Fiscal agreement is a fiscal disaster

[HALLGATOR]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Which is why cuts have to be gradual and tempered. If you cut 500B out of our budget a whole lot of people, both public and private, lose their jobs.

Totally agree with this. It's too bad those in Washington, as a whole, can't seem to see it.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by mocgator

I hope when I told you to plan your fiscal exit strategy 5 or 6 years ago you did. We are on a speedy decline now. There will be no turning this back. Protect your finances and get money and or assets out of the country. Get out of debt and get into financial vehicles to protect yourself from the coming inflation.

Actually in this case you WANT debt. Why pay it off now when you can use a cheaper dollar later?

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by gtr2x

Since i cant access the info, how is the 4 trillion calculated? Sounds like more political speak at this point.
Debt ceiling right around the corner. No need to get too excited, that is where the cuts will come. Problem is unless defense spending is on the table nothing will happen on social services spending either and everyone will sit around pontificating how its the other sides fault. . And as far as working on the tax code, think you can forget about that.

Good question. From the article that the OP cited, and no one seems to have read:

The fiscal cliff deal approved by Congress will increase deficits over the next decade by close to $4 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That estimate is relative to a benchmark where all the Bush tax cuts expire and the the fiscal cliff stays in place. Technically, that's what would happen if Congress had done nothing to avert the cliff.

But that was never a likely scenario. For one thing, most economists said that such abrupt fiscal tightening would hurt economic growth in the near term. Plus, few expect Congress to stick to such a strict fiscal regimen anyway. Instead, most expected Congress to largely preserve the Bush tax cuts and cancel or weaken the rest of the fiscal cliff.

Compared to that more realistic scenario, the fiscal cliff bill will actually reduce deficits somewhat -- various estimates suggest by roughly $600 billion, and more with interest savings. The CBO did not offer a cost estimate for the Senate bill relative to this more realistic scenario.

So, basically the figures the OP complains about are calculated against what would have happened if we had gone off the fiscal cliff, not against where we are now. The OP ignores that, as compared to the budget on 12/31/12, the legislation reduces the deficit by $600B plus interest.

Details. Such a b---h.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Do you really think we have to be worried about large immediate cuts?

Not at all. But there are plenty of people screaming for them. It would be horrible.

We need large cuts done over a period of 6-8 years followed by a balanced budget amendment.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by g8rjd

Good question. From the article that the OP cited, and no one seems to have read:

So, basically the figures the OP complains about are calculated against what would have happened if we had gone off the fiscal cliff, not against where we are now. The OP ignores that, as compared to the budget on 12/31/12, the legislation reduces the deficit by $600B plus interest.

Details. Such a b---h.

A week ago the left was saying the Bush Tax cuts increased the deficit?

[g8trjax]

600 b over 10 years out of almost 5 t. I believe the math is correct.

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

A week ago the left was saying the Bush Tax cuts increased the deficit?

If you are suggesting that I have said otherwise, I'm not on the left, Matt. And I haven't said anything about the Bush Tax cuts to that effect and you are welcome to use the search function right at the top of your screen to check whether I have. I'm addressing the question (which I wondered when I read it too) and providing the answer with the OP's own posted article.

[mastoidbone]

from a rational mind---taxes as percent of GDP are too low---easy to fix.
Spending as a % of GDP under Obama is at levels i could not imagine just a few years ago. Reducing that is ONLY long term path to prosperity....and Obama is LOATH to do it as are most dems.

They prefer to SLOW the rate of growth rather then cut...while allowing taxes to go up to fund that growth. SO over time govt has more and more of GDP under its control. To the point that we approach European levels. The problem with that----is that OVERALL economic growth slows down when you do that. See Europe since 1970s when social spending started to rise as an example.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by mastoidbone

row lets be straight----this deal is a drop in bucket size of a tanker truck.
So ALL we did was raise taxes on the most productive workers in order to finance GREATER government spending.

If you tell me i pay more taxes but debt goes down fine.

That is not what dems pushed for.

They asked people to pay more taxes to allow them to keep spending too much. At same time Obama RAISED fed pay---which CBO says is already ABOVE private pay for same job and experience.


So what DID we accomplish other then financing continues waste and excess spending beyond our means?

i 100% agree we need more revenue.

But to increase revenue while INCREASING spending is democratic 101 from 1963----that has worked great for US and is why we are 16 T in the red.


I have NO PROBLEM with more taxes---AS LONG AS IT IS USED TO REDUCE DEBT while govt spending is CUT, not reduced growth----actual CUTS to ALL programs and ALL govt salaries and ALL pensions and defense, etc etc.


Increasing taxes while NOT touching spending is the WORSTE of all possible scenarios for our future.

1 Something tells me my concrete finisher is more "productive" than your attorney and psychiatrist but will not have his tax rate increased.

2 Glad to see you acknowledge that the action taken yesterday constitutes a deficit reducing bill when compared to extending all the Bush tax cuts, as republicans favored.

3 Some of the new spending in it includes the doc fix which I assume you applaud.

[mastoidbone]

I favored allowing ALL the tax cuts to expire----taxes as % of gdp are TOO low to fund modern government.

At same time MASSIVE across board cuts to govt pay, pensions, entitlements are needed.

Obama dems and pubs got all 3 wrong.

[mastoidbone]

is your concrete finisher really more productive?
are you sure?

his force of labor is likely much higher---but his economical productivity is unlikely to be greater.

I am indifferent on doc fix. Medicare pays me less an hour then many of your laborers are paid---so if you cut medicare i could care less. The problem is that we would just stop seeing medicare patients---so i dont think it was doing docs a big favor---really more keeping medicare working.

Medicare is 40% of my work and 10% of my revenue----see what happens when govt gets control of purse string?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

Totally agree with this. It's too bad those in Washington, as a whole, can't seem to see it.

Are you serious? What rapid spending cuts have been enacted?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Not at all. But there are plenty of people screaming for them. It would be horrible.

But the tax increases are OK?

[g8trjax]

I heard Boehner cut his tanning bill substantially.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

But the tax increases are OK?

Neither is "OK." But there is reality.

[JerseyGator01]

The right cuts now would lead to more jobs later. As usual. Americans only think about next week and not next year.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Neither is "OK." But there is reality.

Indeed there is "reality."

And the reality is that the rampant spending has exacerbated the recession.

What spending decreases were enacted?

Very, very few.

[92gator]

Originally Posted by Row6

The $ 4 trillion increase is in comparison to not extending any of the Bush tax cuts, a position which no one elected to a federal office today favors, Republican or Democrat. Compared to extending all the Bush tax cuts - which most Republicans favor - deficits will be reduced by about $600 billion over 10 years. BTW, some of the extra spending includes not cutting doc pay for Medicare, something else in the baseline that results in the $4 trillion. Also, this part of the deal is on taxes and some immediate budgetary items. Sequestration and longer range spending cuts will be addressed later this winter.

Pretending otherwise is howling at the moon.

Don't you ever tire of toting Barry's jock strap?

[viningsgator]

Only in Washington can they announce budget cuts when spending actually increases. Must eliminate baseline budgeting

[92gator]

This disastrous fiscal cliff compromise reminds me of that infamous, inflamatory, and controversial quote from Bob Knight:

If you're getting raped, and you can't do anything to stop it, may as well relax and enjoy it.