|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 01 2013 02:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
We need to do something about entitlement spending. Stating otherwise is laughably ignorant. Social Security needs modest cuts and Medicare needs some pretty big ones. Otherwise I don't see how we're going to pay for everything 20 years down the road.
Counterpoint: No we don't, no it isn't, and no they don't. Perhaps in 20 years we will need modest cuts or increases in FICA (which is laughably easy for SS by simply moving the cap up slightly), and by then surely we will have some less insane healthcare system. The best proposal imo would be eliminating Medicaid, radically increasing the Medicare tax, and extending Medicare to everyone, which also gives you a nice chunk of healthy people in the "insurance" pool like the mandate is supposed to do. While this would increase the notional tax burden, it might not even necessarily decrease the post-tax, post-insurance income and profit of employees and employers, and it would make it a lot easier to stop being the most inefficient healthcare system in the history of the world, and certainly reduce the portion of GDP going to healthcare.
|
On January 01 2013 04:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
400k for individuals 450k for couples 40% estate tax.
Why do we still subsidize European defense spending there has to be a couple billion there to save.
I agree NATO has long outlived its need and outside of Germany for Africa and middle eastern support we don't really need all these cold war installations like we used to. I still have no idea why we're paying so much into a UN that barely does anything for us. Let the rest of the world fund an equal share if they aren't decent enough to be respectful for what we do every day for them.
And you can't really deny hunter that entitlement spending is and is getting more and more out of control by the year. Too bad neither party will do anything about it until it eats us all up.
|
On January 01 2013 05:02 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2013 02:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
We need to do something about entitlement spending. Stating otherwise is laughably ignorant. Social Security needs modest cuts and Medicare needs some pretty big ones. Otherwise I don't see how we're going to pay for everything 20 years down the road. Counterpoint: No we don't, no it isn't, and no they don't. Perhaps in 20 years we will need modest cuts or increases in FICA (which is laughably easy for SS by simply moving the cap up slightly), and by then surely we will have some less insane healthcare system. The best proposal imo would be eliminating Medicaid, radically increasing the Medicare tax, and extending Medicare to everyone, which also gives you a nice chunk of healthy people in the "insurance" pool like the mandate is supposed to do. While this would increase the notional tax burden, it might not even necessarily decrease the post-tax, post-insurance income and profit of employees and employers, and it would make it a lot easier to stop being the most inefficient healthcare system in the history of the world, and certainly reduce the portion of GDP going to healthcare.
Someone already said raise the FICA bracket - I don't see how that would be less painful. It's a 12.4% tax on people that already pay more than their fair share. If you are one of those people that's a pretty painful new burden. Coversely all something like using chained CPI would just limit the increase in benefits. So you still get a benefit that grows over time it just grows a bit more slowly.
As for you comments on healthcare - sure, major healthcare reform targeted at lowering costs would be ideal. But we just went through major and painful healthcare reforms so I doubt anything new will get done anytime soon. In other words, that wad was already blown.
|
On January 01 2013 05:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2013 05:02 HunterX11 wrote:On January 01 2013 02:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
We need to do something about entitlement spending. Stating otherwise is laughably ignorant. Social Security needs modest cuts and Medicare needs some pretty big ones. Otherwise I don't see how we're going to pay for everything 20 years down the road. Counterpoint: No we don't, no it isn't, and no they don't. Perhaps in 20 years we will need modest cuts or increases in FICA (which is laughably easy for SS by simply moving the cap up slightly), and by then surely we will have some less insane healthcare system. The best proposal imo would be eliminating Medicaid, radically increasing the Medicare tax, and extending Medicare to everyone, which also gives you a nice chunk of healthy people in the "insurance" pool like the mandate is supposed to do. While this would increase the notional tax burden, it might not even necessarily decrease the post-tax, post-insurance income and profit of employees and employers, and it would make it a lot easier to stop being the most inefficient healthcare system in the history of the world, and certainly reduce the portion of GDP going to healthcare. Someone already said raise the FICA bracket - I don't see how that would be less painful. It's a 12.4% tax on people that already pay more than their fair share. If you are one of those people that's a pretty painful new burden. Coversely all something like using chained CPI would just limit the increase in benefits. So you still get a benefit that grows over time it just grows a bit more slowly. As for you comments on healthcare - sure, major healthcare reform targeted at lowering costs would be ideal. But we just went through major and painful healthcare reforms so I doubt anything new will get done anytime soon. In other words, that wad was already blown.
I don't think the government should worry about what is "fair"--which people don't agree on in the first place, as much as doing the most to help the most people it can. And while it is true that the FICA cap is low enough now that it would actually hit people who aren't yet in the category of rich people with a lower tax rate than the poor, the employee's share is only half your figure, or 6.2%.
Also it is quite possible that there won't be major healthcare reform anytime soon, considering that it has been imminent for the last 60 years and here we are with Obamacare which is barely a major reform at all. But the point is that we don't know what the situation will be in 20 years, and pre-emptive bloodletting based on the possible future is not about long-term planning so much as ideological purity.
|
On January 01 2013 05:43 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2013 05:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 01 2013 05:02 HunterX11 wrote:On January 01 2013 02:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
We need to do something about entitlement spending. Stating otherwise is laughably ignorant. Social Security needs modest cuts and Medicare needs some pretty big ones. Otherwise I don't see how we're going to pay for everything 20 years down the road. Counterpoint: No we don't, no it isn't, and no they don't. Perhaps in 20 years we will need modest cuts or increases in FICA (which is laughably easy for SS by simply moving the cap up slightly), and by then surely we will have some less insane healthcare system. The best proposal imo would be eliminating Medicaid, radically increasing the Medicare tax, and extending Medicare to everyone, which also gives you a nice chunk of healthy people in the "insurance" pool like the mandate is supposed to do. While this would increase the notional tax burden, it might not even necessarily decrease the post-tax, post-insurance income and profit of employees and employers, and it would make it a lot easier to stop being the most inefficient healthcare system in the history of the world, and certainly reduce the portion of GDP going to healthcare. Someone already said raise the FICA bracket - I don't see how that would be less painful. It's a 12.4% tax on people that already pay more than their fair share. If you are one of those people that's a pretty painful new burden. Coversely all something like using chained CPI would just limit the increase in benefits. So you still get a benefit that grows over time it just grows a bit more slowly. As for you comments on healthcare - sure, major healthcare reform targeted at lowering costs would be ideal. But we just went through major and painful healthcare reforms so I doubt anything new will get done anytime soon. In other words, that wad was already blown. I don't think the government should worry about what is "fair"--which people don't agree on in the first place, as much as doing the most to help the most people it can. And while it is true that the FICA cap is low enough now that it would actually hit people who aren't yet in the category of rich people with a lower tax rate than the poor, the employee's share is only half your figure, or 6.2%. Also it is quite possible that there won't be major healthcare reform anytime soon, considering that it has been imminent for the last 60 years and here we are with Obamacare which is barely a major reform at all. But the point is that we don't know what the situation will be in 20 years, and pre-emptive bloodletting based on the possible future is not about long-term planning so much as ideological purity.
Employees pay 6.2% directly and 6.2% indirectly (lower base pay and benefits). So the reality is that the employee basically pays the whole thing, half is just hidden. If you are self-employed you pay it all directly.
And no, entitlement reform its not about ideological purity. Entitlement spending is a real now and future issue because the federal budget is a real now and future issue. Discretionary spending has already taken it on the chin (too much so when it comes to investments) and military spending is largely under control now that the wars are over. All that remains are entitlements and they must be kept under control or they'll just crowd out all other spending (or taxes will have to go WAY up - higher rates, VAT, etc.).
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/72070179/Entitlements2.PNG)
Source
|
|
|
As long as they vote in a day or two they are still fine because they can just have everything apply retroactively.
|
Maybe I'm being too conspiracy minded but what if Obama made those Congress remarks knowing Republicans would react and their bruised egos would never allow them to vote on a deal thus giving Obama and the Democrats the ball on giving tax cuts to the Middle Class etc.
|
Sec. Clinton's doctors reveal blood clot is behind right ear between brain and skull. No stroke - no neurological damage, recovering.
|
On January 01 2013 05:15 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2013 04:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
400k for individuals 450k for couples 40% estate tax.
Why do we still subsidize European defense spending there has to be a couple billion there to save. I agree NATO has long outlived its need and outside of Germany for Africa and middle eastern support we don't really need all these cold war installations like we used to. I still have no idea why we're paying so much into a UN that barely does anything for us. Let the rest of the world fund an equal share if they aren't decent enough to be respectful for what we do every day for them. And you can't really deny hunter that entitlement spending is and is getting more and more out of control by the year. Too bad neither party will do anything about it until it eats us all up.
'Normal' US UN contributions barely register on the budget of the federal government, somewhere in the range of 600 million/year (and there's always issues with the US paying them in the first place). You're also not paying them to do things for you, you're paying them to do things for the world as a whole.
|
Tragically incompetent. Ugh.
|
On January 01 2013 07:02 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2013 05:15 Sermokala wrote:On January 01 2013 04:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
400k for individuals 450k for couples 40% estate tax.
Why do we still subsidize European defense spending there has to be a couple billion there to save. I agree NATO has long outlived its need and outside of Germany for Africa and middle eastern support we don't really need all these cold war installations like we used to. I still have no idea why we're paying so much into a UN that barely does anything for us. Let the rest of the world fund an equal share if they aren't decent enough to be respectful for what we do every day for them. And you can't really deny hunter that entitlement spending is and is getting more and more out of control by the year. Too bad neither party will do anything about it until it eats us all up. 'Normal' US UN contributions barely register on the budget of the federal government, somewhere in the range of 600 million/year (and there's always issues with the US paying them in the first place). You're also not paying them to do things for you, you're paying them to do things for the world as a whole.
And with that, the rest of the world could put more in, allowing the US to put less in in theory, though it would likely just be that our relative amount would go down as everyone else goes up. The US will always probably put the most in, just cause our economy is so large, but other countries could certainly put more in.
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=ST/ADM/SER.B/853
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Funding
|
On January 01 2013 02:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 22:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On December 31 2012 18:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:Raising taxes to 39.6 percent on the Obama Rich would yield around $40 billion to $45 billion in added tax revenue in the first year of the president's plan. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100321181/How_Much_Money_Would_Taxing_the_Rich_Raiseso this is clearly not about revenue, as $40-$80 billion (the range I've seen suggested) a year is peanuts compared to what we need. will any Democrat admit that it was always about punishing the rich, and not raising more revenue? and can you at least admit that Dems are willing to hike taxes on everyone and tank the economy if they don't get to punish the rich? The article says it's getting it's numbers from the Tax Policy Center, but I can't find it. According to this "Make your own deficit reduction plan" calculator from WSJ, which sources its data from this CBO report, we see that not extending the Bush tax cuts for people with income over 200K/250K will bring in $110 billion dollars per year (Table 5). When people talk about deficit reduction, they talk about it over a 10 year window. It is generally agreed that to stabilize the debt over 10 years requires about $4 trillion in deficit reduction. As not extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich accounts for $1.1 trillion, that's already 25%--a very sizable and significant part of what's needed to reduce the deficit in the long run. Compare this to the entitlement cuts that Republicans demand: Chained CPI saves about $200 billion over 10 years (Table 3) while hurting the old and poor, which is more than 5 times less deficit reduction than raising taxes on the rich. And what else do Republicans want to tax, where else do they want to find deficit reduction? Closing loopholes which they still refuse to specify after a failed election where they claimed to be able to come up with $5 trillion of loophole closing? Show me the plan. How much more cuts to social security do Republicans want? Well, they won't say, because they have no plan, they have no clue, and they're not serious. It's well known that the Republican strategy is starve the beast. They want to reduce the deficit, yet they think the fiscal cliff is horrible, because... it reduces the deficit. And they want to reduce the deficit in a way that hurts the poor, while protecting the rich, whereas Democrats want to share the burden of deficit reduction. Limiting deductions based off the WSJ link would raise more revenue than raising tax rates (and do less economic harm). Yes, Reps don't want to discuss specifics - but neither do Dems - it's just politically difficult to single out what deductions you want to close prior to an agreement. We need to do something about entitlement spending. Stating otherwise is laughably ignorant. Social Security needs modest cuts and Medicare needs some pretty big ones. Otherwise I don't see how we're going to pay for everything 20 years down the road.
Yes, limiting deductions has the potential to raise a bit more revenue than letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the rich.
However, it faces 2 problems:
1. Republicans aren't serious about limiting deductions. They have not offered a single loophole they would close, nor is it in their fiscal cliff deal.
2. Capping itemized deductions puts most of the burden of deficit reduction on the middle class, not the rich because the middle class also use a lot of these tax deductions. See here and here, where the TPC estimates that 40% of the revenue increase from a $17,000 cap falls on the top 1%, that means 60% falls on the rest.
In the long run, while there is a problem with a aging demographic, the problem is not social security nor out of control government spending, it's basically all healthcare costs.
From Figure 5 of the CBO report I linked:
![[image loading]](http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/CBO-Whats-driving-the-federal-deficit.png)
In fact, if healthcare costs in the US were in line with other advanced countries (never going to happen unless the Republican party and medical lobby are annihilated), then the US would be having surpluses.
But if the Republican belief is that welfare spending on medicare and social security are huge and monstrous problems, then offering cuts to these programs that amounts to peanuts doesn't help.
|
On January 01 2013 07:51 Mysticesper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2013 07:02 Derez wrote:On January 01 2013 05:15 Sermokala wrote:On January 01 2013 04:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
400k for individuals 450k for couples 40% estate tax.
Why do we still subsidize European defense spending there has to be a couple billion there to save. I agree NATO has long outlived its need and outside of Germany for Africa and middle eastern support we don't really need all these cold war installations like we used to. I still have no idea why we're paying so much into a UN that barely does anything for us. Let the rest of the world fund an equal share if they aren't decent enough to be respectful for what we do every day for them. And you can't really deny hunter that entitlement spending is and is getting more and more out of control by the year. Too bad neither party will do anything about it until it eats us all up. 'Normal' US UN contributions barely register on the budget of the federal government, somewhere in the range of 600 million/year (and there's always issues with the US paying them in the first place). You're also not paying them to do things for you, you're paying them to do things for the world as a whole. And with that, the rest of the world could put more in, allowing the US to put less in in theory, though it would likely just be that our relative amount would go down as everyone else goes up. The US will always probably put the most in, just cause our economy is so large, but other countries could certainly put more in. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=ST/ADM/SER.B/853http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Funding
All developed nations actually pay the same mandatory fee relative to the size of their economy, and the fees just recently went down.
All I ment to say was that complaining about the UN fees in a US budgetary crisis is batshit insane because even if the US never paid the UN again, it wouldn't do a thing for the overall bugdet, not to even mention the 'costs' incurred from being a global bully/asshole if the US were to not pay for any of its international obligations ever again.
|
On January 01 2013 08:32 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2013 02:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 31 2012 22:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On December 31 2012 18:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:Raising taxes to 39.6 percent on the Obama Rich would yield around $40 billion to $45 billion in added tax revenue in the first year of the president's plan. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100321181/How_Much_Money_Would_Taxing_the_Rich_Raiseso this is clearly not about revenue, as $40-$80 billion (the range I've seen suggested) a year is peanuts compared to what we need. will any Democrat admit that it was always about punishing the rich, and not raising more revenue? and can you at least admit that Dems are willing to hike taxes on everyone and tank the economy if they don't get to punish the rich? The article says it's getting it's numbers from the Tax Policy Center, but I can't find it. According to this "Make your own deficit reduction plan" calculator from WSJ, which sources its data from this CBO report, we see that not extending the Bush tax cuts for people with income over 200K/250K will bring in $110 billion dollars per year (Table 5). When people talk about deficit reduction, they talk about it over a 10 year window. It is generally agreed that to stabilize the debt over 10 years requires about $4 trillion in deficit reduction. As not extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich accounts for $1.1 trillion, that's already 25%--a very sizable and significant part of what's needed to reduce the deficit in the long run. Compare this to the entitlement cuts that Republicans demand: Chained CPI saves about $200 billion over 10 years (Table 3) while hurting the old and poor, which is more than 5 times less deficit reduction than raising taxes on the rich. And what else do Republicans want to tax, where else do they want to find deficit reduction? Closing loopholes which they still refuse to specify after a failed election where they claimed to be able to come up with $5 trillion of loophole closing? Show me the plan. How much more cuts to social security do Republicans want? Well, they won't say, because they have no plan, they have no clue, and they're not serious. It's well known that the Republican strategy is starve the beast. They want to reduce the deficit, yet they think the fiscal cliff is horrible, because... it reduces the deficit. And they want to reduce the deficit in a way that hurts the poor, while protecting the rich, whereas Democrats want to share the burden of deficit reduction. Limiting deductions based off the WSJ link would raise more revenue than raising tax rates (and do less economic harm). Yes, Reps don't want to discuss specifics - but neither do Dems - it's just politically difficult to single out what deductions you want to close prior to an agreement. We need to do something about entitlement spending. Stating otherwise is laughably ignorant. Social Security needs modest cuts and Medicare needs some pretty big ones. Otherwise I don't see how we're going to pay for everything 20 years down the road. Yes, limiting deductions has the potential to raise a bit more revenue than letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the rich. However, it faces 2 problems: 1. Republicans aren't serious about limiting deductions. They have not offered a single loophole they would close, nor is it in their fiscal cliff deal. 2. Capping itemized deductions puts most of the burden of deficit reduction on the middle class, not the rich because the middle class also use a lot of these tax deductions. See here and here, where the TPC estimates that 40% of the revenue increase from a $17,000 cap falls on the top 1%, that means 60% falls on the rest. In the long run, while there is a problem with a aging demographic, the problem is not social security nor out of control government spending, it's basically all healthcare costs. From Figure 5 of the CBO report I linked: In fact, if healthcare costs in the US were in line with other advanced countries (never going to happen unless the Republican party and medical lobby are annihilated), then the US would be having surpluses. But if the Republican belief is that welfare spending on medicare and social security are huge and monstrous problems, then offering cuts to these programs that amounts to peanuts doesn't help.
1. Democrats took limiting deductions off the table. The only explanation I remember hearing was that it wasn't what they ran on.
2. Raise the cap to 50K. TPC estimate is that 96% of the burden will fall on the top 25% earners and 79.9% will fall on the top 1%.
A 25K cap works pretty well too.
I agree that healthcare spending is the prime issue (I just posted a graph on it myself). Unfortunately Dems don't seem to be willing to reel in those costs.
|
On January 01 2013 09:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2013 08:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On January 01 2013 02:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 31 2012 22:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On December 31 2012 18:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:Raising taxes to 39.6 percent on the Obama Rich would yield around $40 billion to $45 billion in added tax revenue in the first year of the president's plan. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100321181/How_Much_Money_Would_Taxing_the_Rich_Raiseso this is clearly not about revenue, as $40-$80 billion (the range I've seen suggested) a year is peanuts compared to what we need. will any Democrat admit that it was always about punishing the rich, and not raising more revenue? and can you at least admit that Dems are willing to hike taxes on everyone and tank the economy if they don't get to punish the rich? The article says it's getting it's numbers from the Tax Policy Center, but I can't find it. According to this "Make your own deficit reduction plan" calculator from WSJ, which sources its data from this CBO report, we see that not extending the Bush tax cuts for people with income over 200K/250K will bring in $110 billion dollars per year (Table 5). When people talk about deficit reduction, they talk about it over a 10 year window. It is generally agreed that to stabilize the debt over 10 years requires about $4 trillion in deficit reduction. As not extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich accounts for $1.1 trillion, that's already 25%--a very sizable and significant part of what's needed to reduce the deficit in the long run. Compare this to the entitlement cuts that Republicans demand: Chained CPI saves about $200 billion over 10 years (Table 3) while hurting the old and poor, which is more than 5 times less deficit reduction than raising taxes on the rich. And what else do Republicans want to tax, where else do they want to find deficit reduction? Closing loopholes which they still refuse to specify after a failed election where they claimed to be able to come up with $5 trillion of loophole closing? Show me the plan. How much more cuts to social security do Republicans want? Well, they won't say, because they have no plan, they have no clue, and they're not serious. It's well known that the Republican strategy is starve the beast. They want to reduce the deficit, yet they think the fiscal cliff is horrible, because... it reduces the deficit. And they want to reduce the deficit in a way that hurts the poor, while protecting the rich, whereas Democrats want to share the burden of deficit reduction. Limiting deductions based off the WSJ link would raise more revenue than raising tax rates (and do less economic harm). Yes, Reps don't want to discuss specifics - but neither do Dems - it's just politically difficult to single out what deductions you want to close prior to an agreement. We need to do something about entitlement spending. Stating otherwise is laughably ignorant. Social Security needs modest cuts and Medicare needs some pretty big ones. Otherwise I don't see how we're going to pay for everything 20 years down the road. Yes, limiting deductions has the potential to raise a bit more revenue than letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the rich. However, it faces 2 problems: 1. Republicans aren't serious about limiting deductions. They have not offered a single loophole they would close, nor is it in their fiscal cliff deal. 2. Capping itemized deductions puts most of the burden of deficit reduction on the middle class, not the rich because the middle class also use a lot of these tax deductions. See here and here, where the TPC estimates that 40% of the revenue increase from a $17,000 cap falls on the top 1%, that means 60% falls on the rest. In the long run, while there is a problem with a aging demographic, the problem is not social security nor out of control government spending, it's basically all healthcare costs. From Figure 5 of the CBO report I linked: In fact, if healthcare costs in the US were in line with other advanced countries (never going to happen unless the Republican party and medical lobby are annihilated), then the US would be having surpluses. But if the Republican belief is that welfare spending on medicare and social security are huge and monstrous problems, then offering cuts to these programs that amounts to peanuts doesn't help. 1. Democrats took limiting deductions off the table. The only explanation I remember hearing was that it wasn't what they ran on. 2. Raise the cap to 50K. TPC estimate is that 96% of the burden will fall on the top 25% earners and 79.9% will fall on the top 1%. A 25K cap works pretty well too. I agree that healthcare spending is the prime issue (I just posted a graph on it myself). Unfortunately Dems don't seem to be willing to reel in those costs.
It was never a serious, specific plan. I have no real issue with capping deductions. The 50K cap sounds like a good idea, although it would raise less revenue. The problem I have is the Republican position of (a) limit deduction, (b) cut tax rates.
(a) is good. (a) and (b) is unacceptable.
|
After reading up on the supposed fiscal cliff deal, my conclusion is that it's a terrible idea.
The real threat here is not the fiscal cliff, which is really a fiscal slope. It's the debt ceiling. The deal does nothing about raising the debt ceiling, which just permits Obama to spend what Congress has already approved. So this farcical drama will be repeated in the next couple of months.
And this time, hitting the debt ceiling for even a minute will have apocalyptic consequences. The hostage drama continues...
|
Just a note, there appears to be no welfare cuts in the fiscal cliff deal, at least according to current news. I would have traded chained CPI for raising the debt ceiling for 4 years. And more to abolish it.
|
On January 01 2013 09:20 paralleluniverse wrote:
Just a note, there appears to be no welfare cuts in the fiscal cliff deal, at least according to current news. I would have traded chained CPI for raising the debt ceiling for 4 years. And more to abolish it.
If Obama honestly sticks to his statement of not negotiating on the debt limit then they will have to cave. There is literally no alternative for them but to just give Obama what he wants on debt cieling because thats an even bigger deal than the fisical cliff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
