Super Committee Fails/No Deal In Place/Time Expires

LadyJazzer wrote:

No, `both sides’ aren’t equally to blame for supercommittee failure

Here’s why the supercommittee is failing, in one sentence: Democrats wanted the rich to pay more in taxes towards deficit reduction, and Republicans wanted the rich to pay less in taxes towards deficit reduction.

Any news outlet that doesn’t convey this basic fact to readers and viewers with total clarity is obscuring, rather than illuminating, what actually happened here.

I agree with those who have argued that supercommittee failure doesn’t really matter all that much, and that the obsession with the deficit is itself misguided and makes solutions to the actual crisis at hand — unemployment — far less likely to happen.

But since the press is going to be obsessing over the supercommittee’s failure for days to come, and since we will be inundated with reams of bogus false equivalence reporting about it, it’s worth stating as clearly as possible what really transpired.

And so: Any news outlet that doesn’t leave readers and viewers with an absolutely clear sense that the primary sticking point was over whether the rich should see their contribution to deficit reduction increase or decrease is letting down its customers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu ... etworkNews

Says it all... The difference between more cuts for the 1% at the expense of the 99%, or less... Spin it all you like, but that's what it comes down to.

Deal with it.

I didn't see any slant in the article, how about you? Too funny! It's ALL those mean conservative Republican's fault right? Come on. Well at least it's on the opinion page. This would be reported as "news" in the Denver Post and likely be found on the front page.

Why is it that the Democrats so desperately want to increase taxes? I don't get it. In my household we are forced to live within our budget-period. Although it would certainly be novel if my wife and I could simply "demand a raise" at our jobs....the reality is there are not likely to be any significant raises anytime soon in this Obama economy. So we MUST find a way to live with the money we make. We are forced to do without certain things, make tough decisions every month..and it's our choice what those "things" are. Sometimes it REALLY sucks, but we "deal with it".

To me raising taxes is the same thing as demanding a raise. It's BS. Maybe when the economy improves but for now we are happy just to have work.

LadyJazzer wrote: 1) Social Security is not adding ANYTHING to the "deficit"... It's good for approximately 20 years... That dog won't hunt.
2) Medicare is not the problem; it's the cost of the delivery system. Get the ever-escalating cost of delivering health-care under control, and the for-profit hospital industry, and the problem gets under control very quickly... (The phrase "negotiating prescription drug costs" should ring a bell...But no, we couldn't possibly allow the government to do that...) That was part of what the "Affordable Health Care Act" was supposed to address; but of course, they ended up compromising much of what could have been saved in order to get the usual GOP obstructionists to vote for it. Stop the slimebags like Rick Scott and his company from ripping off $Millions in fraudulent billing scams from the Government, and the problems start getting manageable.
3) Heating subsidies for the poor and elderly? How about that? We can let the bastards freeze in the dark. It's their own fault for getting old and poor, right?

And the military is crying because they need $700 Billion a year to be prepared to fight a war with Russia, which doesn't exist any more...

And the righties are crying because they might have to ask the 1%'ers to pay a couple more points on the millions above the first million?...and they can't because they let some little twit with a Napoleon complex get them to sign a "pledge"? If their pledge supercedes their responsibility to do what's best for the country, then they don't deserve to be in office... This fantasy that anyone who is part of the 1%'ers is a "job creator" is the most laughable thing I've heard all year.

You're right--the "all or nothing for the party" IS going to break this country.

Social security has been being robbed by both sides for decades robbing Peter to pay Paul, You have your list of 3 things that you won't compromise on and I understand that I don't want to see American people cold and hungry either.

What are you willing to scale back?

Imho you can't cut the budget line item by line item it needs to be reduced across the board. 10% or whatever % that is appropriate to get things back on line needs to happen.

A lot of people are all of a sudden realizing what the free health care is going to cost them I can't wait to see how this one plays out.

Conservation Voice wrote: There was nothing to take command of. They're separate branches of government.

I would agree that this is the way it is supposed to be working, but that isn't the reality of the way Congress works these days. Reid is not acting as a representative of the Nevada State legislature, nor is he acting as a representative of the citizens of Nevada, he is acting as the gatekeeper for the head of his political party - keeping things Obama doesn't want to deal with away from the Oval Office. How else to explain his unwillingness to prepare and vote upon a budget for fiscal 2012? How else to explain away the reality that the Senate hasn't even held a vote on a budget since before the midterm elections of 2010?

LadyJazzer wrote: 1) Social Security is not adding ANYTHING to the "deficit"... It's good for approximately 20 years... That dog won't hunt.

That's a great line, even if it isn't actually the case as a matter of law. As a matter of law, and the reason that Social Security wasn't overturned by the Supreme Court, was that it was found to be something that was not separate from the rest of the revenue, or the rest of the budget. The tax was no different from any other tax and the appropriations were not different from any other appropriations of Congress. I'm sure you remember the law as established by the cowed court in its 1937 Davis v Steward Machine company decision: "The proceeds of the excise when collected are paid into the Treasury at Washington, and thereafter are subject to appropriation like public moneys generally." Social Security, despite one's wish to believe otherwise, is not separate and apart from the rest of the revenues or the rest of the appropriations of Congress. It is simply a smaller part of the larger whole and is thus as much a part of causing the deficit as every other line item in the budget is. Congress could, if it wished, appropriate all of the revenue realized by the payroll withholding taxes to fund the military.

LadyJazzer wrote: 2) Medicare is not the problem; it's the cost of the delivery system. Get the ever-escalating cost of delivering health-care under control, and the for-profit hospital industry, and the problem gets under control very quickly... (The phrase "negotiating prescription drug costs" should ring a bell...But no, we couldn't possibly allow the government to do that...) That was part of what the "Affordable Health Care Act" was supposed to address; but of course, they ended up compromising much of what could have been saved in order to get the usual GOP obstructionists to vote for it. Stop the slimebags like Rick Scott and his company from ripping off $Millions in fraudulent billing scams from the Government, and the problems start getting manageable.

I don't care who you are, that there is funny. It's the cost of delivering health care that makes it so expensive. Tell me LJ, how do you propose to have someone's health addressed without a delivery system? You think those Medicare recipients should be charged with diagnosing and treating their own illnesses perhaps? Or, better yet, that the federal government should set up a bunch of federally operated and funded hospitals, as they have with the VA system, to deliver the Medicare health benefits? Have federally employed doctors, and nurses be the only ones the elderly are able to see if Medicare is going to be picking up the tab? Doctors expect that they will receive compensation for their services, compensation that they determine what it should, or will, be. Same for hospitals, nurses and every other health care worker. Are you really advocating that the federal government should be allowed to set prices on the pharmaceuticals developed, manufactured and sold by private companies? Really?

LadyJazzer wrote: 3) Heating subsidies for the poor and elderly? How about that? We can let the bastards freeze in the dark. It's their own fault for getting old and poor, right?

An old, poor citizen of New York, Minnesota, North Dakota or anywhere else for that matter is not of anymore concern to me than an old and poor citizen of any other state or country. Shall we also subsidize the heat for the citizens of England, or Germany or Canada? The old, poor citizens of New York who need assistance paying their heating bill in the winter is a matter for the government of New York to address, not the general government.

LadyJazzer wrote: And the military is crying because they need $700 Billion a year to be prepared to fight a war with Russia, which doesn't exist any more...

And the righties are crying because they might have to ask the 1%'ers to pay a couple more points on the millions above the first million?...and they can't because they let some little twit with a Napoleon complex get them to sign a "pledge"? If their pledge supercedes their responsibility to do what's best for the country, then they don't deserve to be in office... This fantasy that anyone who is part of the 1%'ers is a "job creator" is the most laughable thing I've heard all year.

You're right--the "all or nothing for the party" IS going to break this country.

What is best for the general welfare of the union is to lower the percentage of the fruits of the labor of the citizens of the States that the general government spends - period. 25% of GDP is an obscene amount of that effort for one entity, the federal government, to expect to take from the economic activity of the union. 25% of the annual GDP is not sustainable, nor is it even reasonable. 25% of GDP might be seen as reasonable for the combined figure of local, state and federal taxation, but not for federal taxation all by its lonesome. No matter how long or how hard you beat the drum of class warfare hoping to convince the tyranny by majority to take from others to give to themselves 25% of GDP is simply an obscene amount of money to take through taxation for one level of government.

We don't have a revenue problem. The current tax system is more than capable of generating revenues consistent with the 70 year average of around 18% of GDP. When the federal government is willing to do that which is necessary to limit its spending at, or preferably less than. the amount of revenue it has a chance of collecting only then will the problem be solved. You can't confiscate 25% of the national production each and every year from here on out through taxation and expect the current situation to get any better. That simply isn't going to happen. If that isn't obvious to even the most ardent dyed in the wool Keynesian by now, I don't know what else to tell you.

Yes, we DO have a revenue problem. Businesses are going under because they don't have customers with disposable income...Not because they are over-taxed and over-regulated.

"Confiscate"... Cute word... Ranks right up there with "federated government", "general government", "statist", "regressive", "oppressive", "tyranny", "usurpation", ad nauseum... You're like the Orly Taitz of the Sovereign Citizen movement...

My opinion of the whole thing deal with both sides not just one. 1st off the go off on vacation without having done thier jobs. unacceptable. They were elected to do a job and they have failed. Thus in the real world they would have or could have been fired.

Second. Because of these whining ass politicians, not getting thier job done, the repercussions will be felt by everyone. From everything I have read, and researched, the outcome could be extremely bad for this country. As I believe there is things in the Defense budget that could be cut, and it would save billions, the idiots in Congress is basically telling the troops that we are telling the Dept of Defense that we the military is going to have to carry the debt problem because we could not deal with it. So to bad, we will still get our pay, not do our job, and you will just have to deal with it. We politicians don't care.

Then we have the President blaming the Republican side and not taking accountablility for it on the Democratic side. That shows his ignorance. This is not a problem with a side it is a problem with this country and those that were elected are to damn stubborn and stupid to do thier jobs. So thier thoughts are we will just go on vacation and so what, we will deal with things when we get back, the hell with the American citizens, and this country.

All that are acting like these same politicians, you really need to get the hell over it and realize this is a serious problem right now in this country, IT IS NOT A REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATIC PROBLEM, IT IS OUR PROBLEM, AND THOSE ELECTED FAILED TO DO THE JOB THEY WERE ELECTED TO DO. THE HOUSE, THE SENATE AND THE PRESIDENT.

For those of you who remember and loved the Three Stooges, this is priceless and sadly more true then I'd like to admit:

The Three Stooges sub in for supercommittee
Commentary: Moe Larry and Curly to the nation’s rescue

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/superc ... inginsight

LARRY: (Smiling, oddly.) “See, Moe, I told you cutting would be a cinch. More money for the rich means more money for us, too.”

MOE: (Coiling the saw, then releasing it, whacking Curly and Moe with a loud “Boing!”) “Listen, you two nitwits. The whole country is depending on us to cut spending, not revenues. We need at least $1.2 trillion in spending cuts. Now quit thinking about yourselves and get busy cutting.”

LARRY: (Hand to chin, as if thinking.) “Let’s change “Medicare” to “We-Don’t-Care’.”

MOE: (Fingers to forehead, also as if capable of thinking.) “Let’s fire the army. We can give the job of global security to the French Foreign Legion. All three of us stooges served there in one episode. It’s a swell outfit.”

CURLY: (Bouncing his head, making mechanical typing sounds through his teeth.) “Hey, Moe, $1.2 trillion ain’t gonna cut it. The deficit’s growing faster than the whole economy.”

LARRY: (Whispering to Moe.) “Remember that plumbing job we did, and how the water kept pouring in on us, no matter how many pipes we broke?”

MOE: (Grabs Larry by the curls of his hair.) “Listen to me, porcupine. You keep talking like that and you’re gonna get us downgraded by Standard & Poor’s again.”

CURLY: (Still calculating.) “Ruff. Ruff. Wait a minute, Moe. The debt is only $15 trillion. Ruff. That’s only 15 and a few zeros.”

MOE: (Smacking Curly’s face, again.) “Oh, a wise guy, aye? Maybe I should slap you 15 trillion more times. That’s bigger than the nation’s gross domestic product.”