Avoiding The Fiscal Cliff

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,898
60,271
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. The looming ‘fiscal cliff’ can be avoided if the parties agree to spending cuts of about $4 trillion over the next decade. “Such an agreement would set specific targets for new tax revenue and spending cuts to reduce deficits by about $4 trillion over a decade, giving Congress and the president more time to work out the details. If they failed to do so, presumably other automatic changes might be in store as an enforcement action — “The ?Fiscal Cliff,? Explained - NYTimes.com

2. How about we cut "Glitterati Welfare": states offer refundable tax credits which can be paid to the producer whether or not the film has a tax liability. Example: if the state offers a film tax credit of $100,000, but the film only has a federal tax liability of $50,000, the state pays the full $100,000 to the producer. Even better- ‘transferable’ tax credits allow the producer to sell the excess credits to a third party. Get it? The state transfers money from waitresses and truck drivers to celebrity moviemakers.
Sykes, “A Nation of Moochers,” p. 99.




3. According to John Stossel, the biggest welfare queens are farmers. Agricultural subsidies including direct payments, marketing loans, counter-cyclical payments, conservation subsidies, insurance, disaster aid, export subsidies, and agricultural research, taken together, have become one of the largest middle- and upper-class welfare programs in the nation.

a. “Washington paid out a quarter of a trillion dollars in federal farm subsidies between 1995 and 2009, but to characterize the programs as either a “big government” bailout or another form of welfare would be manifestly unfair – to bailouts and welfare.”
Government’s Continuing Bailout of Corporate Agriculture | Environmental Working Group

b. “From 1995 to 2009, the largest and wealthiest top 10 percent of farm program recipients collected 74 percent of all farm subsidies, with an average total payment over 15 years of $445,127 per recipient – hardly a safety net for small struggling farmers. The bottom 80 percent of farmers received an average total payment of just $8,682 per recipient.” Ibid.




4. But if you want to really make your blood boil, check out the transfer payments to owners of beachfront properties. Between 1979 and 2005, Alabama’s Dauphin Island was hammered six times by hurricanes, which destroyed some five hundred pricey vacation home and rental properties. Owners kept rebuilding, and the government paid more than $21 million in insurance.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/10/10/AR2005101001465.html

a. The flood program pays every claim, doesn’t raise premiums after multiple claims, and promises to keep doing so.

b. A USA TODAY review of FEMA records found that the owners of 19,600 homes and commercial buildings worth $25,000 or more have collected insurance payments that exceed the value of their property. The records exclude property addresses. In Fairhope, Ala., the owner of a $153,000 house has received $2.3 million in claims. A $116,000 Houston home has received $1.6 million. The payments are for damage to homes and what's inside….USA TODAY also found that the owners of 370,000 second homes and rental houses get huge insurance discounts. Wealthy resort areas such as Hilton Head Island, S.C., and Longboat Key, Naples and Sanibel, Fla., have some of the largest numbers of second homes and rentals getting the discounts. USATODAY.com




5. Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available. Federal workers earning double their private counterparts - USATODAY.com

a. The disparity has grown from 66% in 2000, to 101% in 2009.
Federal Employees Continue to Prosper | Cato @ Liberty

b. When you compare job-to-job, which is difficult as job titles are hard to compare, total compensation for federal employees is 50% higher than private sector counterparts. Even considering skill, education, and seniority, it’s still a large disparity. USAToday, op.cit.

c. “An apples-to-apples comparison shows that the federal pay system gives many federal workers significantly more compensation than they would get in the private sector. The total premium costs taxpayers $40 billion (according to Richwine and Biggs) or $47 billion (Sherk) per year above market rates.” Federal Pay Still Inflated After Accounting for Skills




6. Then, there’s this: ]Government waste at it's finest
a. Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them–costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually–fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve

b. Examples from multiple Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports of wasteful duplication include 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; and 72 safe water programs

c. A GAO audit classified nearly half of all purchases on government credit cards as improper, fraudulent, or embezzled. Examples of taxpayer-funded purchases include gambling, mortgage payments, liquor, lingerie, iPods, Xboxes, jewelry, Internet dating services, and Hawaiian vacations. In one extraordinary example, the Postal Service spent $13,500 on one dinner at a Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse, including “over 200 appetizers and over $3,000 of alcohol, including more than 40 bottles of wine costing more than $50 each and brand-name liquor such as Courvoisier, Belvedere and Johnny Walker Gold.” The 81 guests consumed an average of $167 worth of food and drink apiece.




7. George Washington had four cabinet departments. Since then we’ve added fourteen new departments, and reduced by two (Navy Department became part of Defense, and US Post Office became a quasi-corporation). How many are in line with constitutional requirements, and how many could be dispersed as state functions?

a. Department of Energy could be eliminated; President Carter created it to minimize our dependence on foreign oil, and to regulate oil prices. Good job? This department is tasked with maintaining and producing nuclear weapons. Why? What does the Pentagon do? And management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve could, as Clinton suggested, become an outside entity. It also disperses ‘stimulus package’ funds. And it runs an appliance-rebate program, and ‘Weatherization Assistance Program,” and for this it received an additional $37 billion in ‘stimulus’ money, doubling its annual budget.

b. Department of Education is, of course, unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly states that powers not granted to the federal government belong to the states. So where is the impetus for its creation? Unions. The National Education Association (NEA) “In 1972, the massive union formed a political action committee…released ‘Needed: A Cabinet Department of Education’ in 1975, but its most significant step was to endorse a presidential candidate- Jimmy Carter- for the first time in the history of the organization.” D.T. Stallngs, “A Brief History of the Department of Education: 1979-2002,” p. 3. When formed, its budget was $13.1 billion (in 2007 dollars) and it employed 450 people. IN 2010, the estimated budget is $107 billion, and there are 4,800 employees. http://crunchycon.nationalreview.co...-department-education-not-radical/mona-charen

“In November 1995, when the federal government shut down over a budget crisis, 89.4 percent of the department’s employees were deemed ‘nonessential’ and sent home.” Beck and Balfe, “Broke,” p.304


Hey....how about we hold the federal government to the enumerated powers, Article I, section 8??

Bye, bye, Fannie and Freddie.....
 
1. The looming ‘fiscal cliff’ can be avoided if the parties agree to spending cuts of about $4 trillion over the next decade.
The problem with this idea has to do with how the United States creates money--and the need for a capitalist economy to continue growing. When the fiscal crisis of 2007-08 occurred, we lost several trillions of dollars in value from our economy. That's essentially why we had to incur massive deficits--in the federal reserve system, money is created from debt issuance. If we cut $4 trillion, we will actually cut our money supply by that amount--and this will certainly cause economic collapse.

2. How about we cut "Glitterati Welfare": states offer refundable tax credits which can be paid to the producer whether or not the film has a tax liability.
That's fine with me, this is another form of corporate welfare that "gifts" the five giant corporate media companies. But why are you focusing on just those corporations?

3. According to John Stossel, the biggest welfare queens are farmers.
Yes, let's cut subsidies to farmers. Absolutely--it will never happen, though, because you can trace a tremendous amount of inherited wealth to original farmland ownership that has been passed down. I wonder if there is even one U.S. senator that does not enjoy farm subsidies somewhere in his family lineage.

5. Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
I'm not certain what the economic value is if you cut worker wages even more. The right wing seems to think that raising taxes on the rich is a bad thing (presumably because it reduces their buying power), but cutting worker wages is a good thing (doesn't that also reduce buying power). Why do Republicans hate American workers?

6. I think your main point is that it is hard to audit an economic system that expends trillions of dollars per year. I agree--so what? Although there is no systemic audit per se, there are plenty of program audits. Defense, by the way, is probably the most wasteful organization.

7. George Washington had four cabinet departments.
He also had wooden dentures.

7b. Department of Education is, of course, unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly states that powers not granted to the federal government belong to the states.
Please, let's not get silly. By using this analogy, the U.S. Government cannot prevent Georgia from building nuclear warheads and pointing them at Florida--if you adhere to a simplistic approach to literal interpretation. Thank God we can actually progress from the late 1700's!!
 
It'll be papered over and the can kicked down the road.
There will be much back slapping for the coming together to reach a bipartisan solution. Then back to the same old same old.

292559_10151764929950471_1263929972_n2.jpg
 
Actually, this provides Obama with a golden opportunity. He should stand by his demands--he should strongly increase marginal tax rates to the pre-Reagan levels. Raising marginal tax rates has ALWAYS resulted in strong and broad economic growth. If Congress does not go along, he should refuse to sign any spending/budgetary authorizations and allow the "fiscal cliff" to arrive. This will automatically restore tax rates at least to pre-Bush, finally allow meaningful cuts in the defense behemoth, and allow American citizens to witness firsthand the effects of "fiscal austerity." He can then blame the GOP congress for intransigence.
 
1. The looming ‘fiscal cliff’ can be avoided if the parties agree to spending cuts of about $4 trillion over the next decade.
The problem with this idea has to do with how the United States creates money--and the need for a capitalist economy to continue growing. When the fiscal crisis of 2007-08 occurred, we lost several trillions of dollars in value from our economy. That's essentially why we had to incur massive deficits--in the federal reserve system, money is created from debt issuance. If we cut $4 trillion, we will actually cut our money supply by that amount--and this will certainly cause economic collapse.

2. How about we cut "Glitterati Welfare": states offer refundable tax credits which can be paid to the producer whether or not the film has a tax liability.
That's fine with me, this is another form of corporate welfare that "gifts" the five giant corporate media companies. But why are you focusing on just those corporations?

Yes, let's cut subsidies to farmers. Absolutely--it will never happen, though, because you can trace a tremendous amount of inherited wealth to original farmland ownership that has been passed down. I wonder if there is even one U.S. senator that does not enjoy farm subsidies somewhere in his family lineage.

I'm not certain what the economic value is if you cut worker wages even more. The right wing seems to think that raising taxes on the rich is a bad thing (presumably because it reduces their buying power), but cutting worker wages is a good thing (doesn't that also reduce buying power). Why do Republicans hate American workers?

6. I think your main point is that it is hard to audit an economic system that expends trillions of dollars per year. I agree--so what? Although there is no systemic audit per se, there are plenty of program audits. Defense, by the way, is probably the most wasteful organization.

7. George Washington had four cabinet departments.
He also had wooden dentures.

7b. Department of Education is, of course, unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly states that powers not granted to the federal government belong to the states.
Please, let's not get silly. By using this analogy, the U.S. Government cannot prevent Georgia from building nuclear warheads and pointing them at Florida--if you adhere to a simplistic approach to literal interpretation. Thank God we can actually progress from the late 1700's!!



1. "That's essentially why we had to incur massive deficits--"
Provably untrue.

If you require same, I'd be happy to document how same by a different administration, has been handled in American economic history without the same result.




2. "But why are you focusing on just those corporations?"
Not so.
This is not a brief post....and you'll notice I've selected a number of venues.

3. "let's cut subsidies to farmers."
We agree, but for far different reasons. Checks and balances are designed to restrain corruption. Sadly, since FDR, the Constitution has been obviated.




4. "I'm not certain what the economic value is if you cut worker wages even more."
That's because you don't understand the nature of government employment.
Notice: you wrote worker: I make no such suggestion for the private economy.
Government workers have traded higher wages for predictable employment. They should not expect higher wages as well.

a. "The right wing seems to think that raising taxes on the rich is a bad thing."
False. First of all, there is no perennial category of 'the rich' in America.
Second, the Left engages in a perpetual war on success.
Proof? Sure: the babble is 'they must pay their fair share," but never announces what that share is.
In actuality, the meaning is the first half of 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.'
You recognize that, don't you?


5. "Defense, by the way, is probably the most wasteful organization."
Bet you also believe 'Better Red than dead.'
What did you learn from President Reagan's defeat of the Evil Empire without firing a shot, due to his defense spending?

a. "I think your main point is...."
Cut to the chase: my 'main point' is that the Constitution lists the authorized areas of spending for the federal government.
Article I, section 8.
Read it...learn from it.



6. You wrote "Thank God we can actually progress..."
You also wrote "we lost several trillions of dollars in value from our economy. That's essentially why we had to incur massive deficits-..."

Too bad you are unable to see the connection.
 
Actually, this provides Obama with a golden opportunity. He should stand by his demands--he should strongly increase marginal tax rates to the pre-Reagan levels. Raising marginal tax rates has ALWAYS resulted in strong and broad economic growth. If Congress does not go along, he should refuse to sign any spending/budgetary authorizations and allow the "fiscal cliff" to arrive. This will automatically restore tax rates at least to pre-Bush, finally allow meaningful cuts in the defense behemoth, and allow American citizens to witness firsthand the effects of "fiscal austerity." He can then blame the GOP congress for intransigence.

1. For the Right, taxes are designed to pay for those things appropriate for government to do; excess is returned as tax cuts. To the Left, taxes are the means of equalizing material wealth; they shift power from the individual to the state, and serves as the vehicle by which to solve all of society’s problems.



2. "Raising marginal tax rates has ALWAYS resulted in strong and broad economic growth."

“Just for fun, find a Marxist professor- who scoffs at the idea that people work less if they lose the incentive of money- how he would feel if his name were not put on the academic articles he published. Instead the articles would be published under the name of another academic who needed the recognition more than he did. After all…he would still have the satisfaction of having written the articles….

His completely reasonable response would be that he 'earned’ the right to have his name on those articles, and denying him that measure of earned success is viciously unfair. Exactly.”
Arthur Brooks, “The Road to Freedom,” p. 26.




3. From Prager, "Still The Best Hope," chapter one:

a. While the Judeo-Christian society labels actions as ‘good’ or ‘evil,’ due to morality and/or self-control, the Left sees the results as due to material inequality, i.e., violent crime due to poverty.

b. The Left has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world.

c. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it.



4. The Left, in fact, doesn't believe in private property at all...and therefore, the collective can take whatever they wish...and call it 'fair share'...or 'taxes.'

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YFK2_D3aBXo]President Obama: If you've got a business -- you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen - YouTube[/ame]
 
Thanks for the discussion, PoliticalChic. This would be easier if we could restrict discussion to fewer issues at once--but, your thoughts are well presented.
 
Go go go..Fiscal Cliff!

It seems that you are working as hard as you can for an advanced degree in Stupid.

.....When everyone knows you "conservatives" already have a lifetime-patent on Stupidity.

Relax-everyone.....it's merely a......

....slope.

"The "fiscal cliff" sounds like a scary place. Headlines about "taxmaggeddon" are flashing on TV screens, next to clocks ticking down to January 1.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average has skidded more than 7 percent over the last month, largely due to concerns about the standoff in Congress over how to stop a barrage of tax hikes and spending cuts.

But some major investors say the doomsayers are getting too much attention and cliff watchers should relax a bit.
106.gif


These investors argue that the U.S. economy does not face immediate disaster if lawmakers can't reach a deal by the end of the year, and there will still be time for Washington to come up with a deal in early 2013 before major damage starts to be done.

"It is not impossible at all that they miss by a little and then come back and get it," said billionaire investor Ken Fisher, whose firm Fisher Investments oversees about $38 billion in equities. "There's a minor risk ... but getting it done 10 days later is not really a big deal."
 
Last edited:
another reason conservatives should consider standing back, as suggested here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/263595-give-them-what-they-voted-for.html

Obama won an electoral landslide. The people have said he deserves 4 more years. So, stand down. Voice the ideas why you think wrong, but do nothing to hinder; that's to legislators, not posters.

Give these policies 18 months, then start with questions based on where the economy, unemployment, health care costs, foreign issues are at that point in time.

If all are improving, seems the people did the smart pull of the lever. If not, going to be impossible to paint the problem with the opposition.
 
Thanks for the discussion, PoliticalChic. This would be easier if we could restrict discussion to fewer issues at once--but, your thoughts are well presented.
I concur. Having debated all through out high school and college, I find much about this post which is good, and some which I abhor. I don't like parsing out posts, going tit for tat helps very little though. It makes it difficult and tiresome for visitors to this forum to read. Perhaps if you are in a debate it is productive and interesting, but not here.

Go go go..Fiscal Cliff!

:clap2: Indeed.

The long and the short of it is, yes, this is the only real solution at this point. Big interests only wish to screw over mom and pop, the little guy, you and me. (Especially grandma and grandpa.)

It'll be papered over and the can kicked down the road.
There will be much back slapping for the coming together to reach a bipartisan solution. Then back to the same old same old.

292559_10151764929950471_1263929972_n2.jpg

indedddx.16.jpg

index.2.jpg


Neither the Democrats or the Republicans want their war spending touched. They both need money going toward their death machines, this will force them to come to a compromise to tax the hell out of the middle class, keep the rich safe, and slash what ever safety nets were available to the poor all so the death machines of America's fascist elites can continue their wars for profit.

I notice no where in PoliticalChic's diatribe did she touch on the number one biggest obvious place to slash and burn to make cuts, the military. We don't have any obvious enemies. The only ones we do have, we fund and create ourselves, both in our people's minds in the media, and through our covert intelligence agencies. Our military budget is bloated, and it has been since before Sept. 11, 2001 when Donald Rumsfeld announced over 2 TRILLION had gone missing from the pentagon. Where did the money go? Who the hell knows, let's just keep giving them more. All so we can continue killing innocent women and children with remote control planes.

We out spend the next four nations combined. Why? So the FED can threaten us with a fiscal cliff? Sure, let's jump off and slash the military spending NOW.


Here we see some visual representations of the budget, including everything, both discretionary and non-discretionary spending. As the population ages, and more of the population becomes unemployed or disabled because of the intentional pollution of our food, water or become senseless causalities of war, they then become dependents of the state, non-discretionary spending goes up, and that part of the budget rises.


u-s-federal-government-spending-by-category-program-2011.jpg
usbudget472011.jpg

What makes up non-discretionary spending? Interest on the debt is the number one big one. (Although there are those of us who say fuck that shit, let those elites that have profited of the money changes in the temple go to hell. The banking cabal that started the wars and caused the depressions can get bent. :tongue: ) Then there is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. These are what a generally though of as "non-discretionary" items. But, in truth? There are no such things as non-discretionary items. It's all on the table. Cut it all. Even the interest payments. :cool: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/15/george-will/george-will-says-all-federal-spending-ultimately-d/
challenges14-640.png

As we see here, because of the growing amount of elderly and unfunded liabilities, the so-called mandatory spending items keeps growing. Unfortunately, as a percentage of our discretionary budget, the military takes up ABOUT HALF! Why is this unconscionable? See here. . .
Military+spending+country-distribution-2008.png
usmilitarybudget.jpg


There is no reason for this insanity. The United States could, and should produce something real, instead, we produce and project power. And this, so we can unfairly live like kings. We are the new ROMAN EMPIRE. We are blind if we do not see the immorality of this situation. The rest of the world see it. Our allies are awake to this situation. They only tolerate it, because so far, the whole ponzi scheme relies on everyone accepting the lie of a debt based currency, accepting paper based on a bullies promise to enforce it by war. What happens when no one accepts those pieces of paper anymore? Are we going to invade the world?

The chickens will come home to roost. Let's hope that army isn't gone when they do. The only thing we really produce are death machines. Eventually, no one will be buying.
11-military-spending.gif
 
I do find it interesting that so many 'advisors' of conservatives aren't cool with having 100% control of new legislation or ownership of EO's. That is where the conservatives should focus, like a laser.
 
Thanks for the discussion, PoliticalChic. This would be easier if we could restrict discussion to fewer issues at once--but, your thoughts are well presented.
I concur. Having debated all through out high school and college, I find much about this post which is good, and some which I abhor. I don't like parsing out posts, going tit for tat helps very little though. It makes it difficult and tiresome for visitors to this forum to read. Perhaps if you are in a debate it is productive and interesting, but not here.

Go go go..Fiscal Cliff!

:clap2: Indeed.

The long and the short of it is, yes, this is the only real solution at this point. Big interests only wish to screw over mom and pop, the little guy, you and me. (Especially grandma and grandpa.)

It'll be papered over and the can kicked down the road.
There will be much back slapping for the coming together to reach a bipartisan solution. Then back to the same old same old.

292559_10151764929950471_1263929972_n2.jpg

indedddx.16.jpg

index.2.jpg


Neither the Democrats or the Republicans want their war spending touched. They both need money going toward their death machines, this will force them to come to a compromise to tax the hell out of the middle class, keep the rich safe, and slash what ever safety nets were available to the poor all so the death machines of America's fascist elites can continue their wars for profit.

I notice no where in PoliticalChic's diatribe did she touch on the number one biggest obvious place to slash and burn to make cuts, the military. We don't have any obvious enemies. The only ones we do have, we fund and create ourselves, both in our people's minds in the media, and through our covert intelligence agencies. Our military budget is bloated, and it has been since before Sept. 11, 2001 when Donald Rumsfeld announced over 2 TRILLION had gone missing from the pentagon. Where did the money go? Who the hell knows, let's just keep giving them more. All so we can continue killing innocent women and children with remote control planes.

We out spend the next four nations combined. Why? So the FED can threaten us with a fiscal cliff? Sure, let's jump off and slash the military spending NOW.


Here we see some visual representations of the budget, including everything, both discretionary and non-discretionary spending. As the population ages, and more of the population becomes unemployed or disabled because of the intentional pollution of our food, water or become senseless causalities of war, they then become dependents of the state, non-discretionary spending goes up, and that part of the budget rises.


u-s-federal-government-spending-by-category-program-2011.jpg
usbudget472011.jpg

What makes up non-discretionary spending? Interest on the debt is the number one big one. (Although there are those of us who say fuck that shit, let those elites that have profited of the money changes in the temple go to hell. The banking cabal that started the wars and caused the depressions can get bent. :tongue: ) Then there is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. These are what a generally though of as "non-discretionary" items. But, in truth? There are no such things as non-discretionary items. It's all on the table. Cut it all. Even the interest payments. :cool: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/15/george-will/george-will-says-all-federal-spending-ultimately-d/
challenges14-640.png

As we see here, because of the growing amount of elderly and unfunded liabilities, the so-called mandatory spending items keeps growing. Unfortunately, as a percentage of our discretionary budget, the military takes up ABOUT HALF! Why is this unconscionable? See here. . .
Military+spending+country-distribution-2008.png
usmilitarybudget.jpg


There is no reason for this insanity. The United States could, and should produce something real, instead, we produce and project power. And this, so we can unfairly live like kings. We are the new ROMAN EMPIRE. We are blind if we do not see the immorality of this situation. The rest of the world see it. Our allies are awake to this situation. They only tolerate it, because so far, the whole ponzi scheme relies on everyone accepting the lie of a debt based currency, accepting paper based on a bullies promise to enforce it by war. What happens when no one accepts those pieces of paper anymore? Are we going to invade the world?

The chickens will come home to roost. Let's hope that army isn't gone when they do. The only thing we really produce are death machines. Eventually, no one will be buying.
11-military-spending.gif



"I notice no where in PoliticalChic's diatribe did she touch on the number one biggest obvious place to slash and burn to make cuts, the military."

The overwhelming strength of the United States military is the only thing that prevents chaos in the world.
Those who understand human nature see the truth here:
Si vis pacem, para bellum is a Latin adage translated as, "If you wish for peace, prepare for war"

Indication of same is the failure of Obama'f foreign policy in the Middle East....

...and the reason he fabricated his tale of the video causing the deaths in Libya.
 

Forum List

Back
Top