I need to come up with a plan? How about we let the idiots elected to do so give it a whirl. I will say the solution demands sustainable entitlements–meaning, over the long term, they aren’t in the red. How’s about a plan that at least pretends to grapple with this challenge, that shows us how we can get there?
I don’t want us to go over the cliff, but that’s not the same as saying this piece of shit compromise is what I had hoped for.
The payroll tax has to go back up at some point. Might was well be now.
Because cutting Social Security won’t reduce the deficit, or reduce the debt. Ronald Reagan said so.
If you believe that the current economy is the new normal – and I see no reason to believe that it isn’t – then I agree. But it’s taking steps backward rather than running full speed backwards. Not voting for the Democratic candidate is absurd and equivalent to voting for the party who want to implode quicker rather than slowly. With Obama’s plan at least we have a chance to improve the economy or have time to come up with a reasonable solution instead of immediately implementing measures that are completely asinine from a budgetary perspective and have been shown to do nothing to improve the economy.
This is getting entertaining as not one person whom I’ve asked in the past few months has any idea at all how to balance the budget. What makes you all think that Congress does? They have a secret plan they’re just not letting you know about?
Or, when the economy is not so anemic. It does make a difference, y’know.
When will that be? This might be about as good as it gets.
Based on previous depressions/recessions/downturns, that is not a reasonable conclusion. We will have a strong economy again, but unnecessarily harsh austerity measures can certainly delay that inevitable recovery.
Why do Democrats keep talking about Clinton era tax rates? Nevermind them hating those rates for everyone but the rich, those rates are meaningless within themselves. Check out spending during those same years then compare it to spending the last decade or so, especially the last four years. If we had spending rates in the 90s that we have today, no one would be talking about Clinton and how he “had a surplus”.
You may be under the impression that Romney campaigned on modifying entitlements, or that the GOP has proposed such changes. In reality, Romney attacked Obama for actually passing cuts to entitlements, and the GOP refuses to propose changes. And again, nothing has been held hostage over the income rates.
Maybe. But there are always going to be reason not to do this. If we’re not going to do this now, then I’d like to see an automatic return to earlier rates after “x” number of months or after specific economic indicators hit specific levels, whichever comes first. The big problem we need to solve is fixing SS, Medicare and Medicaid long term. Underfunding one of them indefinitely isn’t the way to fix it.
I don’t consider it an “austerity measure” to remove a tax break that was meant to be temporary.
It doesn’t matter if any of us support it or not. It looks like the House GOP is splintering over it and will be adding amendments cutting more spending, which means it’s a dead letter. The new Congress starts on Thursday and the GOP loses more seats, reducing its leverage even further.
And it’s all going to be the GOP’s fault, because they’re absolutely batshit insane. C’mon, 2014!
What’s insane about not spending money we don’t have?
We need to fix SS, but it is not part of deficit or debt reduction, any more than immigration reform. Let’s try to stay on one page at a time.
Nor do I.
No, it’s not. Debt is actually healthy for a country in recession, at least according to economists. It means that the government is spending money to help get the country out of said recession. The time to pay off debt is when there is a surplus.
Our current deficit/debt reduction “problem” pales in comparison to what those three entitlement programs will do to us down the road.
Yeah, this is the part I love. Taxes will only go up on the rich. But I’m due to see about a $750 increase in my taxes, along with probably yet another freeze on my government salary, while folks who earn $400,000 from investments instead of from working for a living won’t see a dime’s increase in their taxes. The wealthy are definitely getting what they paid for. :mad:
But cutting SS will not help us today. If we don’t pursue pro-growth policies, we won’t make it long enough for SS to go sideways. First things first.
SS contributed, what, $165 billion to the deficit this year alone? And based on demographics, it’s only going to get worse. An almost 30 year old clip–nice try.
The “compromise” increases the deficit by $4T more in 10 years.
I hope the Republicans in the House have the balls to kill this.
There is only one way to balance the budget: SS, Medicare, Medicaid and defense reform. That’s 60 - 70% of the budget. We need a sustainable ongoing budget with regard to those programs as a start. Use as a starting point what we can reasonably expect over the long-term in taxes. Adjust benefits so that we can actually afford to pay them. Is that distasteful? Too bad for us. Our good intentions mean nothing if we can’t afford to pay for them. And we can’t.
Congress would have a better shot if they actually, you know, came up with something along those lines, instead of nothing, instead of debating what the proper tax rate is for the rich when that does virtually nothing. Just a suggestion as a starting point: Ryan’s plan got us to a surplus in 30 years or so. Don’t like that plan? Then Congress needs to come up with something different. That’s what mature adults do. They determine what we can afford, and work out a plan that syncs up with those levels. Doing nothing is not a plan.