Updated Fiscal Cliff Negotiations

[notacon]

So what would be a credible source?

How about the Social Security Trustees? Even they use faulty assumptions in calculating the future financial situation for SS and Medicare.

Defense budget has no dedicated tax stream like SS and Medicare. The right wing op-ed writers constantly presented by the WSJ just don't get it. they NEVER give the same dire future of financial ruin directed toward defense budget. This proves their dishonesty and irrelevance. They are NOT commenting on the economics of SS and Medicare. They are demagogues trying to scare and obfuscate the facts in order to destroy these two very successful and popular programs. Just like right wingers have down since their inception.

They lose every time. And anyone who puts forth their nonsense as some kind of credible source is deluding themselves.

[sukie]

You list a source that you deem credible but shoot it down as faulty? The defense budget does have a stream called federal income tax.

[notacon]

You list a source that you deem credible but shoot it down as faulty? The defense budget does have a stream called federal income tax.

Sorry, but the federal income tax is not a dedicated stream for the defense budget. In fact...defense spending is not guaranteed at all. Social Security and Medicare can, as the defense budget, be changed with a vote from Congress, which is why the op-ed piece you present is exposed as total hogwash.

Yes, the SS trustees use faulty premise to base their projections on. That does not mean they are not credible. Their whole projection is based on three economic scenarios, conservative, moderate and aggressive. The aggressive scenario has been criticized as being too conservative. In any event, any projection of what is going to happen 2 years from now is shaky. 75 years is downright useless. Yet, that is what the op-ed piece you are leaning on relies on. Then, he loads it up with nonsensical bull****, stirs it around for good measure, and...lo' and behold...comes up with a reason to destroy SS and Medicare.

The simple FACT is that SS and Medicare are not in financial trouble. Do not add to today's deficit or debt. Have NOT added to the deficit or debt for at least the past 32 years (I do not know the financial situation before that because I have not studied it...I suspect that SS and Medicare have never added to the deficit or debt but will not say so unless I know for sure). They will never go "bankrupt" because that is a term that is not applicable to either of these programs (and it's not applicable to the federal government even though too many demagogue politicians use it all the time).

Tax cuts for the past 32 years HAVE added to the deficit...HAVE added to the debt...and have done BIG damage to the financial situation of the federal government. It was done on purpose, by Republicans, to get to the place we are right now. BIG debt, that the right wing wants to use to destroy SS and Medicare.

THAT'S my point.

[notacon]

Ok kids. This has been fun. But, now it's Christmas Eve and family time.

If any of you come up with a credible argument, I'll be checking later this week and see if it's worthy of my time.

YardRat, if you want to come up with ANY kind of argument instead of your childish little games, I'll engage you too.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!

[denverboz]

Merry Christmas Nota!!

[Mouldsie]

I didnt really read all this carefully but this is the answer tou your question DB: http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=577


and if you didnt understand that my comment was meant to mean we should have universal health care then you and I will never get along

[YardRat]

Merry Christmas to you and yours also, notty

I'll be looking for the details regarding the debt after the holidays

[DraftBoy]

I didnt really read all this carefully but this is the answer tou your question DB: http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=577


and if you didnt understand that my comment was meant to mean we should have universal health care then you and I will never get along

That's not an answer its a one sided piece of propaganda that makes no effort to reference its numbers which questions its complete validity. Its basically crap that is worth nothing.

Im aware of what you meant, my question though is still why? And get along? Do you really put that much into partial discussion about a single issue that judge whether you can get along with somebody based on their agreement with your own point of view? That seems odd.

[Mouldsie]

by get along I mean we wont understand each other, kind of like what is happening right now

- - - Updated - - -

and I want universal healthcare because it's better.

[DraftBoy]

by get along I mean we wont understand each other, kind of like what is happening right now

- - - Updated - - -

and I want universal healthcare because it's better.

How are we not understanding each other? I know your stance, I'm asking you the question of "why?" to which you have yet to provide any kind of answer. Not sure where you are perceiving a misunderstanding from that.

[Historian]

[Mouldsie]

How are we not understanding each other? I know your stance, I'm asking you the question of "why?" to which you have yet to provide any kind of answer. Not sure where you are perceiving a misunderstanding from that.

Well then good.

I dont feel like going over why. I did that enough in my sociology of medicine class last year. I'm just here to be a pain in the ass. If one does not think single payer works better than the current or incoming system or any other that has been developed then I don't think said person is objective. I wont change your opinion if you disagree and you wont change mine by telling me why all my reasons are bunk.

[DraftBoy]

Well then good.

I dont feel like going over why. I did that enough in my sociology of medicine class last year. I'm just here to be a pain in the ass. If one does not think single payer works better than the current or incoming system or any other that has been developed then I don't think said person is objective. I wont change your opinion if you disagree and you wont change mine by telling me why all my reasons are bunk.

Fair enough.

[OpIv37]

Well then good.

I dont feel like going over why. I did that enough in my sociology of medicine class last year. I'm just here to be a pain in the ass. If one does not think single payer works better than the current or incoming system or any other that has been developed then I don't think said person is objective. I wont change your opinion if you disagree and you wont change mine by telling me why all my reasons are bunk.

I took a class on Canadian politics in college and wrote my paper on single payer.... it has advantages and disadvantages. But, I'm not going to bother to write a treatise on it because even if it were flawless, it will NEVER happen in this country. There are too many people with too much money and power that benefit from the system as it exists now.

[JoeMama]

You list a source that you deem credible but shoot it down as faulty? The defense budget does have a stream called federal income tax.

What are you so mad about.

Hasn't America been good to you?

[sukie]

What are you so mad about.

Hasn't America been good to you?

Life is awesome

[OpIv37]

I've been reading a little about this whole "fiscal cliff" issue in the Washington Post.

One thing that shocks me: people seem to forget that it was Congress's (I believe mostly Boehner and the Tea Partiers') fault that we have the "fiscal cliff" in the first place. Somehow they got this stupid idea that if they created a point at which a disaster would occur, these people who can't agree on anything would find a way to agree rather than just fall off the cliff and take the other side with them. It was a ridiculous demand and it's pathetic that it's what now constitutes "compromise" in Washington.

[pmoon6]

What are you so mad about.

Hasn't America been good to you?

Pete got married. No more sex on the down low.

[mysticsoto]

I've been reading a little about this whole "fiscal cliff" issue in the Washington Post.

One thing that shocks me: people seem to forget that it was Congress's (I believe mostly Boehner and the Tea Partiers') fault that we have the "fiscal cliff" in the first place. Somehow they got this stupid idea that if they created a point at which a disaster would occur, these people who can't agree on anything would find a way to agree rather than just fall off the cliff and take the other side with them. It was a ridiculous demand and it's pathetic that it's what now constitutes "compromise" in Washington.

They were counting on Romney winning the election. It really did shock some people that he lost.

[DraftBoy]

I've been reading a little about this whole "fiscal cliff" issue in the Washington Post.

One thing that shocks me: people seem to forget that it was Congress's (I believe mostly Boehner and the Tea Partiers') fault that we have the "fiscal cliff" in the first place. Somehow they got this stupid idea that if they created a point at which a disaster would occur, these people who can't agree on anything would find a way to agree rather than just fall off the cliff and take the other side with them. It was a ridiculous demand and it's pathetic that it's what now constitutes "compromise" in Washington.

That's operating under the assumption that the Fiscal Cliff is a bad thing, many believe its a good thing, myself included. Short term its going to hurt like hell, but long term it may be just what we need.

So building on that say we go over this cliff and nothing gets resolved (never going to happen) do we blame the GOP for creating it and then if it works credit them for creating it? Its an interesting paradox.