Getting Closer To A Fiscal Cliff Deal

[JayHawk]

Oh, come on; be a radical libertarian--

LET'S CUT NATIONAL PARKS!



Actually, we could do with selling off a fair bit of federal land in the western states. It would put money in the treasury, and put land on the tax rolls for those states.

Fuck that the BLM and NPS lands will be my home after the Navy... cant be selling off my new backyard.

 

[Kulindahr]

What has grandma got to do with anything?
Besides, Obama's death panels will take care of that. They've already admitted to their existence. Look it up and learn.

I'll save you the trouble. Here's a little gem from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=3&

A sad aspect to this is a study I saw: they looked at having hospitals in a city specialize rather than all of them have all the fancy equipment. They've actually been doing that in Portland; there's one hospital which handles the cardiac expertise, and others with their own focuses. I haven't seen rigorous figures, darn it, but they claim significant saving -- and fewer errors along with it, which I guess comes from the fact that doctors are more focused on just one area.


Is that in the plan?

 

[Kulindahr]

Fuck that the BLM and NPS lands will be my home after the Navy... cant be selling off my new backyard.

If you look at maps of national forest and BLM land out west, you'll see a lot of little packets less than a square mile in size, not attached to any extensive lands of that category. Those are what I'm proposing selling off. It would have a secondary benefit, because often those are the most costly to monitor and take care of, exactly because they're separate them from the rest.

They could be sold the way our state forestry sold some packets around here: 90% has to remain in its natural state.

 

[TX-Beau]

A sad aspect to this is a study I saw: they looked at having hospitals in a city specialize rather than all of them have all the fancy equipment. They've actually been doing that in Portland; there's one hospital which handles the cardiac expertise, and others with their own focuses. I haven't seen rigorous figures, darn it, but they claim significant saving -- and fewer errors along with it, which I guess comes from the fact that doctors are more focused on just one area.


Is that in the plan?

Henry is apparently unable to distinguish between OP-ED and news. Explains a lot actually

 

[chance1]

on topic please

and in that vein

getting closer to a fiscal cliff deal ???

uh NO

boehner and obama are at odds again - seems boehner proposed a Plan B - $1M threshold on tax increases

Obama tastelessly referenced the Newtown shootings - pretty douchey - very much so acutally

At his news conference, Obama alluded to last Friday's Connecticut school shootings in calling on Republicans to put aside political brinksmanship. "If there's one thing we should have after this week, it should be perspective about what's important," he said.

then he added another ME ME comment

Asked why an agreement was proving so elusive after both sides had made concessions, Obama said it might be that "it is very hard for them to say 'yes' to me."
"At some point they've got to take me out of it," Obama said of Republicans, adding they should instead focus on "doing something good for the country."

back to his old uber partisan ways - disappointing and inappropriate




http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/19/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html

 

[Kulindahr]

then he added another ME ME comment



back to his old uber partisan ways - disappointing and inappropriate




http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/19/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html

Stating reality is "uber partisan"?

You really need to let some air out of your balloon and come down to reality.

 

[JayHawk]

It is impossible the only reality is his dislike of Obama eclipses all rational thought.

That said I wonder if Obama is that shrewd. I heard the idea that Obama may have added the SS chained CPI because he knew Boehner could not pass what was offered and Obama wanted to float a balloon on what he can cut.

What i find disgusting is that SS has a surplus and so does Medicare. They are not the problem. The problem is the rampant spending increases first under Bush for the creation of Homeland Security and then under Obama to clean up thirty years of loosening regulations to put Americans in houses.

I also found that Boehner is trying to pass a tax raise on Americans making over a million. While rolling back all the other tax increases EXCEPT the earned income credit and one other major middle class reduction. SO once again republicans want to pay for rich tax breaks by eviscerating the middle class. Disgusting. Obama needs to let the tax cuts expire and then ask republicans if they are ready to cut taxes yet?

 

[Jack Springer]

Obama using the Newtown shootings of 20 first graders as a reason to raise taxes was new ground -- new ground that doesn't seem to bother the MSM or liberals.

That tells me a lot.

The agenda is more important than anything.

Rahm taught Obama well.

 

[JayHawk]

Oh poor baby Jack.

You know what is the truth Jack?

On January First because of a deal republican tea party terrorist that you support created. That doesn't change. Rethuglicans could change things for the majority of Americans but most republicans are either poor and ignorant or wealthy and controlling the interest of their even wealthier masters. To which group do you belong?

 

[Jack Springer]

Amazing how the first thing you do now when someone makes a point that you can't argue -- you attack them personally.

Sad, so sad.

Now republicans are terrorists -- maybe Obama should hire you.

 

[Rolyo85]

Where in your video does he talk about taxes?

 

[JayHawk]

Amazing how the first thing you do now when someone makes a point that you can't argue -- you attack them personally.

Sad, so sad.

Now republicans are terrorists -- maybe Obama should hire you.

Please explain to me how there is a point I havent answered in this thread? Besides personal attacks of course?

 

[maxpowr9]

As I said, with 11 days left, we are going over this "cliff" and the world will just laugh at the republicans.

 

[JayHawk]

I sincerely hope they do pass the republican plan B so their constituents will know specifically whose side republicans are on... hint hint it isnt Americas side.

They would have to explain why it goes after middle class Americans more than the rich actually paying their share.

They would also have to explain why they bothered negotiating at all if they were simply going to throw a temper tantrum and demand to get what they want at the end.

 

[HenryReardon]

What i find disgusting is that SS has a surplus and so does Medicare.?

Who says they have a surplus? What kind of surplus? Links, please.

 

[JayHawk]

Feel free to do some research.

hen program revenues exceed payments (i.e., the program is in surplus) the extra funds are borrowed and used by the government for other purposes, but a legal obligation to program recipients is created to the extent this occurs. These surpluses add to the Trust Fund. At the end of 2011, the Trust Fund contained (or alternatively, was owed) $2.7 trillion, up $69 billion from 2010.[1] The fund is required by law to be invested in non-marketable securities issued and guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the federal government.

The 'owed' part is the ridiculous lie republicans latch onto when claiming it is out of money. The Trust fund is among many other government programs that have bonds in the trust that are payable by the United States Government. However the social security trust fund investments are not marketable securities. They are special issue because they are always guaranteed at face value. In other words the Social Security fund can never lose a dime but can gain money as investments grow.

It is also a travesty that the Social Security fund has become a measure of budget leverage by republicans. it is legally not to be included in any budgetary matter.

EXCLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY FROM ALL BUDGETS Pub. L. 101-508, title XIII, Sec. 13301(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104Stat. 1388-623, provided that: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of - (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President, (2) the congressional budget, or (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

 

[Kulindahr]

Feel free to do some research.



The 'owed' part is the ridiculous lie republicans latch onto when claiming it is out of money. The Trust fund is among many other government programs that have bonds in the trust that are payable by the United States Government. However the social security trust fund investments are not marketable securities. They are special issue because they are always guaranteed at face value. In other words the Social Security fund can never lose a dime but can gain money as investments grow.

It is also a travesty that the Social Security fund has become a measure of budget leverage by republicans. it is legally not to be included in any budgetary matter.

So one way to look at it is that Social Security holds one debt that the government is absolutely obligated to pay back -- to its own citizens.

 

[HenryReardon]

Feel free to do some research.



The 'owed' part is the ridiculous lie republicans latch onto when claiming it is out of money. The Trust fund is among many other government programs that have bonds in the trust that are payable by the United States Government. However the social security trust fund investments are not marketable securities. They are special issue because they are always guaranteed at face value. In other words the Social Security fund can never lose a dime but can gain money as investments grow.

It is also a travesty that the Social Security fund has become a measure of budget leverage by republicans. it is legally not to be included in any budgetary matter.

Feel free to do some real research of your own. When you owe money to yourself and the instrument of debt is an IOU from yourself, that's not at all comforting. A regular corporation wouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

And just for the record, it was LBJ who started counting SS funds with the general revenues, probably as a means of hiding the growing cost of Viet Nam. Subsequent adminstrations continued the practice.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_was_Social_Security_put_into_the_general_fund

That surplus might count if it were invested in something other than government IOUS, but as it stands, it is meaningless. Particularly when the government is already virtually bankrupt and unable to make good on those IOUs.

Obama didn't help when he passed his fake tax cut and reduced payroll taxes. It caused a huge reduction of revenue flowing into the SS funds.

 

[opinterph]

[The payroll tax cut] caused a huge reduction of revenue flowing into the SS funds.

False.

That surplus might count if it were invested in something other than government IOUS

Funds in the Social Security Trust Fund are worth precisely as much as the dollars in your wallet. Why do you suppose that is true?

 

[JayHawk]

Feel free to do some real research of your own. When you owe money to yourself and the instrument of debt is an IOU from yourself, that's not at all comforting. A regular corporation wouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

And just for the record, it was LBJ who started counting SS funds with the general revenues, probably as a means of hiding the growing cost of Viet Nam. Subsequent adminstrations continued the practice.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_was_Social_Security_put_into_the_general_fund

That surplus might count if it were invested in something other than government IOUS, but as it stands, it is meaningless. Particularly when the government is already virtually bankrupt and unable to make good on those IOUs.

Obama didn't help when he passed his fake tax cut and reduced payroll taxes. It caused a huge reduction of revenue flowing into the SS funds.

However the United States of America is not a corporation we are a country.

So either those debts are paid or we cease to exist. If we cease to exist then Social Security will not be paid regardless of whether there is real money in the account or not. SO your point is invalid.

Obama's tax cut effected those most affected by the shit economy. We still took in more than we paid out in Social Security benefits.

The real and actual concern is as our population ages and less and less people are paying into the program. However that is not and will never be a budgetary item. For that fix which is separate from the debt ceiling and our spending we need to decide either three things. Reduce benefits, increase starting age or increase the amount flowing to the fund.

Realistically the only way to keep our faith with the seniors and those who have paid into the program is to increases SS revenues. That can be accomplished in a very smart manner. Such as doubling the contribution cap and means testing the benefit. Just those measures would make the fund pay current rate, cost adjusted for inflation into eternity.

yet republicans want to use the fund that is already paid for to punish seniors for their poor spending habits in starting two wars with a credit card.