http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/01/03/think-obama-got-played-on-the-fiscal-cliff-negotiations Comments On: Think Obama Got Played on the Fiscal Cliff Negotiations? by Eli Sanders en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 05:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by decidedlyodd]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 13:42:00 -0800 The Stranger
There is great economic inequality on par with the worst of the Great Depression... and lawmakers want to take another pound of flesh from the bottom 2/3rds? The fix is in, isn't it? This is neoliberalism come back to haunt the capitalist nation that started it.
Posted by treacle]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 13:29:17 -0800 The Stranger
When they go back to their constituents, what can they say? "We only failed in our single mission a little?"

The Ds in the Senate and Executive are the party of reasonable people. Read these comments. Almost everyone agrees with the premise we all need to pay our fair share. Almost no one feels terrible about ending the payroll tax holiday.

Obama campaigned: "I will be much more effective at managing the do-nothing Congress in my next term."

Obama showed he has the chops to deliver on this promise.

As far as deficits and spending cuts are concerned: Our debt is growing in relation to our GDP. Make our GDP grow faster than our debt, and suddenly we don't have a recession. So long as world-wide interest rates are low, our debt problem isn't that much of a problem.

The only R victory here is convincing the country our major problem is debt instead of slow-growing GDP.

Obama and the Ds understand this. They will frame every spending issue from now on against the Rs (look at the hurricane relief vote). They will push social issues (immigration reform) instead and split the Rs in the House like my uncle splits 8s in blackjack.
Posted by six shooter]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 13:07:25 -0800 The Stranger
The payroll tax "cut" was actually a tax holiday, which means it was always going to go back up eventually, although ideally once the economy had actually recovered. And, that, my friends, is why the Republican anti-tax orthodoxy and "temporary" tax breaks they keep introducing are so toxic. Even when it's made crystal clear that a tax break is temporary and is only being offered as a temporary stimulatory measure, people expect it to last in perpetuity. And, here we are, with the "temporary" Bush tax cuts enshrined into law.

And, yes, our tax code is insanely unfair, and anyone who claims otherwise (like that worthless troll "You Gotta Be Kidding Me") is invited to suck my dick, but the solution for that isn't to starve Social Security.
Posted by keshmeshi]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:52:51 -0800 The Stranger
Yes, we need to reign in the cost of Social Security so it can exist in perpetuity. But you know what won't do that? Changing the cost of living increases to chained CPI so the federal government can raid the Social Security trust to close the deficit. If we switch to chained CPI it should be *solely* to ensure Social Security's longevity, but your buddies in the Republican Party are too busy salivating over stealing our money.
Posted by keshmeshi]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:46:47 -0800 The Stranger
But I think we need to absolutely soak the rich. It's for their own good: Throughout history, when we have had great economic inequality, the rich are the ones who end up missing their heads or lined up against the executioner's wall (along with their lackeys, usually)

Greed is one of the worst human impulses, and Reagan put a kindly face on it. It's time to reign it in for the sake of the nation.
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:36:10 -0800 The Stranger Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:22:21 -0800 The Stranger else knows that we are paying fucking BILLIONS of dollars into the (illegal) Iraq and Afghanistan (and Pakistan) (and Yemen) (and Iran) wars, --($3.2-4 trillion," no kidding? that's a lot!)--, to say nothing of the various 'black budgets' and covert wars that we're engaged in, as well as the cost of maintaining all our 800+ bases around the world, also all that VA care + pensions for veteran soldiers. And I'm SURE that military contractors actually charge a completely legitimate and reasonable price for their goods and services too.

I'm quite certain all that was very carefully budgeted for and wasn't done basically off the books by a previous president, getting us into a budget deficit "crisis" years later, from which we now need "austerity" from the lower classes to fix.

Yep, nothing to balance from that end of the spectrum; better to screw the little people again by reducing social security and medicare. Reducing the... --oh what are they called again?, ah yes: "entitlements". Such a lovely loaded word.

Sorta like the "entitlements" of paying very little (or nothing) in taxes that the rich & corporations seem to get.
Posted by treacle]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:11:19 -0800 The Stranger
We can't have low taxes while also having a huge military (and a highly inefficient for-profit health care system). That's what budget hawks should be fighting about, not Social Security.
Posted by ScrawnyKayaker]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:10:35 -0800 The Stranger
Yes, we all need to make sacrifices, but for some reason you think it is best that the people who have been sacrificing nonstop since the 70s, should sacrifice even more so that the top earners can sacrifice even less.

We are talking about payroll taxes, the largest tax burden carried by the lower classes (sales tax is too variable to use here). So when you are talking about raising them 2%, that is around $500-$1,000 a year for poorer households. That is the difference between making rent, affording medicine, or feeding your children.

So pardon me if I think it is better for the nation that the rich pay an additional 1% so that poor people can eat and have medicine. I know having to go without that new luxury car or having to only travel for a few months a year is a real tragedy too, but the rich need to start shouldering a fair tax burden.

When we ask 16% of people living in poverty, and 15% of people earning $2,000,000 a year of capital gains, there is a serious problem. Hell, I pay over 33%...not that I mind funding my government, but why should I pay that much while people much richer and more comfortable pay less? It is baldly unfair.

But hey, you aren't poor so who gives a fuck if they starve or get sick? The richest among us need a few tens of thousands more dollars a year to send to the Caymans, right?
Posted by Theodore Gorath]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:09:46 -0800 The Stranger Posted by bareboards]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 10:52:58 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Cascadian]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 10:28:04 -0800 The Stranger
Social Security is paid for by its eventual recipients, with surplus tax collections held in a trust fund. As of today, it's sitting on a sea of cash (forced by law to be invested in Treasury "nonmarketable securities") of over $2.5 Trillion.

(Don't believe it? Go poke around on the Treasury's website, find the latest MSPD and look at the line "Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund.")

Medicare, too, is self-funded. It's surplus/trust fund is over $60 Billion right now, also invested in Treasury bonds. It's the line right after the Old-Age & Survivors one.

The only way either of these affects the federal budget is through the accounting canard of counting these separate programs as part of the national budget for income purposes. Sure, it was fun while they were accumulating their surpluses. Conservatives, who hated the social programs they represented anyway, could use those surplus collections to pretend that the rest of the budget was balanced enough that they could afford giant tax breaks, especially for the rich. But now... Now that we not only aren't accumulating such large surpluses, but have to start tapping those surplus funds for the purpose intended (i.e. the intergenerational population dip), the budget not only looks more awful, but it's exacerbated by needing to pay it back.

So, fuck you and that stupid lie you're repeating. They're "entitlements" because we fucking paid into a system designed and fully funded to provide those benefits.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 10:13:42 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 10:09:29 -0800 The Stranger
Medicare's rising costs to now and in the future are all the result of high overall costs because of private insurance wrecking how we pay for health care. The fix is to simply kick out private insurers from the system as quickly as possible. In fact, some indications are that medical costs have already slowed and that the pessimistic projections for Medicare won't happen given the trends of the last few years and the implementation of Obamacare. But if we want to be sure, we just need to expand Medicare to include younger people in the pool, and move away from fee for service for everyone. Again, the problem isn't with benefits, but with the waste in our current system, thanks to private insurers and overbilling by providers.

It's also worth pointing out that all of the proposed methods of cutting these programs actually either cost money to the federal government (such as by shifting people from Medicare to Medicaid, or by increasing health costs as people lose coverage and get sicker) or just shift costs to individuals from government. It's all just making things worse for lower-income old people (and old people in general, which will eventually include all of us who don't die at a younger age), so that rich people don't have to pay their fair share. It's not an intergenerational issue. It's an issue of inequality across all generations.
Posted by Cascadian]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 10:08:01 -0800 The Stranger
No, asshole, we don't have to "reign in" Social Security and Medicare. We need to eliminate the cap on Social Security contributions and move toward a single-payer health insurance system. And we need to tell this weak, gutless president that we will accept nothing short of that. Now go fuck off and die.

Posted by tired of the bullshit]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 10:06:00 -0800 The Stranger
AND since we are a society that is driving the wages of the 99% downward those children and grandchildren are going to have an even harder time taking care of themselves let alone their parents and grandparents.
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 10:03:03 -0800 The Stranger Posted by floater]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:49:50 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:35:01 -0800 The Stranger The point is that we can make up the revenue we desperately need to run the nation from taxing the wealthiest another 1% percent, rather than tax the poorest another 2%.

Catalina Vel-DuRay @22: Yes, I am hard on the rich, but the rich are parasites.

I think we're getting to the essence of how the Republicans won the rhetorical war, even if they don't realize it. Progressives, as much as conservatives, have come to believe that we can continue to get all the government we want without paying higher taxes ourselves. We just have to find someone else to tax. And yet, dollar-wise, we've recovered only a minor portion of the revenues from restoring the Clinton tax rates for incomes over $400K/$450K. And good luck with Medicare now that the baby boomers are retiring.

The politicians, including Obama, have been so busy pandering to the middle class that the poor, suffering middle class has come to believe that it deserves the lifestyle it used to have during the halcyon days of American empire without having to make any smart sacrifices (as opposed to the sacrifices that have already been forced upon us).

Yes, I believe in Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and Obamacare, I believe in slashing military spending, I believe in a progressive tax system, I believe that balancing the budget at a time like this is nuts, but the only way we're going to get a real progressive moment in this country is when the 98% or 99% realize that collective sacrifice starts with us.
Posted by cressona]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:34:39 -0800 The Stranger Posted by floater]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:27:08 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Fenrox]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:13:21 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Oshtur Vishanti]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:10:13 -0800 The Stranger Posted by screed]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:06:57 -0800 The Stranger
My hope is that Americans are now getting tired of that song and Obama will, as the featured excerpt states, campaign and frame the issue. Republicans come into the debate already looking bad from the fiscal cliff battle, so Obama already has an advantage. If the poll numbers are bad enough - meaning that Obama is winning the message - then we may not see a drastic slashing of government assistance... er, I mean entitlements.
Posted by floater]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:03:40 -0800 The Stranger