Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff

[HU&W]

Interesting take on all of this by Ben Shapiro.

President Obama is one of the great political knife-fighters in modern history. He is a failed president -- his economy is bleak, his foreign policy bleaker, his vision for American even bleaker still. But he wins.

He wins by losing.

President Obama has only had two major policy victories during his tenure: the stimulus package and Obamacare. Both are massively unpopular. The stimulus package launched the tea party movement. Obamacare led to the Republican wipeout of 2010.

Then Obama began to lose. He wasn't able to push forward climate change legislation or immigration reform or gun control or increased taxes before the election of 2012. And he won a sweeping electoral victory. The strategy was -- and is -- simple. Obama pursues policies that are widely popular and then purposefully sinks them by casting Republicans as obstructionists.

He is not truly interested in immigration reform; Republicans are fools to think that he is. Obama wants to raise the issue of immigration reform so that he can demonize Republicans as anti-Hispanic. That's why Obama ignores the broad support for an immigration plan that would provide border security once and for all and then deal with the illegal immigrants who live here. Instead, he proposes an immigration plan that would do nothing for border security while essentially granting gradual amnesty to those already here -- and to millions more who will cross the border unmolested.

By doing so, Obama puts himself in a no-lose situation: If immigration reform passes, he takes credit; if not, he blames Republicans as racists who simply don't like Hispanics. The media will abet this little game. Suddenly a failed proposal from Obama becomes a political winner for him.

The same holds true of the sequester. President Obama originated the sequester. It was his idea to put into place an automatic cut in the rate of spending increase, and it was his idea to focus those cuts on the defense industry. Republicans, idiotically believing that Obama was interested in honest negotiation, voted for sequestration. Now Obama runs to the cameras to suggest that if these cuts go forward, the world will end. All he asks to avert this earth-shattering crisis is a few tax increases. The media helps him pimp this narrative.

Again, it's a no-lose for Obama. If sequestration is averted, Obama takes the credit. If not, he gets to cast Republicans as hard-hearted Scrooges who want Tiny Tim to starve to death. Another failed proposal, another victory for Obama.

What does all this achieve? It achieves electoral victory. Once Democrats have enough votes in the House and Senate to ram through their agenda, the game is over: Obama forces through his policies. America moves to the left.

Obama understands what Republicans do not: Politics is a waiting game. If nothing gets done with a split government, Obama is happy to live with that. Meanwhile, he'll demagogue each and every issue until he gets the votes he needs to truly transform America.

[nsplayr]

At least Shapiro gives Obama credit to being a good politician, I'm sure that point was not conceded in 2009/2010. But hey, at least the President isn't taking money from the Friends of Hamas like his ole' buddy Hagel huh? SMH...

I honestly don't know what his criticism is. He's accusing the President of proposing policies that are popular, blaming Republicans if they don't pass them while taking credit if they do pass. Sounds pretty par for the course if you ask me.

Edited February 28, 2013 by nsplayr

[disgruntledemployee]

At least Shapiro gives Obama credit to being a good politician, I'm sure that point was not conceded in 2009/2010. But hey, at least the President isn't taking money from the Friends of Hamas like his ole' buddy Hagel huh? SMH...

I honestly don't know what his criticism is. He's accusing the President of proposing policies that are popular, blaming Republicans if they don't pass them while taking credit if they do pass. Sounds pretty par for the course if you ask me.

Let me spell out the criticism for you. Obama does not care about making anything better. He wants what he wants, not what you or I want. To get that, he needs to win the house. To win the house, he needs to manufacture enough crap to make everyone else look bad. Then we're fucked. So I hope that the dear people of the dear US finally see that the current President is not trying to help Americans achieve. Its like they voted for a Decepticon. Sure he looks like a shiney clean super duper SUV, but underneath, he's a robot in disguise. Someone make a picture and add it to the thread.

Out

[Buddy Spike]

Sure he looks like a shiney clean super duper SUV, but underneath, he's a robot in disguise. Someone make a picture and add it to the thread.

Out

Done

Edited March 1, 2013 by Buddy Spike

[Day Man]

[nsplayr]

Obama does not care about making anything better. He wants what he wants, not what you or I want.

Although the President's proposed solutions to many of our most recent problems consistently poll higher those of his opposition...but we won't worry about that since clearly you disagree and you are always right. He's clearly purposefully and willfully destroying the country. There couldn't possibly be a large number of people who actually agree with his policies or political approach. Inconceivable!

Sure he looks like a shiney clean super duper SUV, but underneath, he's a robot in disguise.

More than meets the eye indeed.

Edited March 1, 2013 by nsplayr

[Fuzz]

no you are right there are a lot of people that do and they are idiots or want their government aid check. This isn't a democracy, so just because the majority (barely) wants something doesn't mean the other half just rolls over and gives them free reign. Socialism/big government has yet to be sustainable anywhere in the world and its not inline with the founding intent of this nation, so yes the other side should continue to fight any proposals towards that end.

[nsplayr]

no you are right there are a lot of people that do and they are idiots or want their government aid check.

I'm am educated, informed, and not on welfare. I generally support the President's policies. I'm also able to get it through my brain that other smart, informed people are able to disagree and don't denigrate the (entire) other side to a bunch of idiots. Are you able to do the same? I'm not some person on youtube talking about my Obama phone, if you wanna have a real policy debate don't focus on those people because we've all got em.

This isn't a democracy, so just because the majority (barely) wants something doesn't mean the other half just rolls over and gives them free reign.

True, but while the minority does have rights and a significant amount of power in our system of government, the fact that something has majority support among the populace should probably signal that it will be supported by many reasonable politicians. They're supposed to be representing the people's interests, aren't they? Popularity doesn't always make good policy, but it makes no sense to elect others to represent your interests in Washington and then get all mad when they tend to support what is popular with their constituents.

Socialism/big government has yet to be sustainable anywhere in the world and its not inline with the founding intent of this nation, so yes the other side should continue to fight any proposals towards that end.

Opinions noted. While it can be dramatic and sometimes effective, falling on your sword out of principle typically only works once, technique only.

Edited March 1, 2013 by nsplayr

[disgruntledemployee]

I'm am educated, informed, and not on welfare. I generally support the President's policies. I'm also able to get it through my brain that other smart, informed people are able to disagree and don't denigrate the (entire) other side to a bunch of idiots. Are you able to do the same? I'm not some person on youtube talking about my Obama phone, if you wanna have a real policy debate don't focus on those people because we've all got em.

Blah blah blah

Where did you grow up? Ever know anyone on welfare? Ever had friends or family on public assistance? Ever work or know someone that worked welfare stuff? Ever know a lady that wanted more kids to get more welfare? When a President/Political Party/Government works hard to get more people on the gov't dole and tie political office to those people's livlihood of no work and pay, its a no brainer that they want Dems in office. If you know these types of people, then you begin to see their mentality that its cool/wonderful/fine/widely accepted/just dandy to be on any form of welfare and the more the better.

All those speeches basically say, hey, richie rich wants to cut your checks. Richie Rich needs to pay more, not you poor people.

I'd rather the man say something more like, get off your ass, get a job, and start taking care of yourself. Nah, would never happen, not his style.

Nevermind, I'd rather not know where you grew up.

PS: Strangely, this whole debate reminds me of that discussion about a jet trying to takeoff from a gigantic treadmill.

Out

[Fuzz]

Where did you grow up?

Out

If I remember from earlier discussions he grew up in Northern VA which would most likely make the answers no.

[nsplayr]

Where did you grow up? Ever know anyone on welfare? Ever had friends or family on public assistance? Ever work or know someone that worked welfare stuff? Ever know a lady that wanted more kids to get more welfare?

So do you really wanna know or what?

When a President/Political Party/Government works hard to get more people on the gov't dole and tie political office to those people's livlihood of no work and pay, its a no brainer that they want Dems in office. If you know these types of people, then you begin to see their mentality that its cool/wonderful/fine/widely accepted/just dandy to be on any form of welfare and the more the better.

Well if that's your assessment of the Democratic party no wonder you don't support them. I obviously have different views.

[lloyd christmas]

So do you really wanna know or what?

Fuck no.

Well if that's your assessment of the Democratic party no wonder you don't support them. I obviously have different views.

I would like to know what you think the Democratic party's plan is for the future of this country. In other words, if your party had complete control, where would we be in 20 years? Speak to the welfare state/entitlement programs, debts and deficits, size and capability of the military, immigration, gun control and education. I'd like to hear your views and see if they line up with what we have seen over the last 4 1/2 years or so.

[Grabby]

I would like to know what you think the Democratic party's plan is for the future of this country. In other words, if your party had complete control, where would we be in 20 years? Speak to the welfare state/entitlement programs, debts and deficits, size and capability of the military, immigration, gun control and education. I'd like to hear your views and see if they line up with what we have seen over the last 4 1/2 years or so.

Dude, didn't you know that it would be a hand-holding Utopia where children play in lollipop fields? Lazy shitbags would find a work ethic and contribute to the grand socialist nation while our one-time enemies vacationed to and lauded our beautiful land.

[nsplayr]

I would like to know what you think the Democratic party's plan is for the future of this country. In other words, if your party had complete control, where would we be in 20 years? Speak to the welfare state/entitlement programs, debts and deficits, size and capability of the military, immigration, gun control and education. I'd like to hear your views and see if they line up with what we have seen over the last 4 1/2 years or so.

If you're curious I'd check out the whitehouse.gov issues page and the 2012 Democratic Party planks, I'm pretty sure the answers are 6-9 seconds of googling away. I'm sure you know those things are aspirational rather than realistic, but it's not like this information is hidden.

Edited March 2, 2013 by nsplayr

[lloyd christmas]

If you're curious I'd check out the whitehouse.gov issues page and the 2012 Democratic Party planks, I'm pretty sure the answers are 6-9 seconds of googling away. I'm sure you know those things are aspirational rather than realistic, but it's not like this information is hidden.

Sorry, I was asking you for your opinion. The White House isnt the one posting 82000 replies on these threads. FWIW, your answer is exactly what I expected.

[nsplayr]

I would like to know what you think the Democratic party's plan is for the future of this country. In other words, if your party had complete control, where would we be in 20 years? Speak to the welfare state/entitlement programs, debts and deficits, size and capability of the military, immigration, gun control and education. I'd like to hear your views and see if they line up with what we have seen over the last 4 1/2 years or so.

Ok, since you specifically want my opinion:

Entitlement Programs: Solvent, efficient, Medicare (or something other unified, universal system) expanded to cover everyone

Debts and deficits: move toward external debt sustainability, focus on economic growth as the best way to combat debt

Size and capability of the military: matched to expected threats while accounting for unknowns, recap a modest "peace dividend" as major wars wind down without hollowing out the force

Immigration: pathway to citizenship for current illegals, secure borders, greatly expanded and simplified legal immigration system, temporary guest worker program

Gun Control: universal background checks for all purchases

Education: honestly I'm not that knowledgable on education policy

So those are my personal views in the broadest strokes possible, although when you boil down complex public policy into one sentence it pretty much all sounds like BS. Obviously neither party is a monolith but if I were King for a day this is what we'd pursue in the areas you asked about.

Care to add your own answers or clarify why this is relevant to the conversation?

Edited March 2, 2013 by nsplayr

[TreeA10]

Just looking at your suggestion for Entitlement Programs, I see you have no concept of reality and failed in your study of history. Let's look at the mutually exclusive concepts in the same sentence and see if they make sense. First, we have "solvent" combined with "expanded to cover everyone". We also have "efficient" and "Medicare" (substitute government run, if you like, but you get the idea). The original Medicare program was budgeted for $16B in 1965 with a forecast cost of $60+ billion in 1980. The actual cost was $110+ billion in 1980. The smartest guys in the room made a 100% error in estimates. Last year, Medicare was something in the neighborhood of $415B. How is that cost curve looking in the future? LIberal utopians can't add, ignore history, and remind me of gamblers that keep going to Vegas saying "But if you let me borrow the money, my system will work this time."

[nsplayr]

Without relitigating a past conversation (that's still very much going on in public policy circles), I strongly believe that a unified/universal healthcare system, of pretty much any variety, would be more cost effective than the system we have today, with the added benefit of covering every single person. If you don't believe that, fine, but it's a whole other can of worms to open up.

[disgruntledemployee]

Ok, since you specifically want my opinion:

Entitlement Programs: Solvent, efficient, Medicare (or something other unified, universal system) expanded to cover everyone

So those are my personal views in the broadest strokes possible, although when you boil down complex public policy into one sentence it pretty much all sounds like BS. Obviously neither party is a monolith but if I were King for a day this is what we'd pursue in the areas you asked about.

Care to add your own answers or clarify why this is relevant to the conversation?

Welfare? You know, food stamps, WIC, public housing, etc.

Unemplyment (federal subsidies)?

Taxes?

Minimum wage?

BTW, how do you make welfare solvent?

And lastly, since you didn't answer any questions on welfare and the current general welfare recipient mentality, let me clue you in. There is little work ethic and its all about gaining as much benefit as possible. They are experts at gaming the system to gain as much as possible. Its no longer the system it was intented to be, which was to help people get back up after falling upon hardship. Dems know this and count on the fear that Republicans want to take it all away and thus get the votes.

Out

[nsplayr]

Welfare? You know, food stamps, WIC, public housing, etc.

Unemplyment (federal subsidies)?

Taxes?

Minimum wage?

What is this "Ask nsplayr about public policy" thread? I can continue to field questions but I'm not sure why you guys really care.

BTW, how do you make welfare solvent?

You make programs like social security and medicare solvent by ensuring they are adequately funded to pay out the level of benefits you anticipate. If there is a gap you either reduce future benefits or increase funding for the program...pretty simple concept at the big-picture level.

And lastly, since you didn't answer any questions on welfare and the current general welfare recipient mentality, let me clue you in.

I don't remember your question but ok, we've got your answer. My answer to what I think you were probably asking is that your views on the mentality of those in poverty are not the same as mine, and thus the policies I think are right are probably different too.

[nsplayr]

Awesome video...can't get it to embed.

Edited March 3, 2013 by nsplayr

[RASH]

You make programs like social security and medicare solvent by ensuring they are adequately funded to pay out the level of benefits you anticipate. If there is a gap you either reduce future benefits or increase funding for the program...pretty simple concept at the big-picture level.

So now I'm not only responsible for my own family, but someone else's also? Two questions for you...

1) How do you propose reducing future benefits?

2) How do you propose increasing funding?

I'm pretty sure I know your answer--just want to "hear" you say it...

[nsplayr]

You talking about social security or medicare specifically? Or some other program? Gotta be more specific if you want specific answers.

In broad terms you reduce future benefits by changing the program to include less generous benefits for future enrollees, you can even reduce benefits for current enrollees if you're feeling bold.

In broad terms you increase funding by either making the direct users of the program pay more (co-pays, payroll taxes, etc.) or you increase taxes in general and specifically divert that increase into that program, or you just divert more spending into that program while equally reducing spending on other things using the same revenue base.

Not rocket surgery here guys...take a class in public policy.

Edited March 3, 2013 by nsplayr

[RASH]

You talking about social security or medicare specifically? Or some other program? Gotta be more specific if you want specific answers.

Specifics don't matter--you answered exactly as expected...

In broad terms you reduce future benefits by changing the program to include less generous benefits for future enrollees, you can even reduce benefits for current enrollees if you're feeling bold.

So explain to me again why I should be forced to support your family AND mine...

In broad terms you increase funding by either making the direct users of the program pay more (co-pays, payroll taxes, etc.) or you increase taxes in general and specifically divert that increase into that program, or you just divert more spending into that program while equally reducing spending on other things using the same revenue base.

How about we just get the government out of the entitlement business altogether?

Not rocket surgery here guys...take a class in public policy.

Public Policy 101: The Constitution

[nsplayr]

So you don't want your money contributing to the wellbeing anyone else except yourself and your family, you want the government to provide no "entitlement" benefits to its citizens whatsoever, and you're looking to base all rational analysis of public policy on one single source document rather than the boatload of additional available data.

Sounds like you don't want any government at all. There are places in the world where that can be arranged; I've been so some of them and maybe you have too.

Good luck with that and good luck selling your vision to the voting public!

Edited March 3, 2013 by nsplayr