Obama re-elected to grow our national pie, not just re-divide it

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=AN]The other 2/3 have no room to complain about the bad budget from the other 1/3 if they haven’t passed one of their own. That’s the whole point of negotiation right? Put your budget on the table and see where they can come together?[/quote]

* Obama can’t “pass” budget but do not complain that he did not propose one .

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/13/news/economy/obama_budget/index.htm

[an]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=AN]The other 2/3 have no room to complain about the bad budget from the other 1/3 if they haven’t passed one of their own. That’s the whole point of negotiation right? Put your budget on the table and see where they can come together?[/quote]

* Obama can’t “pass” budget but do not complain that he did not propose one .

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/13/news/economy/obama_budget/index.htm%5B/quote%5D
Did that budget pass in the Democrat controlled Senate? How many Senator vote for it? So, what we have is, the House offered a budget, Obama offered a budget, and the Democrat controlled Senate is the road block?

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN][quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=AN]The other 2/3 have no room to complain about the bad budget from the other 1/3 if they haven’t passed one of their own. That’s the whole point of negotiation right? Put your budget on the table and see where they can come together?[/quote]

* Obama can’t “pass” budget but do not complain that he did not propose one .

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/13/news/economy/obama_budget/index.htm%5B/quote%5D
Did that budget pass in the Democrat controlled Senate? How many Senator vote for it? So, what we have is, the House offered a budget, Obama offered a budget, and the Democrat controlled Senate is the road block?[/quote]

No, the President has presented budgets and while budget resolutions technically require only a majority vote, in order for the budget to take effect, it must survive a cloture vote on an identical bill passed in the House. It was effectively (though not technically) filibustered by Republicans in the Senate.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=AN][quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=AN]The other 2/3 have no room to complain about the bad budget from the other 1/3 if they haven’t passed one of their own. That’s the whole point of negotiation right? Put your budget on the table and see where they can come together?[/quote]

* Obama can’t “pass” budget but do not complain that he did not propose one .

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/13/news/economy/obama_budget/index.htm%5B/quote%5D
Did that budget pass in the Democrat controlled Senate? How many Senator vote for it? So, what we have is, the House offered a budget, Obama offered a budget, and the Democrat controlled Senate is the road block?[/quote]

No, the President has presented budgets and while budget resolutions technically require only a majority vote, in order for the budget to take effect, it must survive a cloture vote on an identical bill passed in the House. It was effectively (though not technically) filibustered by Republicans in the Senate.[/quote]
So, what you’re saying again, which is what I’m also saying, the house gave a budget that the democrat senate doesn’t like while the president gave a budget that the republican senate doesn’t like. But the Democrat controlled Senate doesn’t produce a budget of their own. So, like I said, it’s stuck in the Democrat controlled Senate.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN]So, what you’re saying again, which is what I’m also saying, the house gave a budget that the democrat senate doesn’t like while the president gave a budget that the republican senate doesn’t like. But the Democrat controlled Senate doesn’t produce a budget of their own. So, like I said, it’s stuck in the Democrat controlled Senate.[/quote]

No. It is a fallacy to call the Senate “Democrat controlled”. In order to get to a vote, bills require 60 votes. Republicans in the Senate have held up more votes than any other Congress by far. In 2009, they held up twice as many votes as during a 20 year period a generation ago. It’s only gotten worse since then. Republicans have effectively held up votes on every substative issue, including budget resolutions. Democrats can’t get a bill passed if they can’t vote.

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=SK in CV]

No. It is a fallacy to call the Senate “Democrat controlled”. In order to get to a vote, bills require 60 votes. Republicans in the Senate have held up more votes than any other Congress by far. In 2009, they held up twice as many votes as during a 20 year period a generation ago. It’s only gotten worse since then. Republicans have effectively held up votes on every substative issue, including budget resolutions. Democrats can’t get a bill passed if they can’t vote.[/quote]

If I start saying that senate republicans have not voted to pass a budget since 2009, it will not be inaccurate.

But that is about as meaningless as saying that Senate has not passed a budget, or house has not passed a budget that is acceptable to senate, or that Obama has not proposed a budget that is acceptable to the house etc.

In reality it takes two (or three) to pass it and if it doesn’t get passed, blame goes everywhere equally.

[an]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]If I start saying that senate republicans have not voted to pass a budget since 2009, it will not be inaccurate.

But that is about as meaningless as saying that Senate has not passed a budget, or house has not passed a budget that is acceptable to senate, or that Obama has not proposed a budget that is acceptable to the house etc.

In reality it takes two (or three) to pass it and if it doesn’t get passed, blame goes everywhere equally.[/quote]
Totally agree on most of that point. But Obama not only has not proposed a budget that’s acceptable to the house, it wasn’t acceptable to the Senate either (even for Senate Democrats): http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163347-senate-votes-unanimously-against-obama-budget. 97 to 0. That’s pretty bad, don’t you think? But you’re right, blame goes all around. They all need to find some common ground.

[SD Realtor]

SK the point you made is the same point I am trying to make. Nothing is static. Not economic performance and not demographics. So you cannot keep doing the same thing as those variables change. Spending habits need to adjust as those same demographics and economic performance changes.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]SK the point you made is the same point I am trying to make. Nothing is static. Not economic performance and not demographics. So you cannot keep doing the same thing as those variables change. Spending habits need to adjust as those same demographics and economic performance changes.[/quote]

And since tax revenues (as a percentage of GDP) — and tax rates — are at historic lows, wouldn’t it be a good idea to reevaluate those, too? Clearly, low taxes have not spurred growth, contrary to all the nonsense spewed by the supply-side proselytizers.

[SD Realtor]

Spend less CAR.

No matter what you or anyone says, higher debt is a tax. I am fine with paying higher taxes but taxing more and spending more is ridiculous.

[livinincali]

[quote=SK in CV]
If you go back another couple years, revenue decreased over the last 12 years. If revenue had simply kept up with inflation since 2000, the current budget would be balanced. Revenues are not solely based on the number of people working. It’s also based on the effective tax rates on all income.

Again, much of the increase in entitlement spending is purely demographics, and more recently, a function of the economy, not statutory increases in entitelments. Almost 1/3 of the increase in entitelment costs are SS old age benefits, yet SS as a whole still does not materially contribute to the deficit. And net OASI taxes collected (including SE tax) increased by more than 1/3. (SS benefits paid are roughly equal to additions to the SS trust fund.)[/quote]

Of course, I mentioned that tax rates are down to flat. But just look at the IRS statistics that you can find here http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-Individual-Statistical-Tables-by-Tax-Rate-and-Income-Percentile

In 2000 total gross income was 6.4 trillion with about 105 million tax returns. In 2009 which is the most recent data it was 7.4 trillion with 104 million returns. Spending has gone up 50% since 2000. Government spending has grown faster than everything else including inflation, GDP, total taxable income, etc. Inflation is up about 33%. GDP is up about 23%. Total Gross income is up less than 20%. It is a spending problem and primarily a medical entitlement spending problem.

Are there some moral ramifications to cutting back? Sure. I won’t argue that point. I’m just going to argue that there isn’t a tax base that allows you to keep those promises for the aging population. It would be great if we could give every child their own personal tutor but it costs too much so we don’t do it. The same is going to have to be true with some entitlements. Wheelchairs instead of hip replacements. Hospice instead of million dollar cancer treatments for some will become a reality one way or another. Maybe we’ll decide standing in line is more fair than having accumulated wealth. Maybe we’ll decide that everyone smart enough to be a doctor will have to become one and be obligated to provide low costs services.

How far can you go taxing the rich and putting the youth in debt until they say F U? Because once you get to that point you can’t take it back.

[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali]

How far can you go taxing the rich and putting the youth in debt until they say F U? Because once you get to that point you can’t take it back.[/quote]

How far can you go taxing the rich? That’s a good question. Certainly much farther than we’ve gone so far. We’ve done it in the past during boom times and they didn’t stop working, they didn’t get poorer as a whole. The rich have had extraordinarily low taxes over the last 10 years, when compared to prior decades.

As to debt, the question should be whether current levels are sustainable. Many of us live with high mortgages. Many with debt of three or four times our annual income. Often with the hope that we will have them all paid off by retirement age when we stop getting a paycheck.

But the government won’t retire. So the right thing to do is to maintain the debt, at sustainable levels in bad times, and pay it down in good times. We had that opportunity 10 years ago and it wasn’t done. We still can afford additional debt, but there is a limit.

As to the cost of medical care, while our system of health care delivery has improved, our system of paying for it remains irreparably broken.

[SD Realtor]

That is the point I am trying to make as well cali. The flux of various factors, mainly demographics, employment opportunity, emerging nations, etc insure that the only thing we can count on, is change. Statistics of these variables make it clearly evident that you cannot provide programs for everything. You cannot just keep on the same path. I agree with the morality of having the wealthy pay more. That is fine, I am okay. Somehow, somewhere, you have to spend less. Be it the military or socially or both, you have to do that and you have to do it now.

[poorgradstudent]

The Baby Boomers really are a ticking time bomb. Can we send them all to Canada and Mexico?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=poorgradstudent]The Baby Boomers really are a ticking time bomb. Can we send them all to Canada and Mexico?[/quote]

Surprising to most (but not to me), many “boomers” have been fit and athletic all their lives and have never smoked.

Previous generations of Americans (WWII and Greatest Gen) became incapacitated MUCH younger and did not live as long as boomers will due to:

-disease while young (which we now have vaccinations for);

-smoking and all other forms of tobacco use;

-drank MUCH more hard liquor;

-had high-cholesterol diets throughout their lives due to cultural practices;

-didn’t go to the gym or work out;

-didn’t have access to doctors/dentists;

-died in childbirth

etc.

Just go into any nursing home or board and care facility during mealtime and see what they’re feeding their patrons. I would not consider it a “healthy” diet but it is all they will eat.

In addition, most of the women of these generations were/are a drain on society since they didn’t have 40 quarters of SS contributions deposited on their own behalf because they didn’t work enough or work at all. Many were/are paid HUGE SS checks because they are collecting the SS benefit of a deceased spouse or former spouse.

In contrast, the majority of boomer women worked FT at least 40 quarters (10 years) and fed into the SS “system” and most worked MUCH more than that. I’ll try to find some links discussing this, but I’ve read that boomer women worked more years over their lives than Gen X women did. One reason is likely due to the fact that boomer women would lose their jobs if they didn’t return to work at 6 weeks post-partum (10 wks for cesarean birth), that is, until the passage of the FLMA in 1993.

I don’t think boomers will be such a “drain” on entitlements. Unlike previous generations (who boomers supported during their prime working years) they actually “earned” their own SS benefits. I don’t think Medicare is going to be around much longer, at least not in the form it is today.

I agree with livinincali that withholding expensive medical treatment for terminal cancer patients who cannot pay for it is good option. It doesn’t even work for patients who CAN pay for it and for that reason, I’m against aggressive cancer treatment for all but the most curable patients or those who are offering themselves for a clinical study (regardless of outcome, to help curable pts down the road). I also think there is a lot of waste in the Medicare/Tricare durable equipment racket. For example, I know several sr citizens (incl relatives) who have very expensive motorized chairs they never use. The list goes on.

********************************************

What would members of Gen X/Y think if they contribute all their lives to SS and then find out at the 11th hr (age 65) that their benefits will be drastically reduced or eliminated?

Boomers, in general, worked hard all their lives in much lesser circumstances than younger workers of today and many are still working. They *deserve* to retire.

[Author]

Posts