Surprise! GOP Budget Busting Could Seriously Hurt Economic Growth

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Who the hell would make the cuts you describe as a "political stunt"?

Cuts that would balanced the budget and help the US economy long term are political suicide.  The cuts the GOP is proposing are political stunts.

There's a clear difference.

This is just ridiculous. Look at what they are cutting and then you tell me how it is less damaging politically to cut them then something else. A stunt implies strategery for political benefit and this is hardly beneficial politically at all. Obama's budget was a far safer political route, which makes sense when you consider just how much it is degenerate trash.

What the hell are "Cuts that would balance the budget and help the economy long term"? 

They are cutting heating oil for the poor and cutting funding to planned parenthood, even though none of the money goes to abortion. And don't even bring up fixed costs. Does the government pay all of the fixed costs of the facility, or only the portion required for the other services the clinics provide? If abortions are indeed profitable, the fixed costs are also being paid for.

Anyways I digress. While these cuts are being made (miniscule and targetting Democratic constituents), the army will still be able to advertise at Nascar. That's what the army needs, more name recognition.

And considering the fact they don't even try to take on entitlement spending, I would tend to think this is just a political stunt, instead of a real solution. Not like Obama has proposed anything either, but the Republicans certainly aren't better. Actually they are just more hackish than Obama, that's all.

I supported cutting the Nascar advertisement. We did finally get rid of the F-35 engine, though. I am not delusional nor selfish enough to expect 100% perfection on where the cuts are. Obama is also cutting heating to the poor and Pell Grants and etc.

I am also fairly certain that most of those politically charged cuts will be removed and replaced in negotiations. It depends on where they agree to set the dollar amount and how much Obama focuses on reducing the ticket price instead of getting the GOP to give up for more, in exchange for less being cut from the Dem side, while leaving the overall price unchanged for such exchange of sacrifices to equal it out.

Let me phrase it this way. You explain how they deal with entitlement spending on a CR for remainder of Fiscal year 2011?

The GOP equivalent to what Obama did two weeks ago, is in April. If you listen to the people in charged like Boehner and Ryan they are not leaving themselves much maneuvering room on whether there will be entitlement cuts.

And you have to give Ryan credit, he acknowleges the situation as it is even if you dislike his plans, "When you are going from 45 million to 77 million retirees and when you have Healthcare inflation at 7% and 8%, two and three times the rate of growth,....... you can't continue with the status quo"

Ryan also said that in April they will have the latitude necessary and the numbers from the almightly CBO to handle discreationary spending for FY 2012 (or is it 2011 starting in October?), entitlements and the tax code to "present our all alternative vision for America's financial future and to provide a clear choice to the American people"

Lets just say that if he does fail to deliver, he will be the biggest joke and laughing stock amongst conservatives not to mention everyone else.

You guys are essentially faulting Wisconsin for not making a touchdown, when they have just taking the ball from the Steelers after a fumble and are way down at the other end of field. Its not time yet.


There is a while yet before election season gets started, and there is the other body (where I should mention the biggest opponet of entitlement reform in either house is Harry Reid). You have Tom Coburn calling for agressive cuts to the pentagon, and maybe god will come down from heavan to end the Ethenol heist (it will take that and more most likely. Its more entrenched on both sides then defence). There will be a time and a place to lynch these Republicans in congress for punting, it isn't yet.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The first place to really start would be the corporate welfare program for the nursing home industry known as Medicaid, cutting $100 billion or so would return us to mid 2000s levels.

No, let's cut from medicare first.

Why do you two hate old people?

[Torie]

The first place to really start would be the corporate welfare program for the nursing home industry known as Medicaid, cutting $100 billion or so would return us to mid 2000s levels.

No, let's cut from medicare first.

Are we on the same team now sbane? 

[Sbane]

Who the hell would make the cuts you describe as a "political stunt"?

Cuts that would balanced the budget and help the US economy long term are political suicide.  The cuts the GOP is proposing are political stunts.

There's a clear difference.

This is just ridiculous. Look at what they are cutting and then you tell me how it is less damaging politically to cut them then something else. A stunt implies strategery for political benefit and this is hardly beneficial politically at all. Obama's budget was a far safer political route, which makes sense when you consider just how much it is degenerate trash.

What the hell are "Cuts that would balance the budget and help the economy long term"? 

They are cutting heating oil for the poor and cutting funding to planned parenthood, even though none of the money goes to abortion. And don't even bring up fixed costs. Does the government pay all of the fixed costs of the facility, or only the portion required for the other services the clinics provide? If abortions are indeed profitable, the fixed costs are also being paid for.

Anyways I digress. While these cuts are being made (miniscule and targetting Democratic constituents), the army will still be able to advertise at Nascar. That's what the army needs, more name recognition.

And considering the fact they don't even try to take on entitlement spending, I would tend to think this is just a political stunt, instead of a real solution. Not like Obama has proposed anything either, but the Republicans certainly aren't better. Actually they are just more hackish than Obama, that's all.

I supported cutting the Nascar advertisement. We did finally get rid of the F-35 engine, though. I am not delusional nor selfish enough to expect 100% perfection on where the cuts are. Obama is also cutting heating to the poor and Pell Grants and etc.

I am also fairly certain that most of those politically charged cuts will be removed and replaced in negotiations. It depends on where they agree to set the dollar amount and how much Obama focuses on reducing the ticket price instead of getting the GOP to give up for more, in exchange for less being cut from the Dem side, while leaving the overall price unchanged for such exchange of sacrifices to equal it out.

Let me phrase it this way. You explain how they deal with entitlement spending on a CR for remainder of Fiscal year 2011?

The GOP equivalent to what Obama did two weeks ago, is in April. If you listen to the people in charged like Boehner and Ryan they are not leaving themselves much maneuvering room on whether there will be entitlement cuts.

And you have to give Ryan credit, he acknowleges the situation as it is even if you dislike his plans, "When you are going from 45 million to 77 million retirees and when you have Healthcare inflation at 7% and 8%, two and three times the rate of growth,....... you can't continue with the status quo"

Ryan also said that in April they will have the latitude necessary and the numbers from the almightly CBO to handle discreationary spending for FY 2012 (or is it 2011 starting in October?), entitlements and the tax code to "present our all alternative vision for America's financial future and to provide a clear choice to the American people"

Lets just say that if he does fail to deliver, he will be the biggest joke and laughing stock amongst conservatives not to mention everyone else.

You guys are essentially faulting Wisconsin for not making a touchdown, when they have just taking the ball from the Steelers after a fumble and are way down at the other end of field. Its not time yet.


There is a while yet before election season gets started, and there is the other body (where I should mention the biggest opponet of entitlement reform in either house is Harry Reid). You have Tom Coburn calling for agressive cuts to the pentagon, and maybe god will come down from heavan to end the Ethenol heist (it will take that and more most likely. Its more entrenched on both sides then defence). There will be a time and a place to lynch these Republicans in congress for punting, it isn't yet.

Ah, yes, the F-35 engine. That was certainly a job well done by the new guys.

I understand most of these cuts wouldn't go through, because there is the Senate and Obama to go through, but I just didn't like the hackish tone. Oh well, it is the house, so a little hackish behavior is to be expected (sad that it happens so much in the Senate now as well).

By the way, has anyone advocated raising the payroll tax to take in 90% of income? That is the way it was set up, but today it only applies to the top 80% of income (or somewhere close to it, I think). Raising the amount on which you pay payroll taxes should be able to keep social security solvent for a good amount of time.

I am honestly not very concerned about the viability of social security. Healthcare is where the problems lie.

[Torie]

Sbane, do you mean by the 80% figure, the percentage of benefits received subject to income tax?  All earned income is hit with the FICA tax until you hit the ceiling. The rationale of the 20% exemption I think, is that is a rough equivalent to the value of what you put in, with the 80% representing an interest factor that should be taxed. At least that is my impression of the rationale.

[Sbane]

Sbane, do you mean by the 80% figure, the percentage of benefits received subject to income tax?  All earned income is hit with the FICA tax until you hit the ceiling. The rationale of the 20% exemption I think, is that is a rough equivalent to the value of what you put in, with the 80% representing an interest factor that should be taxed. At least that is my impression of the rationale.

I was talking about the 106k cap. When the cap was instituted (is it adjusted for inflation?) it hit 90% of income earned in America. Apparently that figure has dropped down to 80% today. So just raise the cap such that 90% of income is subject to the payroll tax and that solves a big chunk of the problem. I am talking about social security here. The problem with Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare etc. is controlling costs. The R word will be necessary there. Perhaps means testing of social security will eventually be required too, but I would rather they raise payroll taxes a bit first (and not give away payroll tax holidays ), then later on cut benefits as necessary.

[Torie]

Then it just becomes a tax on earned income not really tied to benefits, sbane. In my opinion, that is the worst place to slap the highest tax rate. If you want to soak the rich some more, just raise the marginal income tax rate a bit, or the rate on unearned income. However, there is not that much room there, before that exercise becomes counterproductive overall, no matter how much one might want to sock it to the rich in the abstract. JMO.

I guess I am lucky yet again that I earned most of what I will earn already. Team Obama loves me now.

[Sbane]

Then it just becomes a tax on earned income not really tied to benefits, sbane. In my opinion, that is the worst place to slap the highest tax rate. If you want to soak the rich some more, just raise the marginal income tax rate a bit, or the rate on unearned income. However, there is not that much room there, before that exercise becomes counterproductive overall, no matter how much one might want to sock it to the rich in the abstract. JMO.

I guess I am lucky yet again that I earned most of what I will earn already. Team Obama loves me now.

I don't really want to soak the rich. I just want the payroll tax to apply to 90% of income. *shrug*

If I wanted to soak the rich, I would have gotten rid of the cap, make the payroll tax progressive and make the first 10-15k exempt as well as cut benefits for the rich. Now that would be mean.

[Bull Moose Base]

We should we taxing the everloving crap out of carcinogens and crap nourishment at point of consumption.  Texas might threaten to secede but when you eat at Denny's you should be giving the government a 100% tip for the ambulance.  Conversely, pool membership should be completely tax deductible.

[opebo]

The first place to really start would be the corporate welfare program for the nursing home industry known as Medicaid, cutting $100 billion or so would return us to mid 2000s levels.

Do you find the thought of all those olds dying in the streets pleasing?

Lief you seem to think the tooth fairy gave you a quarter when you lost a tooth as a kid. She didn't. And the idea that we can dig our way out of this hole without substantive pain, is just a redux of your tooth fairy moment. It really is. Nobody for example, nobody, not even the most liberal Dem, on the deficit commission, believes remotely what you do - nobody. Nor do most economist of all political persuasions, or the Obama administration itself. As I said, next to nobody.

Torie, you're free to believe in whatever right-wing fantasy world, where the only way to solve the debt problem is to kill millions of poor and old people, you want, but there's really no need to be so hostile that others don't share your fantasies. And I really couldn't care less what most people on the deficit commission think; most people on that deficit commission are responsible for the mess we're currently in.

Torie is addicted to the idea that it is somehow impractical or impossible to take his ill-gotten gains rather than kill poors.  Of course he is quite correct that poors will be killed rather than take his privileges, but the reason is not because of practicality or reasonableness - its because of power.

Privilege is made of human death, Torie.  But I should think you would enjoy it all the more knowing this, rather than wuss out by claiming a lot of spurious self-deluding nonsense.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am sorely tempted to put up a poll asking folks if they think the text of your comment Opebo is "hyperbolic."  But that would be wrong.