Senate Passes Bill To Avert Fiscal Cliff

[Speed Daemon]

You do realize that you don't earn that kind of money soley by exploiting others. Just pointing out the obvious.

I don't make that kind of money, period. I know that I could have helped my career, and possibly may have raised my income to that level that high if I had done things that I refused to do precisely because they violate my code of ethics and morals. So I realize very well that your point is 100% false. I do earn less because I refuse to profit at the expense of others.

Just pointing out the truth.

 

[Speed Daemon]

The financial principles are the same.

No. By definition, something that has been made different is not the same.

I'm not going to get out of debt by borrowing money to invest in things that will (hopefully) bring me more money to pay off my debt. That's just voodoo and wishful thinking.

History tells us that President Franklin D. Roosevelt did in fact revive the US economy during the Great depression by investing in the American infrastructure. The same infrastructure that enabled America to become the "arsenal of democracy" later on. Although becoming a nation of arms merchants was a less than ideal way to exit the Great Depression, the fact remains that that is how FDR ended the Great Depression in the US.

Recent history tells us that President Barack Obama did in fact revive the US economy (with a little of help from Paul Volcker) during the Second Bush Great Recession by once again investing in the American infrastructure. And although Republican members of Congress blocked the President from increasing the recovery, Part One alone was enough to sustain positive economic growth that continues to this day.

Between those events, President Ronald Reagan (with a lot of help from Paul Volcker) ended a long period of recession and stagflation by...you guessed it, by investing in the American infrastructure. A dacade later, President Bill Clinton did the same thing after Reagan, Bush, Gramm, Rudman et al. spent too much borrowed money. And that led to a period od unprecedented economic growth and a balanced budget for the first time since the "golden years" after WWII.

This isn't some murky concept that has never been tried; it's a historical fact with a long, proven track record.

No, there's not just money sitting around. Which is why we have to actually cut services.

That's not a rational argument. Cutting services cannot cause money to magically appear in the Treasury.

Yes. It is our money. But it's already gone. You can kiss it goodbye at this point.

I will not surrender to that defeatist attitude. If this nation has enough money to spend on Vietnam-style wars, it has more than enough money to keep its promise to its own people. That money will be repaid, willingly or by force.

Perfect example is a guy who smashed into my car recently. He had no insurance. He was 18. He was unemployed...
...That's the same thing with Social Security, etc.....

No, that's what is called a non sequitur. That 18-year-old unemployed person is not a trustee of any of the trust funds.

Then you're never going to fix the problem. Ever.

You can only represent yourself. So please speak only for yourself. (Attack the issues, not the person.) Just because the above is dedicated to failure doesn't mean that the rest of us are going to take such a defeatist tack.

Because, as I said earlier, you have to cut stuff across the board and probably raise taxes across the board as well. Both are unacceptable to just about everyone.

The above is only a small subset of all the choices that can be made. We chose none of those defeatist choices; we chose the ones that do work. We chose to tax the wealthy at a different proportion than we tax the poor. (This is a choice that many of America's wealthiest people were actually asking Congress to do, BTW.)

The idea that Social Security is more efficient or effective than the private sector is laughable. Beyond laughable.

The fact of the matter is that for-profit businesses exist for only one purpose: to make a profit. The reason why putting the Social Security and other national trust funds into non-profit hands is because no money is lost to profit-taking. That's a fact, and the math is very basic. This is something that anyone can understand.

Although there is no private sector equivalent to Social Security (for obvious reasons), Medicare is considered to be one of the most efficient health care insurance systems in the US.

 

[Gmash]

98% of the Bush tax cuts were made permanent if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Speed Daemon]

98% of the Bush tax cuts were made permanent if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, you are mistaken, sort of. You see, the Bush-era (remember that it's still Congress that makes the laws) tax cuts were done mostly in one piece of legislation, and deepened by another. In that respect, you can't break them into pieces smaller than half, or 50%. However that's not a useful statistic.

What the 98% figure represents is the percentage of Americans who make less than $250,000 a year, and therefore will not be affected by the return to the more reasonable tax rates.

0% of the Bush tax cuts were made permanent, BTW.

Hope that helps!

 

[ElasticNinja]

I do earn less because I refuse to profit at the expense of others.

Just pointing out the truth.

Nah you would still be profiting off the backs of people in the Third World, and the poorly paid workers in your own country. Everyone profits at the expense of others.

 

[Speed Daemon]

Nah you would still be profiting off the backs of people in the Third World, and the poorly paid workers in your own country. Everyone profits at the expense of others.

Once again, please speak for yourself and not me.

I admit that my life has been enriched as a result of the wrongdoing of others. But that's something which I have no control over. I had no say in when and where I was born, and what advantages were given to me before I could make my own decisions.

And even now there are things that I have no control over, and often no knowledge of. I do my best to eschew injustice that I'm aware of, and to be aware as I possibly can be. If I had inherited great wealth, I would have been able to make amends for the sins of my ancestors, but that's a moot issue.

My conscience is clear. Is yours? <--EDIT: That's a rhetorical question. No reply is needed.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I don't make that kind of money, period. I know that I could have helped my career, and possibly may have raised my income to that level that high if I had done things that I refused to do precisely because they violate my code of ethics and morals. So I realize very well that your point is 100% false. I do earn less because I refuse to profit at the expense of others.

Just pointing out the truth.

Boy did you prove my point wrong. Because you chose not to exploit people, you don't make $250k. Therefore everyone who makes $250k or more got there solely by exploiting people. I'm sure you can see the logical flaw there. By your logic Obama, who I believe you have expressed support for in the past, got where he is by exploiting people. The ER doc got where he is by exploiting people. The cardio surgeon got where he is by exploiting people. The movie star got where he is by exploiting people. The professional athlete got where he is by exploiting people. The top dogs at Google got where they are by exploiting people. Do you see how ludicrous this argument is?

Are there high income earners who exploit people? Yes there are. Are there people who flip burgers at McD's who exploit people? Yes there are. Exploiting and taking advantage of people has absolutely nothing to do with income. There are people today who are unemployed, have no desire to work and basically live on the couches of their various friends. Those people are totally exploiting their friends/families and they make no income.

But look at those people I cited earlier - Obama, the ER doc, the cardio surgeon, the movie star, the professional athlete - I would argue that all of them got where they are by serving/entertaining people. Now you may argue that President or surgeon is a more noble profession than movie star, but they still got there because people benefitted from what they provide.

That's not a rational argument. Cutting services cannot cause money to magically appear in the Treasury.

So if we're spending $100 mil on something and we cut spending on that item to $70 mil, where does that $30 mil go? Thin air?

I will not surrender to that defeatist attitude. If this nation has enough money to spend on Vietnam-style wars, it has more than enough money to keep its promise to its own people. That money will be repaid, willingly or by force.

The more time/effort you spend chasing bad money the less time/energy you have to actually fix those systems so the problem doesn't happen again. Just pointing out the obvious.

No, that's what is called a non sequitur. That 18-year-old unemployed person is not a trustee of any of the trust funds.

No, it's completely relevant. I had just as much a legal right to the money as you have to those trust funds and just as much a chance to get it back. That's reality.

The above is only a small subset of all the choices that can be made. We chose none of those defeatist choices; we chose the ones that do work. We chose to tax the wealthy at a different proportion than we tax the poor. (This is a choice that many of America's wealthiest people were actually asking Congress to do, BTW.)

The wealthy already pay more. But whatever. Why not raise taxes on the middle class and poor as well as the wealthy? If we are really serious about addressing the deficit, then hikes across the board are going to be needed. Either you're serious or you're not. You can't come to be and tell me you are desperate to get out of debt, but you refuse to work more than 40 hours a week. I don't buy it. If you're desperate to pay off the debt then you have to raise income and the best way to do that is tax hikes across the board. Yes, that's extremely painful/unpopular, but it's what is needed. And you have to accompany that by spending cuts across the board as well.

Although there is no private sector equivalent to Social Security (for obvious reasons), Medicare is considered to be one of the most efficient health care insurance systems in the US.

What are you talking about? There are Roths, 401ks, 401bs, etc.... that all offer far, far better alternatives to Social Security. How do you think people retired before Social Security came around? They saved their money. Those plans ALL beat the returns you get from Social Security by a long shot. It's not even close.

Once again, please speak for yourself and not me.

I admit that my life has been enriched as a result of the wrongdoing of others. But that's something which I have no control over. I had no say in when and where I was born, and what advantages were given to me before I could make my own decisions.

And even now there are things that I have no control over, and often no knowledge of. I do my best to eschew injustice that I'm aware of, and to be aware as I possibly can be. If I had inherited great wealth, I would have been able to make amends for the sins of my ancestors, but that's a moot issue.

My conscience is clear. Is yours?

I make, on my own, more than the average household income. That's just me. I'm not married, but if I was and my wife worked and just made $20-30k our house hold income would be twice what the average is. Do I feel guilty about that? Not at all. I'm not sure who I stepped on to get there. Probably not enough people.

 

[cjr72]

What does that have to do with the topic? Are you saying that people who make in excess of $250,000/year shouldn't have to pay taxes because they're frugal? I've had to live on a lot less than $250,000 (a lot less than $25,000 in fact) and had no other option than to be frugal with my money. Why is that not admirable?

Being frugal came about when I was trying to reconcile the campaign logic of lumping households making 250k a year with "millionaires and billionaires". A losing proposition I know.

It's the Republican Party. If you don't know the names of any Republican legislators, you can find plenty at the gop.gov website, and many others. If you want the Cliffs Notes version, Mitch McConnell (R, KY), John Boehner (R, OH), Eric Cantor (R, VA) and Paul Ryan (R, WI) are the ringleaders in Congress.

I actually meant I don't know what posters here, including myself who you were responding to, that are advocating taking only from the middle class or poor.

Ahh...the Bush tax give-away expired on January 1. It was a major news story here in the US.

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 signed into law the very next day retroactively reinstated the lower rates of much of the Bush tax cuts.

Since you apparently missed the biggest news story of the year, I'm guessing that you're another non-American. Is that correct?

As you can see (because they list their location), there are others form outside the US who are commenting on what is literally not their business as non-Americans. I don't mind their input, but do think it's only fair for people to disclose whether or not the advice I'm reading is coming from someone with "skin in the game".

I'm a life-long US citizen, and have earned every cent in the US. What about you?

For what it's worth I'm a US citizen. I really don't care if you believe that or not.

 

[Slug]

Please keep the discussion civil, folks. I'm starting to read comments that are bordering on baiting or flaming, which are out-of-bounds on AF.

Thanks!

 

[Speed Daemon]

Boy did you prove my point wrong.

If you say so. All I did was reply to "you do realize that you don't earn that kind of money soley by exploiting others" honestly and without guile.

I'm not going to continue down this track as it can produce no good. My warning to someone else about attributing things to the wrong person stands for everyone here. "Own your own words."

So if we're spending $100 mil on something and we cut spending on that item to $70 mil, where does that $30 mil go?

In the context of what I'm talking about, the US sovereign debt, all of the money spent is borrowed money. So if there's an unforeseen savings, one option is to keep that money in the coffers of the creditor who was going to lend it to the US government.

Getting back to the fallacy that "services must be cut" because "there's not just money sitting around", that's simply not how the US budget works. That may be how some people use their personal funds, but Congress must act within it's Constitutional boundaries.

I'm not going to respond to any more because it's too vague and strays way afar of the topic. Also, non-points like "Whatever." is not the stuff that a useful discussion is made of. I welcome substantial, good faith comments. I don't believe that's asking too much.

 

[Speed Daemon]

I actually meant I don't know what posters here, including myself who you were responding to, that are advocating taking only from the middle class or poor.

You mean people on this message board? I don't know. I can only represent myself, and I'm here to discuss the topic "Senate Passes Bill To Avert Fiscal Cliff". That, and the things that the Senate didn't do but IMO should have when they had the opportunity.

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 signed into law the very next day retroactively reinstated the lower rates of much of the Bush tax cuts.

I can't find anything even close to that. Can you please post the actual text of the law that you think does that? Are you claiming that the "Bush tax cuts" (note that when I enclose it in quotes, that means I'm literally copy and pasting the text that I'm quoting) expired prior to January 1, 2013? Because for it to be retroactive, it would need to be expired for a while.

 

[A.Nonymous]

If you say so. All I did was reply to "you do realize that you don't earn that kind of money soley by exploiting others" honestly and without guile.

I'm not going to continue down this track as it can produce no good. My warning to someone else about attributing things to the wrong person stands for everyone here. "Own your own words."

You argued (and forgive me if I misunderstood you) that you make $250k solely by exploiting other people. That was a statement that I found to be completely and totally false. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. My argument was that you make that kind of money by serving people and you can exploit people no matter how much or how little you make.

Getting back to the fallacy that "services must be cut" because "there's not just money sitting around", that's simply not how the US budget works. That may be how some people use their personal funds, but Congress must act within it's Constitutional boundaries.

Let's boil it down to as simple as you can get it. You've got two ends of the budget. You've got the money coming in and the money going out. Same as your personal budget. If the money going out is more than that which is coming in, then you end up with a deficit. How do you fix that? You cut the money that's going out and you increase the money coming in. How do you do this on a personal level? You cut out amenities like Internet, cell phones, cable tv, eating out, etc.... and then you increase the money coming in by working more hours, taking an extra job, selling stuff, etc..... I know this from experience. How do you do this on a national level? You cut spending programs from the military to the social spending and you increase income by raising taxes across the board on everyone. The fact is that everyone from the rich to the poor benefited from the bad behavior that got us into this. Everyone from the rich to the poor are going to have to pay to fix it.

 

[Speed Daemon]

You argued (and forgive me if I misunderstood you) that you make $250k solely by exploiting other people. That was a statement that I found to be completely and totally false. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. My argument was that you make that kind of money by serving people and you can exploit people no matter how much or how little you make.

No, I never said anything like that! I don't exploit people. Not for money or anything else. Thank you for your honesty! As far as I'm concerned there's nothing to forgive because the misunderstanding was resolved.

Let's boil it down to as simple as you can get it. You've got two ends of the budget. You've got the money coming in and the money going out. Same as your personal budget. If the money going out is more than that which is coming in, then you end up with a deficit. How do you fix that?

It just so happens that I'm in a situation like that. I've been out of work due to a couple of chronic illnesses that have left me completely disabled most of the time. I've been running a personal budget deficit for years. I'm close to the end of my savings, and will soon have to beg my family for financial support.

You cut the money that's going out and you increase the money coming in. How do you do this on a personal level?

The answer is that I can't.

I never had an extravagant lifestyle, so there was very little for me to economize on. No big house, luxury cars, jewelry or other property worth money.

But because I'm sick, and also starting to suffer the effects of old age, my medical expenses are skyrocketing. I'm one of those people who has to decide between food and medicine.

I've tried austerity and it failed, just as it has failed for nations. Now my only hope is to keep on borrowing money in the hope of restoring my health so I can return to earning a living. Come to think of it, my problems are quite comparable to those of the United States. "Go for broke" is the only option that can save us both.

You cut out amenities like Internet, cell phones, cable tv, eating out, etc....

The old "cut the fat" rhetoric, I know it well. The thing is that for "cut the fat" to work, there must be fat there to cut. Thanks to 30 years of Voodoo Economics, our national, state and local governments aren't spending money on anything but the bare necessities, and sometimes not even those.

"Cut the fat" is a false "solution". It's yet another GOP lie.

and then you increase the money coming in by working more hours, taking an extra job, selling stuff, etc.....

I already covered why that isn't happening for me. When it comes to the US, the problem is that it too is too worn out and neglected to "work even harder". After 3 decades of vulture capitalism, the US is incapable of "working even harder" even if its business leaders had the inclination to do so. Because the organs of this once-great nation have been run into the ground, restoring them will take what's equivalent to major organ transplants in human beings. And those cost lots of money.

It didn't have to be this way. If our population hadn't repeatedly voted for war and promises of wealth that were never kept, our nation would be in much better shape. But that's not what happened. And blaming President Obama will not do a single thing to change that.

How do you do this on a national level? You cut spending programs from the military to the social spending...

I have to stop you right there. You're not allowed to starve our nation's weakest and oldest citizens. It's bad enough that what you propose is a vicious, cruel and dastardly thing to do to a human being. What makes it a non-starter is that those are funds that are held in trust. It's not money from the General Fund. Starving Granny will not save you a penny.

There's plenty of military fat that can be cut, and nobody will suffer. But throwing gramps under the bus is nothing but pure, unmitigated evil.

and you increase income by raising taxes across the board on everyone.

What do you mean by "across the board"? I hope you realize that you can't take more money than people have. Even if you go ahead and try to starve the lower classes, it will backfire. People will rebel. Crime will rise. The wealthy will lose all their servants and be left helpless without all those people that they relied on. It's false economy.

The fact is that everyone from the rich to the poor benefited from the bad behavior that got us into this.

I'd like to see factual evidence to back up that claim. How many poor people made a killing at Bain Capital? If there were such people, if they made a killing, then they would no longer be poor, would they? Sorry but people can't be impoverished and wealthy at the same time. The wealth went in only one direction.

There is no blood to be gotten from a turnip. It's a fallacy.

 

[ElasticNinja]

N
The old "cut the fat" rhetoric, I know it well. The thing is that for "cut the fat" to work, there must be fat there to cut. Thanks to 30 years of Voodoo Economics, our national, state and local governments aren't spending money on anything but the bare necessities, and sometimes not even those.

The Federal government is only spending on the bare necessities? Hardly true.

 

[ElasticNinja]

The fact is that everyone from the rich to the poor benefited from the bad behavior that got us into this. Everyone from the rich to the poor are going to have to pay to fix it.

In all fairness, unlike in Europe, the poor have not benefited at all from the 'bad behaviour' in the US. Incomes for the bottom forty or so percent have failed to increase in real terms since the Eighties.

 

[Speed Daemon]

The Federal government is only spending on the bare necessities? Hardly true.

In the context of what we were discussing, government services, it is most certainly true. The government spends obscene amounts of money on DOD and black projects, and gives money to other countries, which is now a luxury that the US can no longer afford. But when it comes to what should be its #1 job, taking care of its taxpayers, there's not much left.

 

[A.Nonymous]

In all fairness, unlike in Europe, the poor have not benefited at all from the 'bad behaviour' in the US. Incomes for the bottom forty or so percent have failed to increase in real terms since the Eighties.

I would argue that those on the bottom end of income spectrum are more likely to profit from government services than those at the top of the spectrum.

 

[ElasticNinja]

I would argue that those on the bottom end of income spectrum are more likely to profit from government services than those at the top of the spectrum.

But these people at the bottom are important as a source of cheap labour for the economy - and they have not benefited at all from the last few decades. The people who should feel the pain hardest should be those who have benefited and have something to give.

There will always be people at the bottom. But their standard of living should increase at the same rate as the rest of society's.

 

[cjr72]

I can't find anything even close to that. Can you please post the actual text of the law that you think does that? Are you claiming that the "Bush tax cuts" (note that when I enclose it in quotes, that means I'm literally copy and pasting the text that I'm quoting) expired prior to January 1, 2013? Because for it to be retroactive, it would need to be expired for a while.

What I'm saying is the bill extended much of the rates established by the 2001 and 2003 tax relief acts, commonly referred to as the Bush tax cuts. Not sure what is surprising about this, it was one of the widely reported aspects of the bill. My point about the bill being retroactive is that though the bill was signed on January 2 it is effective January 1. In other words for those whose current rates were extended by the bill the fact that the Bush tax cut rates expired at the end of the day December 31 is a moot point, at least for me it is.

 

[Speed Daemon]

What I'm saying is the bill extended much of the rates established by the 2001 and 2003 tax relief acts, commonly referred to as the Bush tax cuts...

You keep on saying it, but can't manage to show where it says that. Sorry but I don't believe you. I believe what's actually written in the law, and not what isn't.

Case closed.

 

[A.Nonymous]

The in-fighting has started again as the debt ceiling approaches. Obama is claiming the Republicans won't raise it because they want to makes us a deadbeat nation. Ugh. Here's an idea Mr. President. Why don't you propose actually paying off the national debt instead of borrowing more and more money. That's one way to solve this problem. Double ugh.

 

[Speed Daemon]

Seeing the big picture and knowing what the real priorities is most important. Phony issues that were ginned up for purely political reasons aren't.

Fuel economy is important. Most drivers do something to save fuel. But if you're in a car that's going full speed at a brick wall, saying "all that matters is fuel economy" is less than the whole truth.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I admit that my life has been enriched as a result of the wrongdoing of others. But that's something which I have no control over. I had no say in when and where I was born, and what advantages were given to me before I could make my own decisions.

LOL . . . since you know this, why not quit? If what you say is true, then just quit. Save your soul. You do have control over benefiting over this "wrongdoing of others."

 

[Bob Maxey]

I would argue that those on the bottom end of income spectrum are more likely to profit from government services than those at the top of the spectrum.

I agree. The thing is, those at the bottom have opportunities to improve their lot. We see it every day. Some worker bee has a better idea and goes forth and begins a company. Eventual hires more worker bees.

Sometimes, the idea seems crazy like creating a FaceBook.

We need those at the bottom. Who will fit tab A into slot B?

 

[Speed Daemon]

LOL . . . since you know this, why not quit? If what you say is true, then just quit. Save your soul. You do have control over benefiting over this "wrongdoing of others."

Quit what? What are you talking about? Are you saying I should commit suicide to "save my soul"? I don't think it works that way.