PDA

View Full Version : Why Republicans Canít Propose Spending Cuts



wardd
12-13-2012, 11:55 AM
When the only cuts on the table would inflict real harm on people with modest incomes and save small amounts of money, that is a sign that thereís just not much money to save. Itís not just that Republicans disagree with this; they donít seem to understand it. The absence of a Republican spending proposal is not just a negotiating tactic but a howling void where a specific grasp of the role of government ought to be. And negotiating around that void is extremely hard to do. The spending cuts arenít there because they canít be found.


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/why-republicans-cant-propose-spending-cuts.html

elf
12-13-2012, 12:51 PM
I can't believe they're that stupid. The article talks about the areas where Republicans refuse to cut, and they've got to be beyond stupid to not see those.

Ian McColgin
12-13-2012, 03:26 PM
Thanks for the posting. I was setting up a C&P but my computer hicupped and I lost it, and I'd not seen that you'd already posted here. Saved me double-posting. This is really important to understand.

We can move to balance by getting control over the military industrial complex and health care spending (which ObamaCare imperfect as it is manages to start), bringing our financial institutions under control, and restoring the tax burden balance. In short, ending the cycle of irresponsible excess that the malefactors of great wealth have indulged in just as they did in the latter 19th century and the run-up to the Great Depression.

John of Phoenix
12-13-2012, 03:37 PM
reds think it's a game of chicken.
Republicans demand that President Obama produce an offer of higher spending cuts, and Obama replies that Republicans should say what spending cuts they want, and Republicans insist that Obama should try to guess what kind of spending cuts they would like. They know if they say "Social Security and Medicare" they'll lose. Big time!

Nicholas Scheuer
12-13-2012, 03:46 PM
Maybe it's not a case of being "stupid" .Maybe they've been PAID OFF to not make the obvious cuts.

Keith Wilson
12-13-2012, 03:54 PM
I can't believe they're that stupid.I used to think that.

wardd
12-13-2012, 04:07 PM
I can't believe they're that stupid. The article talks about the areas where Republicans refuse to cut, and they've got to be beyond stupid to not see those.

it's a case of blind ideological stupidity

PhaseLockedLoop
12-13-2012, 05:06 PM
I think they're not offering spending cuts because they think that Obama will fall all over himself to do it himself, the way he did in his first term. Instead of starting negotiations with a strong position, he'd come up with a lot of "concessions" before the negotiations began. Of course you can't make concessions when no one has demanded anything. Here we have round two. Maybe he'll dig in his heels, but probably not.

wardd
12-13-2012, 05:43 PM
also if obama suggests the cuts then it's his finger prints on them in the next election

Nicholas Scheuer
12-13-2012, 06:07 PM
Not to worry, Wardd, Hilary has big, er, I mean, WIDE SHOULDERS.

John Smith
12-14-2012, 05:51 AM
Thanks for the posting. I was setting up a C&P but my computer hicupped and I lost it, and I'd not seen that you'd already posted here. Saved me double-posting. This is really important to understand.

We can move to balance by getting control over the military industrial complex and health care spending (which ObamaCare imperfect as it is manages to start), bringing our financial institutions under control, and restoring the tax burden balance. In short, ending the cycle of irresponsible excess that the malefactors of great wealth have indulged in just as they did in the latter 19th century and the run-up to the Great Depression.

In other words, "sanity". All of this comes down to some truths that too many cannot accept. The first truth is that Reagan ushered in the era of running on deficits that no one needed to ever pay. It is, IMO, insanity to believe deficit spending is a bad thing AND that Reagan was a great president. If one believe he was a great president and things were great during his terms, one cannot simultaneously believe deficit spending is bad. They are simply diametrically opposed concepts.

As may be, we are where we are. Having had a balanced budget when Clinton left office, although we still had a debt, the second truth that must be acknowledged is the two Bush tax cuts, which flushed the surplus down the toilet, created a revenue problem. Tax cuts can hardly be construed as a spending problem. The two wars created a spending problem on top of the revenue problem.

If we had left the Clinton rates where they were and not started two pointless wars, I expect our budget would be in pretty good shape today.

Undoing things is tough. We can't unspend what the wars cost. We can undo what the tax cuts costs, but this is a lot like paying off any debt: paying it off takes longer than incurring it.

I like to debate sometimes by asking questions. One of those questions has been: where do you cut that doesn't bring pain to someone, other than raising taxes on the wealthy? If we change the cost of living formula for Social Security recipiants, isn't that equivilant to giving them a tax hike?

Also, have we not just done some cutting? During the campaign, wasn't Obama criticized for taking money out of Medicare?

I'm not opposed to cuts, but, realistically, there are not many places where there is money to cut that won't harm our economy. Taking food stamps away from poor families will hurt our economy, as they will buy less stuff. Defense is a major spending item, and has a history of wasteful spending. Cost overruns seem to be acceptable in this area. I understand we are building weapons the military doesn't want. Why?

I think it's important for us and the world that our congress ceases being so dysfunctional. I think taxes need to go up more than Obama is asking. My wife is disabled and I'm on one of those fixed incomes (I call it a broken income), but if our taxes were raised a little for the good of the nation, we'd not complain as long as taxes were raised on up the income ladder. Lower income tax rates need not go from 10% to 15%, but if they went to 10.5% it would be less painful than having benefits cut. I don't think people making over $100k would mind a lot if their tax rate after tha point went to 11%. I'd work up to income over $1 million being raised to 45%. These people have done extremely well in this country over the past three decades. Lots of charts get posted to prove this. The country needs them to give something back.

skuthorp
12-14-2012, 06:12 AM
"I understand we are building weapons the military doesn't want. Why?"
MIC profits, lobbyist pressure, jobs, redundancy of equipment and lag time as requirements change, incompetence. And if you are a cynic a bit of old fashioned corruption and profiteering on the side.

Reynard38
12-14-2012, 09:27 AM
Maybe it's not a case of being "stupid" .Maybe they've been PAID OFF to not make the obvious cuts.
I think you hit the nail squarely on the head. A friend of mine in DC once said to me things happen here for 1 of 3 reasons;
Money, sex or fear.

John Smith
12-14-2012, 09:39 AM
"I understand we are building weapons the military doesn't want. Why?"
MIC profits, lobbyist pressure, jobs, redundancy of equipment and lag time as requirements change, incompetence. And if you are a cynic a bit of old fashioned corruption and profiteering on the side.

Sounds about right.

PhaseLockedLoop
12-14-2012, 09:43 AM
"I understand we are building weapons the military doesn't want. Why?"
MIC profits, lobbyist pressure, jobs, redundancy of equipment and lag time as requirements change, incompetence. And if you are a cynic a bit of old fashioned corruption and profiteering on the side.

Far better to spend it on useless advanced death technology than to dump it into infrastructure.