The Fiscal Cliff

[quote name='UncleBob']You start off your reply with "wank wank", then try to lecture me on "realistic, adult conversation"?

Try again, Myke.[/QUOTE]

LOL Awesome dodge UB :lol:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So you have nothing. You can't answer a few simple questions, instead hiding behind some phony sense of being thin skinned.

If you're so emotionally traumatized by me responding to juvenile intellect with juvenile phrasing, take a hike and go troll somewhere else. Find another website where you can pretend to have a legitimate interest in a conversation, and then proceed to do anything and everything *but* have that conversation.

You have nothing. We already knew that about you.[/QUOTE]

http://youtu.be/KinmQNdOULc
 
Typical Myke. When he gets called out on his BS, he throws a hissy-fit, does some name calling, then takes his toys and goes home to play with himself.

Son, disagreeing with you isn't trolling. One day, you'll learn that there are millions of others and they all don't agree with you. When/if you learn that lesson, come back and try again.
 
Does anyone know what the numbers are for farm subsidies? I've been trying to find out, but apparently I'm not good at this. All I could find using Google was this (found via Wikipedia) - $17 Billion in 2005 and some offhand statements in a Heritage foundation report that by 2007 it had reached $25 Billion annually.

Anyway, for someone who knows a little, should they be completely cut? Or maybe reformed?

Also, how do farmers compete with imported goods? Does the government tax imported food to keep the price from undercutting US farmers who have to pay their employees a certain minimum?


As for raising the Medicare age, the CBO estimate for amount saved is $113 Billion over 10 years. I'm not sure what the negative effects would be, though. It doesn't seem worth it when there are other bigger and clearer areas fit for trimming. - source: Krugman's blog.
 
[quote name='ID2006']As for raising the Medicare age, the CBO estimate for amount saved is $113 Billion over 10 years. I'm not sure what the negative effects would be, though. It doesn't seem worth it when there are other bigger and clearer areas fit for trimming. - source: Krugman's blog.[/QUOTE]

Can't say I'm a huge fan of it - mostly because it has nothing to do with initiating a single-payer system, which is what we need.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Typical Myke. When he gets called out on his BS, he throws a hissy-fit, does some name calling, then takes his toys and goes home to play with himself.

Son, disagreeing with you isn't trolling. One day, you'll learn that there are millions of others and they all don't agree with you. When/if you learn that lesson, come back and try again.[/QUOTE]

I pointed out to you that what you're advocating ("huge" tax hikes and "massive" spending cuts) is *precisely* what the "fiscal cliff" is. You have nothing to say in response to my pointing out that what you're advocating is the single dumbest approach you could possibly have to repairing our economy.

I asked you about your thoughts on raising the medicare eligibility age.

You then repeat some claim that *I* take my toys and went home? I've gone nowhere.

I made some damning points in response to your vague, inane, undercooked claims. You haven't a bloody thing to say in response. Step up or get out.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/o...?hp&_r=0&gwh=DCADDA19B07C9CA2DD3F40A93D947645

Republicans claim to be for much smaller government, but as a political matter they have always attacked government spending in the abstract, never coming clean with voters about the reality that big cuts in government spending can happen only if we sharply curtail very popular programs. In fact, less than a month ago the Romney/Ryan campaign was attacking Mr. Obama for, yes, cutting Medicare.
Click to expand...

Krugman is talking about Republican leadership, however I think this also applies very clearly to a certain Dr. Thunder-stocking poster in this thread who proclaims big ideas, but fails to elaborate in any substantive manner when asked to do so.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I [...started my post with "wank wank" because I have the mentality of a ten year old][/QUOTE]

Fixed that for you.

That's why it's not worth discussing with you.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Fixed that for you.

That's why it's not worth discussing with you.[/QUOTE]

Manipulates and edits someone else's post...

Claims other person is 'juvenile' :lol:

images
 
I'm glad that you accept the fact that you're acting like a ten-year-old and are not worthy of having a reasonable conversation with.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm glad that you accept the fact that you're acting like a ten-year-old and are not worthy of having a reasonable conversation with.[/QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_fiscal_cliff

The fiscal cliff is a newly coined term referring to the effect of a number of laws which (if unchanged) could result in tax increases, spending cuts, and a corresponding reduction in the budget deficit beginning in 2013. The deficit — the difference between what the government takes in and what it spends — is expected to be reduced by roughly half in 2013. That sharp reduction is the cliff. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the sudden reduction will probably lead to a recession in early 2013 with the pace of economic activity picking up after 2013.
Click to expand...

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43262

The resulting weakening of the economy will lower taxable incomes and raise unemployment, generating a reduction in tax revenues and an increase in spending on such items as unemployment insurance.
Click to expand...

So, having defined the 'fiscal cliff' and its effects on the stability of the US economy, let's revisit something:

[quote name='mykevermin']What kind of tax increases and spending cuts would you like to see?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='UncleBob']Huge cuts in military/defense spending. Massive cuts/eliminations in farm and energy subsidies. A simplification of the tax code that includes the elimination of credits and deductions. Elimination of several Federal programs and turning over control of those to the states (DoE, for example).[/QUOTE]

Now, let's compare that with:

The fiscal cliff is a newly coined term referring to the effect of a number of laws which (if unchanged) could result in tax increases, spending cuts, and a corresponding reduction in the budget deficit beginning in 2013.
Click to expand...

:joystick:

Again, you got nothin'. Hang your head and walk away now.
 
Setting aside who you think can/can't afford to pay more, how do you guys feel about actually paying the increased taxes which could average around $2,200 per year? Pay cuts for everyone and another recession (probably) coming in 2013! To be honest, I'm not that psyched about it.
 
I worry about the impact it could have on the recovery by lessening consumer spending in the lower and middle classes. Which is why I think those cuts need extended while the $250k and up (who'll keep spending) go up.

Personally I'd have no qualms with my taxes going up a couple grand. Would have no impact on my spending. Just a tad less put into savings.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now Myke's quoting Wikipedia... wow
Myke - your entire assumption of my viewpoint is that I want to avoid this "Fiscal cliff". On the contrary, I believe that, similar to the Great Depression, such an event would go a long way towards giving the general population a lesson in hard knocks.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Fixed that for you.

That's why it's not worth discussing with you.[/QUOTE]
You deserve to work at wal-mart.
 
Thank you.

Thrilled to have a job where I can put in an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. Having my own office is a plus too. :D
 
[quote name='Javery']Setting aside who you think can/can't afford to pay more, how do you guys feel about actually paying the increased taxes which could average around $2,200 per year? Pay cuts for everyone and another recession (probably) coming in 2013! To be honest, I'm not that psyched about it.[/QUOTE]

What?
 
[quote name='Msut77']What?[/QUOTE]

Most everyone is going to be affected. How much more will you be paying in 2013 and how excited are you to do so?
 
[quote name='Javery']Setting aside who you think can/can't afford to pay more, how do you guys feel about actually paying the increased taxes which could average around $2,200 per year? Pay cuts for everyone and another recession (probably) coming in 2013! To be honest, I'm not that psyched about it.[/QUOTE]

$85 less on average per paycheck. That's a good bit of discretionary income. It will be sad to see our favorite sushi place go out of business. The owners won't make any profit and the employees will lose their jobs and their income. Cue domino effect. Not good for the economy.

Also, your annual income being among the 1% stand to face a more substantial tax increase. What do you anticipate giving up, out of curiosity?

[quote name='UncleBob']Now Myke's quoting Wikipedia... wow
Myke - your entire assumption of my viewpoint is that I want to avoid this "Fiscal cliff". On the contrary, I believe that, similar to the Great Depression, such an event would go a long way towards giving the general population a lesson in hard knocks.[/QUOTE]

So you, like perditiontroy and a few other righties have mentioned more overtly (since they are at least willing to take a stand on something), you *want* the fiscal cliff to occur. Please elaborate on what you expect will happen - both in terms of the economy and how this will be a "lesson in hard knocks." What will the net benefit be of the fiscal cliff, in your view? Assuming you see some kind of positive outcome, and aren't simply someone wishing for disaster to exist for its own sake.
 
I'm not in the top 1%. It's going to be significant though - enough so that I will probably not be making any more charitable donations.

Calculator HERE - not sure how accurate it is though.
 
I believe that this will increase the chances for another generation to grow up being more self-reliant and less trusting of the government.

Either that, or everyone will die.

Some guys just want to watch the world burn.
 
[quote name='Javery']Most everyone is going to be affected. How much more will you be paying in 2013 and how excited are you to do so?[/QUOTE]

Short answer not enough to change my fairly sparse lifestyle. Remind me again why we can't just keep the lower rates for people making less than say 500k per year?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Is this your MO?[/QUOTE]

More in the first half.

Tell me myke - do you hold doors open for people? I'm not just talking about someone walking up behind you - would you go out of your way to hold a door open for someone?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']More in the first half.

Tell me myke - do you hold doors open for people? I'm not just talking about someone walking up behind you - would you go out of your way to hold a door open for someone?[/QUOTE]

Of course. I would love to hold the door for you one day, if I ever get the opportunity. I would even bow and extend my hand so as to show deference to you, the great UncleBob, as I point in the direction you should use to walk through the door.

[quote name='UncleBob']I believe that this will increase the chances for another generation to grow up being more self-reliant and less trusting of the government.[/QUOTE]

So this is more your MO than the "watch the world burn" bit. Okay, lovely. How do you think allowing the fiscal cliff triggers to occur will lead to this result? Walk me through the unbridled brilliance that is UncleBob logic that goes from "fiscal cliff" to "future generations are self-reliant." There's a heck of a lot of steps from the beginning to the end there. But, given your immense intellect, I'm confident that you've developed a thorough understanding of all the mechanisms that go from point A (fiscal cliff) to point Z (self-reliance, less government). I can't wait, I'm chomping at the bit, I'm beside myself and head over heels in anticipation of your answer here.

Your response is not even close to as self-evident as you seem to think it must be. So, pretty please with a cherry on top (since we all must kiss your ass lest you go off and pout and avoid even the most rudimentary attempt at answering a simple question, I will now go out of my way to kiss your ass so as to create the opposite response - i.e., you actually answering a question) explain yourself.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Short answer not enough to change my fairly sparse lifestyle. Remind me again why we can't just keep the lower rates for people making less than say 500k per year?[/QUOTE]

That's fine by me.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']More in the first half.

Tell me myke - do you hold doors open for people? I'm not just talking about someone walking up behind you - would you go out of your way to hold a door open for someone?[/QUOTE]



there is a difference between simply holding the door open and giving someone a kick on the ass on the way through because you *think* they need one.
 
What I'd like to see happen is that "some" people wake the fuck up and start remembering just what their station in life is. We're (for the most part) the little guys, we're not supposed to defend those we grovel to just to make a living. They have teams of lawyers and PR firms for that. We're supposed to recognize when we're getting a bum deal and revolt against it.

You think that this will lead to a generation distrusting of government, bob? If anything I HOPE it leads to a generation that recognizes they've been screwed over by those at the top. If it takes a damn class war for it to happen, so be it. Maybe we'll even see the importance of collective bargaining again.

edit- fuck it, I'm not getting into a conversation with slidecage's older brother.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']...and again, Myke shows why he's not worth attempting to carry on a conversation with.

*yawn*.[/QUOTE]

I shower you with compliments and you shun any attempt at a response.

how disappointing.
 
Going over the cliff cuts spending. Borrowing .43 cents of every dollar spent right now points to a spending problem. I also don't think another special interest laden stimulus is really gonna spur the economy that much. It blows me away that Krugman doesn't see the debt as a crisis, mainly because we can print our own money. I wonder if Great Britian thought the same thing when they lost their standing as the world's currency. "It could never happen to us...."
 
I'm hesitant, but don't see it as the end of life as we know it. I'm all for spending cuts. Cut the military by 4x its current budget. Cut all foreign aid and corporate welfare. Cut all grants and wasteful endowment programs. You know I dislike welfare, so cut or reduce it as much as possible. Democrats would get their tax raises, and could pass a 250K and under cut later if they wanted. Just do something to get our debt under control. I'd rather go back into a recession now while we are still halfway solvent then suffer the depression that will eventually follow if we continue spending like this. Heck, the two credit downgrades we received already haven't killed us, what's a few more?;-) Do you support Krugman's suggestion to just keep printing money? Do you think its possible that we could lose our standing as the world currency?
 
Other places have been trying austerity you know and it hasn't worked for them. Meanwhile what Krugman suggests is standard Macroeconomics and has asolid track level historically.
 
[quote name='egofed']I'm hesitant, but don't see it as the end of life as we know it. I'm all for spending cuts. Cut the military by 4x its current budget. Cut all foreign aid and corporate welfare. Cut all grants and wasteful endowment programs. You know I dislike welfare, so cut or reduce it as much as possible. Democrats would get their tax raises, and could pass a 250K and under cut later if they wanted. Just do something to get our debt under control. I'd rather go back into a recession now while we are still halfway solvent then suffer the depression that will eventually follow if we continue spending like this. Heck, the two credit downgrades we received already haven't killed us, what's a few more?;-) Do you support Krugman's suggestion to just keep printing money? Do you think its possible that we could lose our standing as the world currency?[/QUOTE]

What historical examples exist that the US is at the risk of repeating?
 
Lets cut things that help us innovate and expand our knowledge. Knowledge has a well known liberal bias anyway, kill that shit.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yay for anti-intellectualism. But what the hey, just got a $390k federal research grant with some colleagues. :D Suck on that cons! ;)[/QUOTE]
Putting Liquid Paper on a bee? That's been done.
 
[quote name='Clak']Lets cut things that help us innovate and expand our knowledge. Knowledge has a well known liberal bias anyway, kill that shit.[/QUOTE]


Socialized single payer healthcare kills medical innovation. Our for profit system pushes new procedures that all of the civilized world eventually benefits from. You still want that socialized healthcare? I want to suspend "wasteful" spending until we get this mess under control. When we are running a surplus again, then we can revisit "Piss Christ" and spotted woodchuck mating ritual research. Anybody want to answer my question about qualitative easing? Just keep printing money as the answer?

As far as history, look up Britian's loss of its standing as the world currency. Its bad, and I believe it could happen to us. A war, another crash, China deciding to screw us....wouldn't we be better off without the debt? Seems like a dumb question, but a lot of people seem to accept it as business as usual.

You call Reagan and a lot of Republicans out, but what about ol Slick Willy and Anthony Wiener? Obama hasn't done much of what he campaigned on, and has gotten caught in a few lies. If the Republicans would stick to financial conservatism and let the whole abortion thing go, then I would maybe rejoin the party. Like the left, they say one thing and do another.
 
You can call it socialized healthcare all you want , but thats not really what it is now is it? Why even have this discussion anymore? I just cant see how the argument could be made that when suddenly the insurance companies have thousands of new clients and a previously non existent stream of revenue coming in , that the medical field would cease to innovate. Why?
What , you think Doctors go home after the night shift and tinker in their basement?
 
Plenty of innovation in medicine comes from universities and research centers in the US and abroad that are funded with government dollars rather than private money. For instance, in the US the National Institute of Health invests over $30 billion a year in research.

Having the medical industry for profit is terrible as it leads to drugs being patented and then sold for ridiculous prices (see cancer, HIV regiments that cost in the five figures each month) etc. and drive costs up and overwhelm the health care system--whether private or public in a given country. Plus private drug companies that are profit driven don't have a lot of motivation to find a vaccines or cures as they stand to make a lot more money selling drugs that just prolong life or alleviate symptoms and thus get taken for years by patients, rather than a vaccine or cure a patient pays for once. It's a terrible system.
 
What? Capitalism is GREAT for medical fields. Finally, everyone in the world will no longer be at the mercy of Restless Leg Syndrome. Also, if your antidepressants don't work, you can take antidepressants to make the antidepressants work. And then when you die because the antidepressants you took to make the antidepressants you took work, it's ok, because YOU'RE DEAD, and therefore no longer depressed!
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlec...to-maintain-americas-medical-innovation-edge/

"The second component is open access to healthcare markets. In order to put our innovations to the test, doctors and patients need the freedom to choose from all available treatments. A new threat, the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board, created by the Affordable Care Act, would take us down a dangerous road of more limited choice. The IPAB gives unelected bureaucrats unprecedented powers to slash Medicare spending. This board would limit patients’ choice of treatment based primarily on cost, with little or no consideration given to those treatments’ life-saving benefits."

I never said Obamacare is socialized healthcare. I do believe that it was established to help send us in that direction. I know several of the normal posters are all for true socialized healthcare. I think there are pros and cons, slowing or killing the innovations we have enjoyed in medicine appears to be one of the cons.
 
Let's not forget about how prevalent Medicare fraud has become. And not just straight-up fraud for services that were never rendered, I mean the sanctioned kind from management of legitimate companies.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50136261n

Would the government do any better? I don't know but I'm not sure it could do much worse. $7.7 billion was recovered under the False Claims Act between 1/09 and 7/12.
 
That's why we need a payment systems like some other countries with national health care have. Where there's set fees for treating certain diseases, injuries etc., rather than paying various prices for each office visit, each test that's ordered etc. That way physicians don't have incentive to order a bunch of tests that aren't needed, or schedule more follow-ups than needed etc., to make more money.

The pay is the same for every patient with that condition, and they thus have no incentive to order any tests etc. for any reason other than feeling they're truly needed to best treat that individual patient.
 
Innovation for new drugs doesn't really matter when no one can afford them. Tomorrow someone could release a cure for HIV, but how many HIV patients would be able to afford it? That's our problem, we have great care, if you can afford it.
 
^ Thats the real argument when it comes to any sort of stance against the IPAB 'bureaucrats'. This is America and if someone with money wants to lose his wad on frivolous tests and unnecessary procedures we should allow it. Just watching that CBS link: Its funny to me that the places where the biggest fraud is taking place never innovate. Medicare has been defrauded by shitty old people homes since its creation. The fact that we never exercised any control over false choices when it comes to something like that is deplorable. Just seems like common sense to me. We pay , we should be allowed to set the standard.
 
[quote name='egofed']The IPAB gives unelected bureaucrats unprecedented powers to slash Medicare spending.[/QUOTE]

That sounds terrible phrased that way!

[quote name='dmaul1114']That way physicians don't have incentive to order a bunch of tests that aren't needed, or schedule more follow-ups than needed etc., to make more money.[/QUOTE]

Oh, that's what they're actually seeking to control by "slashing" Medicare spending.

It sounds so much awful when phrased by the right. Remember that when you think the left are guilty of "scare tactics."

When the left seeks to reign in spending and control waste - i.e., to do what the Republicans claim to be in support of - it's giving "unelected bureaucrats unprecedented powers." LOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top