This doesn’t even make sense. It’s clear you don’t understand what a congressional budget resolution is, so I’ll stop debating this point with you.
What is a ‘liberal’?
And, the campaign promise the winning candidate, Barack Obama, made to the American people was that the Bush tax cuts would expire for people making over $250,000 a year. That has not happened- nobody was ‘given the revenue streams’ if by that you mean the tax increases a majority of voters were expecting.
It’s clear you don’t understand the current stalemate. Republicans gave in on the tax hikes with the understanding the new budget would be based on these increases. We are in serious debt and there is nobody who is going to bail us out. Debate with yourself all you want.
Sunsetting a originally-temporary (and, from a policy standpoint, totally insane) tax cut is not a “revenue increase”.
Useful government-funded research actually exists. Useless government-funded research actually exists too. So here’s an idea. Cut funding for pointless research and redirect that funding to better research. It’s the same basic point that I and others are trying to make over and over again. Folks keep telling us that the government performs some important functions and implying that this means we can’t afford to cut the budget. But everyone I know agrees that there is wasteful spending in the federal budget, so why not cut that wasteful spending? Even within a particular department or program, there’s usually waste that could be cut without affecting anything vital, so why not cut that waste? And yet I see little enthusiasm from the Dems for cutting anything, ever.
You previously warned me that cuts to federal research budgets would damage America’s standing in the world. But just as America spends vastly more on our military than any other country, we also spend vastly more on scientific research. We can take a small cut in the budget in this area and not worry about slipping behind Belgium, or even China.
I reported what my colleagues told me. I may have been completely hornswoggled for all I know. But if the military is spending money developing new types of Beef Jerky, I feel there must be some cuts we can make there too without devastating consequences.
As far as wasteful spending goes, our objection to the sequester is that it cuts useless programs by about 7%. It also cuts vital programs by 7%. Based on what you wrote, you should be opposed to the sequester, too.
As far as Dems not wanting to cut spending, you’re simply not paying attention. They don’t want to slash and burn, but literally every Democratic plan on debt reduction - except one offered by Bernie Sanders- has spending cuts targeting specific programs.
Yes it is.
Obama’s budget cuts both Social Security and Medicare, and other things besides. Republicans are simply not being serious about this issue, preferring instead to play make-believe.
Not one that counts in negotiations.
“This tax provision is going to expire this year.”
“Yes, and if you LET it expire, we’re going to hold it against you in the budget negotiations.”
Foolhardy, especially given the relentless off-budget military spending of the Bush era.
I think that this is a very subjective thing, but in general, I think Magiver is closer to being right on this: having tax cuts expire is, indeed, a tax increase for virtually all relevant uses of the term. Once tax cuts expire, rates go up, revenue goes up, and so on. Of course that’s a tax increase, and the fig-leaf of there not having been a recent vote to require the rates to go up is a point that doesn’t hold very much water at all. If people, in general, are seeing more money come out of their paycheck, that’s a tax increase. If their paycheck stays the same, that isn’t a tax cut.
That isn’t the point of the dispute though. Some are arguing that because some small part of the bush tax cuts were actually allowed to sunset as they were always supposed to, that means that 100% of budget concessions should come from the democrats now. That republicans have no need to compromise even 0.01% anymore on anything budget related. That is what we are disagreeing with. That for the purposes of the current and future negotiations taking place, this sunset is not a valid negotiating chip for the republicans. Especially if there isn’t one single thing they will ever agree to concede ever again because of the sunset. That is what is unreasonable.
Yeah, it was kind of a sidebar. Some people insist that taxes going up on the wealthy isn’t a tax increase, but I think that’s plainly not true.
Other people think that there was some imaginary gentleman’s agreement that both parties agreed that increasing taxes on a minute portion of American families means that there will never be another discussion of tax reform in the foreseeable future. That’s a fiction, too.
Not ever, and not even in the foreseeable future but for the immediate one, YES
The cuts in the budget should happen before you start trying to add more revenue by taxation again.
Sure, that’s your view. But some people pretend that there was an agreement that the Democrats are breaking by raising the issue of tax reform again. That isn’t true, but it gets repeated a lot, including in this thread.
You ever been on a grant review panel? Do you think that all proposed grants get funded? Do you think that all research should pan out? Do you even have a clue about what research is? Given that you think funding the development of a very specific laser is research, I think not.
As evaluators of research, the Motley Fool people are good finance guys. There has been evidence that intellectual activity may stem off Alzheimer’s - given that a bit of money to see if involving video games might help sounds pretty reasonable. Understanding the hormonal basis of attraction sounds pretty good also. As for the Mars menu, one big problem for NASA is that all the people who had experience in space missions went on to other stuff as budgets get slashed. Some minimal funding to keep at least a cadre of experienced people also sounds good assuming that we ever want to go into space again. It is very easy for the ignorant to make fun of stuff they have no clue about - see that moron Proxmire.
As for direct, current impact, the son of friends of ours just graduated with a degree in geology, and had an internship for the summer with a federal agency - until the sequester. Now he’ll be working in a bike shop over the summer. Great way of making use of our intellectual talent, isn’t it.
The above quote troubles me.
Who is “everyone”? Does “everyone” have a special insight into the US Federal budget that is not available to most others? What is the definition of “waste” and “wasteful”?
Here’s the thing. If I go to the copier and copy an assignment for my class, then realize that I made a mistake on the assignment and have to trash (recycle) all 200 copies, that would be wasteful. However, I am not clear how simple human error could be prevented. How could this waste be cut? I suppose I could be hauled into the principal’s office and chewed out for wasting the copies. Maybe I could have the cost docked from my paycheck. Maybe I could just go ahead and teach the flawed lesson, thereby increasing the amount of waste and spreading it among my students, as well.
Or, someone could identify my entire band program as wasteful and cut the whole thing. Of course, I would be out of a job, my family would be homeless, and we would go hungry. Sucks to be us, I guess. I am not suggesting that my job is, or should be, a “make-work” program. I am just reminding everyone that “cuts” have real consequences for real people.
In other words, in my experience, waste (as it applies to government budgets) is defined as “stuff that I don’t particularly care about”. Responsible spending is defined as “stuff that I do care about”.
So, ITR Champion, I respectfully ask, just what is your definition of “waste”? Since “everyone” knows it exists, would you be willing to identify some specific instances of waste that could be cut? Is it as simple as making sure unnecessary copies are not made on government copy machines?
Great movie. 
You know, I had this urge to post how the sequester is affecting my friends and family, but then I saw that this is basically a pit thread and he just wants to sneer at those who just lost their jobs.
Waste is government spending that accomplishes nothing, that goes to things the government shouldn’t be involved in, that accomplishes only a very little and could be done more cheaply, or that is redundant. Maintaining over 5,000 nuclear warheads when we could effectively deter all threats with a small fraction of that number is wasteful. Spending enormous sums on ships and planes that probably won’t ever serve a single useful mission is wasteful. Keeping large army bases open in places such as Germany is wasteful. Buildings that cost billions of dollars are wasteful. Redundant agencies are wasteful.