the bottom start contributing some.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Wow, that was an impressive dodge of the entire point of his post.

Since the bulk of his post was a strawman, SO WHAT?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Wow, that was an impressive dodge of the entire point of his post.

Since the bulk of his post was a strawman, SO WHAT?

I understand what he is saying, everybody with a job should pay something and everybody without a job should find one even if doesn't pay well. People would vote differently if they were paying something into the system. Illegals would stop coming here if americans took there jobs. The governmnet needs to drop 20% across the board and deeper in other areas like all subsidies for ethonal and oil companies.
Making the rich pay more is not the answer nor is it right, they already carry more of the financial burden then they should. The federal gov should reduce handouts until it becomes financially better to have a job. The lower income can put off buying that big screen plasma tv and chrome rims until they have paid there rent utilities and food. If you want to be an American act like it and be a productive part of the country or leave.

[mirage62 0]

Quote

Having it does not imply earning it.

John I disagree totally. I would bet that 90% or more of the people that "have it" earned it. As far as not getting it from the people that don't have it...there's a thread buried here somewhere about the amount of people that pay ZERO.

The argument is of course that you believe that these people (zero tax paying) don't make enough to pay any and the "rich" make plenty to pay more.

I don't

If the gov would cut the entire budget by 10% (everything) then index the budget to inflation and charge "rich"(say people making 100K a year) a 10% tax to reduce ONLY the deficit...I'd be good with that.

What say you?

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Having it does not imply earning it.

John I disagree totally. I would bet that 90% or more of the people that "have it" earned it.

And the 10% that haven't make my point and disprove yours.

Quote

As far as not getting it from the people that don't have it...there's a thread buried here somewhere about the amount of people that pay ZERO.

The argument is of course that you believe that these people (zero tax paying) don't make enough to pay any and the "rich" make plenty to pay more.

I don't

If the gov would cut the entire budget by 10% (everything) then index the budget to inflation and charge "rich"(say people making 100K a year) a 10% tax to reduce ONLY the deficit...I'd be good with that.

What say you?

I say that 10% reduction across the board is (a) totally inadequate, and (b) indicates cluelessness in establishing priorities. Some programs ARE more important than others - leadership requires deciding what the priorities are.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Having it does not imply earning it.

John I disagree totally. I would bet that 90% or more of the people that "have it" earned it.

And the 10% that haven't make my point and disprove yours.

Quote

As far as not getting it from the people that don't have it...there's a thread buried here somewhere about the amount of people that pay ZERO.

The argument is of course that you believe that these people (zero tax paying) don't make enough to pay any and the "rich" make plenty to pay more.

I don't

If the gov would cut the entire budget by 10% (everything) then index the budget to inflation and charge "rich"(say people making 100K a year) a 10% tax to reduce ONLY the deficit...I'd be good with that.

What say you?

I say that 10% reduction across the board is (a) totally inadequate, and (b) indicates cluelessness in establishing priorities. Some programs ARE more important than others - leadership requires deciding what the priorities are.

'

To bad this country doesn't have one that can or ie even qualified to.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[mirage62 0]

John talking with you about this sort of thing is like playing with a pig in mud.....

The idea that I pull up a figure (10%) proves ANYTHING you suggested is bs.

It bothers me that I often forget that 99% of what you post is pure and total bs not meant to enlighten anyone.

Go bacl to running your business, or a job that you could actually get fired from and THEN come back and preach......

"Cluelessness" my friend you are so far out of touch with the norm it is sad.

cya

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[masterrig 1]

Quote

The only way to cut the deficeit is to cut the bullshit. Both sides need to do it but my bet is that neither will be willing to do it. They will posture to get the other side to make the unpopular proposals. There is no leadership anywhere to be seen.

I don't see them cutting 'pork' or 'special interests'. That wouldn't get them votes.


Chuck

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

John talking with you about this sort of thing is like playing with a pig in mud.....

The idea that I pull up a figure (10%) proves ANYTHING you suggested is bs.

It bothers me that I often forget that 99% of what you post is pure and total bs not meant to enlighten anyone.

Always a pleasure to be of service, Fortson. By the way, do I need to register for the GSR, or just turn up?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

Quote

John talking with you about this sort of thing is like playing with a pig in mud.....

The idea that I pull up a figure (10%) proves ANYTHING you suggested is bs.

It bothers me that I often forget that 99% of what you post is pure and total bs not meant to enlighten anyone.

Always a pleasure to be of service, Fortson. By the way, do I need to register for the GSR, or just turn up?

I'm glad you admit that almost all the time, 99% as it seems we cannot take you for your own word, by admition of yourself.

That sure does clear a lot of things up.

Thanks again.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[mirage62 0]

Quote

Always a pleasure to be of service, Fortson. By the way, do I need to register for the GSR, or just turn up?

Naa just show up, you coming in Thursday? We are knocking off a Ga Pop's on Thursday.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[Niki1 1]

Quote

Quote

The only way to cut the deficeit is to cut the bullshit. Both sides need to do it but my bet is that neither will be willing to do it. They will posture to get the other side to make the unpopular proposals. There is no leadership anywhere to be seen.

I don't see them cutting 'pork' or 'special interests'. That wouldn't get them votes.


Chuck

And that's the problem. They are too busy getting re-elected to do the job they were elected to do.

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?