In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1652
Online now 1668 Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
If Obama slammed the sequester as you said. He would be slamming his own plan and the dems in the senate for not having a budget for 3 years. Obama is far too partisan than to take on Harry Reid and too narcissistic to admit he came up with a dumb plan. If he really wanted to fix this he would have lead with an alternative list of reasonable cuts to avoid this. Instead he sits in his hands and blames anyone and cries wolf to anyone who listens. And then has the gall to demand people pay more taxes after tax hike 2 months ago.
The cuts amount 2% of spending. We just. asked middle class workers to pay 2.5% more and the rich to pay 12-50% more. Obama didn't complain how people who survive. I am fairly certain the govt will survive this 2% cut.
This post was edited by lars 14 months ago
The real issue is long-term entitlement spending, which is why it was nice that Romney campaigned on a ticket of cutting medicare spending and helped create a climate in which such cuts would be possible. Oh wait...what's that you say? He filled his campaign with vicious attack adds accusing Obama of cutting medicare? And you wonder why cuts don't happen.
I love watching Obama getting his panties in a bunch over 1.2% in cuts being the end of the world.
Unfortunately, it shows just how hard it will be to get the much larger cuts that are really required in spending .. especially in SS and Medicare going forward. I don't think those cuts will happen under Obama. The best that can be done is to keep sequester cuts going in future budgets.
They weren't going to happen under Romney either.
Look, here is what it is going to take: we're going to have to accept a painful compromise involving long-term entitlement cuts and increased revenue. Cons can rail all they want about the evils of raising taxes and libs can rail all they want about the evils of cutting services to the elderly and poor, but we are never going to address the debt without a compromise. We're just not. The country is too evenly divided.
Some of us disagree with the projections that show that costs for Health Care will rise to be 50% of the GDP...call us crazy but there a very few times that any one sector of the economy is 50% of the economy.
Since we think that is crazy, and since it is that path of economic development being used to create the projections of deficts 10 years from now, some of us think that there are no realistic deficts to be concerned about since projections based on crazy numbers are clearly way too high.
Some of us think that these projections are being used to transfer power even more to the ultr-wealthy and that this is intentional...we do use our tinfoil hats for that last thought, however.
So no we do not need to fix a problem of deficts 10 years from now that are based on crazy assumptions.
Lurking on tRCMB since 1996
Increased revenue can happen from tax reform. Growing the economy is the most effective way to get revenue. you can accomplish it with lower rates in exchange for caps on deductions. Then add in long term cuts, increasing the age and means testing for Medicare and SS. The job is done. Conservatives would go along with all that.
No they won't. Have you heard Boehner lately? Revenue increases are off the table.
As for growing the economy being the most effective way to get revenue...that's the great catch 22. The sequester is projected to stunt growth by .5-1% this year. When we're only having 2% growth, that's significant.
Yes tax increases are off the table. Not tax reform.
I understand this, but I have more of a middle ground position. I think the GOP is overhyping things, but I also think there is a real problem mounting. We simply have a lot of people who are going to be living a long time and health care for the elderly is going up and up because we have more and more miracles of medicine. The miracles are great, but they cost money.
No disagreement that growth is the easist way to solve the issues in the economy.
However, the question becomes what is the cheapest way to create growth?
That question has different answers depending on of growth is being constrained because there are lots of people wanting to buy but not enough capacity to sell, the classic supply side problem, or if the are plenty of people wanting to sell but not enough people willing to buy, the classic demand side problem.
Right now we have much more of a demand side problem. People don't have the money due to high debt, loss of employment, fewer hours worked, etc.
So how to increase demand? Put more money into the hands of those that will buy. However with high debt some of that money will go to paying down debt. So if you cut taxes by a trillion dollars, not all of that money will stay on the demand side, some of it will be paid to banks balance sheets that are on the supply side...so you get less activity than the tax cut because the supply side already has more money than it can use.
Another way is to create more jobs by governmet spending on jobs. This still will be dragged down by people reducing existing debt but because you have actually already spent the money once, that counts as 100% return on the spend money, meaning the GDP goes up by the money spent, and of course by any additional amount that is then spent again.
Both of these assume you widen the defict. One via tax cuts, the other via spending.
Right now spending would be more effective.
While not completely ignoring the increased lifespan for people who are no longer working or the past history of Health Care cost increases, meaning that I too am on the middle ground, there are a couple of data points, sorry no links from a phone, to consider.
Lifespan after working...it is unclear how much longer the lifespan is increasing...looking at data it is unclear how much more it will increase or what the driving factors are. However it is clear that the assumptions being made as to why it is increasing are complex and prone to errors in judgement. Thus far lifespan for those who have lived and died have not increased all that much.
Health Care costs - The basic model for health care costs assumes that heath care as a precentage of GDP takes 1% more of GDP every year indefinataly. So last year it was 18% of GDP, the model assumes that in 10 years it will be 28% of GDP...since no other country in the world besides the US is much over 10% of their GDP the US is already the outlier by a sigificant amount, also in a typical economy few sectors ever reach 28% of the economy...so these numbers logically are way too high, but they are being used to calculate the budget deficts.
His latest comments seemed to rule out tax reform too. Maybe just posturing. If dems agreed to entitlement cuts he would probably go for it. But neither side is going to be the first one to blink.
You have to be careful about the term "tax reform". Republicans have always ruled out Obama's idea of reform. Which is increasing tax rates on the wealthy, adding a minimum 30% wealth tax on millionaires, closing loopholes for everyone and businesses and ideally expanding stealth increases in tax rates to reach the middle class (ie obamacare taxes, vat taxes and energy taxes). That is clearly all out of the question. Especially since we just raise taxes.
True tax reform which Boehner and most republicans agree to tackle..involves reducing everyone's rates, simplifying the tax code, capping deductions (as part of lower rates) and reducing rates for businesses while eliminating loopholes to make us a more competitive place to do business with the world.
In other words, you would be looking at a solution that grows the economy and puts more money into the govt coffers from increased growth. Overall, individuals wouldn't be paying more taxes on the same income...it would amount to the same taxes on the same income. But as individual and business income rises from growth in the economy so would the tax revenue. And, the tax code would be far far easier to understand.
So there is a clear difference in what "tax reform" means to each party.
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by lars 14 months ago
Couldn't you simplify this thus -
Obama wants to raise taxes on the top 10% of the population.
Boner wants to raise taxes on the top 10% of the population except for the top 0.1%
If you really look into it that is what you will find.
It doesn't matter whether consumers pay down debt or spend it. It all gets back into the economy through investment or as more disposable income after a pay down of debt. This is the difference between stimulus and putting money back in hands of the consumer.
Govt spending is inefficient and tends to inflate things like commodities without helping people's disposable income. We have seen that Govt spending doesn't work. The results have been a massive growth of govt debt..money going abroad and creating inflation in places like Latin America, high commodity prices (food prices are up 13% ) , high gas and oil prices and a stagnant economy with little growth, declining wages and underemployment. That experiment has failed miserably.
Obama wants to raise taxes on everyone (he wants add stealth taxes to Obamacare, with energy and a possible Vat). He also wants to punish success again by adding new minimum wealth taxes and eliminate tax incentives for businesses he doesn't like.
Boehner wants to simple lower tax rates for all, grow the economy, and increase income. (Individuals would pay the same amount on current income) But businesses would have incentive to grow and thus create more jobs, leading to higher wages and more tax revenue.
Remember these "cuts" are not cuts in Washington speak. What Washington is going to spend is going to be more than the preceding year, but just a tiny bit less more growth of spending.
Question authority. Power to the people
life expectancy charts. As you can see when programs like SS and Medicare where created in the 1930s. Life expectancy wasn't much beyond 65. Therefore, not many benefits would need to be paid out..at most for a few years. Now we are into our 80s with life expectancy and funding retirement and much more expensive healthcare for 20-25 years of life.
true. trapper doesn't like us to us Washington speak. So we actually are increasing spending by less.
So the charts you used show that the life espectancy of someone 65 years old has increased from 10 years in 1900 to an estimated 15 years in 1996...
In addition the first chart clearly shows that infant motality is the major driver in the change in overall life expectancy, which is the number you are citing.
I think you are combining two thoughts...one being that people didn't live long after they reached 65 and the other being that most of the people worked all their lives and then died a few years before 65.
Well thought 1 is not true as even in 1900 if you reached 65 you were likely to live to 75...and thought 2 also is not true as most of the reduction in people dying was kids, life expectancy was much higher once you reached age 20.
In addition, depending on how these graphs were constructed, the part which covers where everyone has already died is very accurate, but the part where the people are still alive is based on a bunch of assumptions about when people will die, not as the rest of the chart probably is on when they did die. So upward trends of life expetancy for people still alive should be looked at critically.
The idea that the details don't matter actual would work both ways if it were true, but that is the first error...I will not explain a supply side problem vereses a demand side problem again, however it does matter and defines what the more effective response would be...in our present case public work projects ideally where to government hires people directly are the cat's pajamas...and tax cuts are much less effective.
edit - Both of which of course increase deficts...
BTW nice charts...where did you get them and did you try to remove one?
This post was edited by TrapperGus 14 months ago
What Obama means to acomplish is to do what the country wants, beyond that I would hope but would not expect that he would be trying to get a better free cash distrabution accross the population for a more effective economy...but I don't really think he is...
What Boner wants to do is cut taxes on the wealthy and make the 99% pay for them either with higher taxes, lower services to the 99% or a combination of both.
But I'm part of the country and I want lower taxes on the wealthy. Explain that, hot shot!
You couldn't be more wrong. Par for the course for Trapper
How much was Romney going to win by?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports