Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff

[brickhistory]

Obama got his tax hike when the Republicans caved a month or so ago. He gained $600B more in taxes without having to cut a dime.

This cuts $85B.

Pretty good deal for Obama.

And since 1/2 of it comes from defense, he's fine with it.

Bye ICBMs, bye new subs, bye 100K troops. He really doesn't care about you. Actually, doesn't really like you to tell the truth.

I will be directly impacted when sequestration hits.

And I say Bring It.

Then when the government funding showdown happens next month, I say call his bluff again.

We are broke.

[TreeA10]

The Democrats in the Senate have not passed a budget since The One took office. They have "let it ride" using the baseline budgeting rules to get increases in spending without having to actually vote thus gaining plausible deny-ability regarding the debt. Republicans have been beat over the head with blame at every opportunity by Obama and Democrats since Obama took office and have done a piss poor job at getting any traction to get anything done. The sequestration was Obama's idea despite his lies to the contrary. Woodward wrote a great article on it, Google it. This might be the only play the Republicans have and I'm good with it. I'm hoping on March 2nd, when the country realizes it didn't explode overnight, that cuts can actually be made and we'll be okay.

[nsplayr]

The Democrats in the Senate have not passed a budget since The One took office.

Close but not quite, April 2009. Try to be accurate in your criticisms since it literally took me 1 minute on google to figure out the correct answer rather than assume.

They have "let it ride" using the baseline budgeting rules to get increases in spending without having to actually vote thus gaining plausible deny-ability regarding the debt.

Except for the fact that Congress has to vote for appropriations bills which actually authorize the spending of money. You're right that it's politically easier to not have a budget because then no one can saddle you with the negative aspects of the choices you've made (ask Paul Ryan about this) and I'm sure that's part of why they're doing it. The President puts out a budget each year (which means Jack and Sh*t 90% of the time) and it's usually not one of the year's political winners on either side of the Congressional aisle or to the American people.

All that being said, you as a Congressman still vote to spend each and every dollar via appropriations bills, not sure how that provides "plausible deniability" WRT to spending money because you either were a "yay" or not.

The sequestration was Obama's idea despite his lies to the contrary. Woodward wrote a great article on it, Google it. This might be the only play the Republicans have and I'm good with it.

It was his staff's idea to create the sequester to avert a default in 2011, yes. But who's to blame for the Super Committee or Congress at large for not acting to identify smarter, more sensible cuts? That's the bigger question and what's relevant now. I can tell you what the polls say, 49% would blame Congressional GOP, 31% would blame Obama, 11% would blame both. Wanna know why I think a plurality of people think that, because who proposed what in the summer of 2011 is largely irrelevant now, but it's clear who's job it was to avert the sequester (Congress) and they've had about a year and a half to make that happen and they've failed.

This is perhaps the only reason some Democrats won't be terribly upset if we let the sequester happen for a short time to further turn the heat up on the GOP to make concessions and negotiate a better set of deficit reduction measures.

I'm hoping on March 2nd, when the country realizes it didn't explode overnight, that cuts can actually be made and we'll be okay.

It's a soft deadline kinda like the Fiscal Cliff. It doesn't "explode" overnight but it's bad and the longer it goes on the worse it gets. Unlike the hard deadlines like the debt ceiling or a bill to fund the government (which BTW comes due 27 Mar 13), you can go over these deadlines without the effects being immediately catastrophic, doesn't mean that the long-term outcomes wouldn't be bad.

[Day Man]

The President puts out a budget each year...

Paul Ryan, but still...

[BitteEinBit]

Close but not quite, April 2009. Try to be accurate in your criticisms since it literally took me 1 minute on google to figure out the correct answer rather than assume.

So, once in four years?? Awesome record!! I wonder if can get promoted if I do my job once every 4 years....

[nsplayr]

Paul Ryan, but still...

Yep, you mean the Paul Ryan that I mentioned in the previous sentence? He knows, just like the President, that putting out a budget with your name on it doesn't mean jack in terms of actual governing unless it's adopted by both Houses of Congress.

They can be good or bad for political posturing or as a starting point for real negotiations, but on their own, budgets don't mean anything; appropriations bills are where the rubber meets the road.

So, once in four years?? Awesome record!! I wonder if can get promoted if I do my job once every 4 years....

Like I said, there's plenty of room for criticism without resorting to arguments that are untrue (i.e. "They haven't passed a budget since Obama took over!").

Edited February 24, 2013 by nsplayr

[ClearedHot]

Obama got his tax hike when the Republicans caved a month or so ago. He gained GAINED AND SPENT $600B more in taxes without having to cut a dime.

FIFY

Edited February 24, 2013 by ClearedHot

[nsplayr]

He gained $600B more in taxes without having to cut a dime [in the fiscal cliff deal] over 10 years. This [the sequester] cuts $85B in one year.

FIFY.

Let's talk apples to apples here. If it happens long-term, the sequester = $1.2 trillion over 9 years, revenues raised from the fiscal cliff deal = $600 billion over 10 years. Which sounds larger now? The spending cuts, which are exactly twice as big as the revenues raised.

And all this is on top of the ~$1 trillion in spending cuts (over 10 years), and $0 in additional revenues, signed into law in the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Edited February 24, 2013 by nsplayr

[Finance_Guy]

I'll have to side with FG on this, the regs are broad enough in some cases to allow rationale thought for flexibility...but the more they are abused the more likely the flexibility will be taken away.

Yes it is a small amount, but it is a cultural, mental shift that is important...

You can't talk about who needs to make cuts without finding ways for yourself to make cuts.

Thanks Tonka...

Why do you want to screw over the working man? Sure there's plenty of waste to go around, but there are much worse examples in contracting and the general budget (use or lose).

So if I get furloughed, I'm not getting screwed over??? It is time to share the wealth if this deal goes down. And reading the other posts, I guess I need to clarify the JFTR. The JFTR only authorizes the payment IF the commander and TMO approve, it is not an automatic. So this conditional entitlement, if approved, creates a duplicate entitlement IMO. I have presented this messed up entitlement to the AF Per Diem Committee points of contact when THEY asked for ideas to reduce travel dollars which stemmed from an OMB Memo. People need to keep in mind entitlements are for an intended purpose to reimburse for costs and not create a windfall of money for those concerned. BAH is to pay for a place to live and put your stuff. If you still receive BAH and don't have a mortgage or rent payment, then fine you are making out, but don't then go ask for Uncle to pay for your storage of your stuff too. Let's hope the JFTR gets changed, but I highly doubt it, but you never know.

When the I-TDY requirements/entitlements first came out in 2005, if single members wanted the AF to pay for HHGs storage while deployed, the member had to submit a justification to AF/A1PA as to why their BAH would not cover the payment of storage. A year later AF removed that requirement because the Army wasn't doing it that way. But you know what the Army did, if they paid for your Storage, then you lost your BAH. AF didn't look at that part of it. That makes sense too, if you don't have a mortgage or rent payment, AF pays your HHGs storage, and you reside in Gov't QTRs at the deployed location, then why should you get BAH.

And one last point on this is when the commander does approve the payment, that comes out of his pot-o-money which will take away from other unit requirements. So commanders need to make a decision and say, well, do I pay for Major Snuffy's HHG storage when he gets BAH too, or do we buy those flat screen TVs we need for the break-room. I'd just hope if you see your unit scrimping to buy things needed for the mission, then the CC needs to to deny this entitlement. It just doesn't make sense to forego certain things to try and line the pockets of the "working man".

[TreeA10]

So, once in four years?? Awesome record!! I wonder if can get promoted if I do my job once every 4 years....

Damn, I made an error and was only correct 3 out of 4, or 75%. Guess the political professor does not believe in partial credit. 75% of rounds on target is still a kill so I'll take it.

[BitteEinBit]

Damn, I made an error and was only correct 3 out of 4, or 75%. Guess the political professor does not believe in partial credit. 75% of rounds on target is still a kill so I'll take it.

I think 75% is still passing on your PME tests....you're promotable!! 75% also good enough for the PT test...you passed!

Nothing wrong with 75%...if 75% wasn't good enough, they would make it a failing grade. Don't worry though..the way things are going this year, I think your grade will improve to 80% (1 out of 5)!

[HU&W]

Sequestration cuts and their effects, as described by the White House.

[TreeA10]

Got a 95% on my last PT test. First time I didn't score 100. Promotions aren't a factor since I retired a year ago so I'll need to find some other form of harrassment and abuse to fill in the deficit. Conversing with liberals who use illiberal logic seems to be working.

[Vetter]

I wonder how much it cost Michelle Obama to attend the Oscars tonight? Who picked up the tab?

Edit - I'm an idiot...didn't notice it was via VTC. My bad. Nonetheless, I still think its inappropriate.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Vetter

[Butters]

I wonder how much it cost Michelle Obama to attend the Oscars tonight? Who picked up the tab?

Did you watch the Oscars? Since when did she "attend" the Oscars.

Appearing via streaming video from the White House

I do not think is costs much to stream video.

Not an Obama fan, but you should try to get your facts straight. When you get them wrong it makes you look like a liberal A-Hole.

[ThreeHoler]

I wonder how much it cost Michelle Obama to attend the Oscars tonight? Who picked up the tab?

Her DTS AO told her to do it by SVTC.

[Vetter]

No I didn't. Foot in mouth. She still sucks. Hollywood does too.

[Butters]

No I didn't. Foot in mouth. She still sucks. Hollywood does too.

Yes, now you have your facts straight!

[HU&W]

Watching the debt is fun.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

[Rusty Pipes]

FIFY.

Let's talk apples to apples here. If it happens long-term, the sequester = $1.2 trillion over 9 years, revenues raised from the fiscal cliff deal = $600 billion over 10 years. Which sounds larger now? The spending cuts, which are exactly twice as big as the revenues raised.

And all this is on top of the ~$1 trillion in spending cuts (over 10 years), and $0 in additional revenues, signed into law in the Budget Control Act of 2011.

If you want to talk apples to apples then you should probably do that. I must have missed that day in civics class in high school or that day in my college PoliSci class where Congressional rules were completely thrown out the window. POTUS simply proposed $1 Trillion in "proposed" spending cuts over a 10 year period. 1) cutting proposed spending doesn't cut anything. If you spent $50 million on a program this year, but proposed spending $100 million on it next year... actually spending only $75 million on it is what POTUS claims is a $25 million budget cut instead of the reality where it is a $25 million increase. 2) Since all money is appropriated by Congress then the President can propose all he wants and it means nothing. So when did the Congressional rules change that says the sitting Congress today can dictate the budget/appropriations of future Congresses?

I'm only a pilot, therefore I'm not too smart. When you take what the Federal Government spent this year and then take what the Government is going to spend next year... if the number for next year is bigger then you didn't cut spending. Only in Washington would that make sense...

[nsplayr]

POTUS simply proposed $1 Trillion in "proposed" spending cuts over a 10 year period.

What are you referencing here? The $1T I am talking about were the cuts signed into law with the BCA of 2011, not any "proposed" cuts that someone would like to see.

1) cutting proposed spending doesn't cut anything.

Ok then genius, how do you cut spending then? Cuts on spending that is actual no-shit law are real cuts because if nothing changed, that money would be spent.

So when did the Congressional rules change that says the sitting Congress today can dictate the budget/appropriations of future Congresses?

They can't, that's the problem with long-term planning because people and circumstances change. That's pretty much part of life though, not sure how you can really expect Congress to somehow legislate around the desires and circumstances of their successors. You can make it more difficult to change by institutionalizing a program or a budget or by mandating this or that, but like you said, anything is waiverable.

When you take what the Federal Government spent this year and then take what the Government is going to spend next year... if the number for next year is bigger then you didn't cut spending. Only in Washington would that make sense...

When you take what Washington was going to spend next year under current law and compare it to new law that decreases that number, that's called cutting spending.

Are you looking for absolute cuts in spending year to year until we reach, what, zero? Are you adjusting for inflation? If you literally just kept debt growth below inflation you would eliminate all deficits right there in time [debt sustainability].

I just don't your criticism...all sides in Washington are working off of CBO projections for the future based on current law, there literally isn't another way to look at it.

Edited February 25, 2013 by nsplayr

[Vertigo]

I wonder how much it cost Michelle Obama to attend the Oscars tonight? Who picked up the tab?

Edit - I'm an idiot...didn't notice it was via VTC. My bad. Nonetheless, I still think its inappropriate.

Highly inappropriate. She's setting quite the precedent.

https://www.nytimes.c...s-audience.html

Edited February 26, 2013 by Vertigo

[Vetter]

She's still a commie fuckwad.

[Rusty Pipes]

Ok then genius, how do you cut spending then? Cuts on spending that is actual no-shit law are real cuts because if nothing changed, that money would be spent.

Are you looking for absolute cuts in spending year to year until we reach, what, zero? Are you adjusting for inflation? If you literally just kept debt growth below inflation you would eliminate all deficits right there in time [debt sustainability].

Well Genius... you freeze Government spending at a minimum. You don't hire anymore Federal employees. I'm sitting in meetings everyday right now talking about sequestration and the SES bosses keep saying how terrible things are going to be and then in the same breath say that there is no hiring freeze and to keep the process going. I run a small office of just 6 people and was just told last week that two more positions were funded making $90-110K per year! Let’s see... how about we eliminate the countless programs that just don't work. How about we eliminate entire Departments that the Federal government has no business running in the first place... we'll start with the Department of Education. How about we stop aid to foreign countries... and I'm not talking about just the countless poor third world countries where we don't want them to harbor terrorists; let’s stop aid to Ireland and Spain. Yeah, we give foreign aid to effing Ireland and Spain!!!

How about this novel concept... "What did we spend last year? Hmmm... let’s not spend as much this year!" Saying you will take money from the Military and give it to some Green Energy company instead isn't cutting spending. When what you spend next year is billions of dollars more than what you are spending this year, you did not cut spending!!!

[HU&W]

I didn't see any in Ireland or Spain, but we do spend $15M-$25M per year in foreign aid to China. So in other words, we borrow money from China that we then give to China and later pay back with interest to China.

https://foreignassistance.gov/countryIntro.aspx