Printable View
It's highly disputable that extending the tax cuts will increased the deficit. That's the whole argument here.
Do you really think this commission -- appointed by Obama, a librul president -- has proved itself to be less credible than a liberal "research group"?
What? The OP is a proposal from the 2 chairmen, not the commission. I'm not saying they don't have credibility. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
There's plenty "out there" showing Bush's tax cuts weren't off-set in spending cuts, so they added to the deficit. They were only passed with an expiration date attached.
Dread - actually, most projections seem to indicate that extending the income tax cuts will negatively impact the deficit, but not on a dollar-for-dollar basis (e.g. $1 of tax cut equals less than $1 of extra deficit/lost revenue).
That's only true when taxes reach above a certain threshold, which they definitely are not at right now. As wig says, allowing the tax cuts to lapse will cut the deficit, though not by the size of the tax cuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Yes, I strongly support letting ALL of the tax cuts expire. I was annoyed that Obama wanted to continue them for the under 250K set, and enraged that he was considering caving to the GOP on the over 250K set.
And this does pretty much kill any remaining GOP claim to fiscal responsibility, doesn't it?
Could have told you that at least 8 years ago.
2001 IIRC. But given that the GOP still says it, and that they won a bunch of seats running primarily on that platform, I'd say most people don't get it.
Some claims project that extending the tax cuts for the upper 2% earners would 'cost' 700 Billion over ten years. I don't understand how the GOP can push for that, while threatening to cut unemployment insurance. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by ']['ear
The GOP is the party of much lower taxes and higher spending. The Democrats are a party of lower taxes and much higher spending. Fiscal sanity doesn't enter the equation.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...5014507554.htmQuote:
Debt and Taxes: Will America Ever Grow Up?
Two new proposals to get serious about the U.S. budget deficit are colliding with the same old dysfunctional politics
[...]Simpson and Bowles proposed to shrink or kill the sacrosanct income-tax deduction for home mortgage interest; slash $100 billion in defense spending, in part by closing bases; freeze the pay of federal workers, excluding combat forces, for three years; raise the gasoline tax by 15ยข a gallon; cut Medicare reimbursements to doctors, hospitals, and drug companies; shore up Social Security with tax hikes and benefit cuts; and sharply curtail the growth of federal health expenditures. Rivlin and Domenici rely more on increasing revenue to balance the budget. They call for a 6.5 percent national sales tax, which they package for public consumption as a "Debt Reduction Sales Tax."
Among Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi almost instantly labeled the plan of the Obama commission co-chairmen "simply unacceptable." On the Republican side, Americans for Tax Reform gravely warned that "support for the commission chair plan would be a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge which over 235 congressmen and 41 senators have made to their constituents."
The fact is, it's impossible to balance the budget without infuriating the followers of both Pelosi, who will lose the Speaker's chair in January, and Grover Norquist, the single-minded president of Americans for Tax Reform. The U.S. can't put its house in order without deep spending cuts and revenue increases.[...]
What do you think about a 6.5 % national sales tax?
By "Cut Unemployment Insurance" what you really mean is "Not extend an already insane period of time to be out of work and on the government dole" right? Just how many weeks/months/years do you think is appropriate?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Do you believe there is one job per person out there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I don't really know what an "appropriate" time period would be, especially during The Great Recession, with the highest unemployment in decades. UI is only partially gummint dole, since workers paid into the program from their paychecks for a subsidized Insurance product.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Ending extensions have negative impacts that aren't hypothetical --- another question is how many millions of unemployed people you want applying for Food Aid, housing assistance, Medicaid? Those are more expensive gumming "dole" programs than UI. There are 5 job seekers for every job opening. What would you suggest they do?
And that's not even including the 12,000,000 Americans not counted in the statistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I keep directing you guys here, U.S. National Debt Clock, but most seem to just shine it on.
:cry:
Actual unemployed over 26 million. Food stamp recipients over 42 million. Wow, look at all that debt.
Was UI designed to have people on it for as long as there is a slump in the job market? Answer: No it was not. Honestly if you can't find a job in two years you need to do something different. And yes that may mean accepting a permanently different type of lifestyle.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Different than working? What do you have in mind?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
True, UI was designed as insurance, to get people through times between jobs. This wasn't just a "slump" in the job market, but a national financial and economic crisis. I'll ask you again --- how many millions of people do you want on food stamps, subsidized housing, or Medicaid? Because that's what will happen if UI isn't temporarily extended during a crisis. It can take a long time between applying and receiving those benefits, so what should they do in the meantime?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
20-30 million people out of work, with ~5 million job openings. That's quite a gap. What would you suggest they do?
Millions have already tried different fields, 2 part-time jobs instead of one, working for minimum wage, even going back to school for a new degree. Millions are under-employed. "Doing something different", what's that mean? Pack up the family, move west to pick strawberries? Keep Timmy out of school because he can earn $5/hour for the family?Quote:
Honestly if you can't find a job in two years you need to do something different. And yes that may mean accepting a permanently different type of lifestyle.
Moving away from family support networks means more people applying for gummint assistance, those underfunded programs that are being cut. Now what? :hmm:
I might answer your questions if you bother answering how long you think UI should last.
I already did. I don't really know what an "appropriate" time period would be, especially during The Great Recession, with the highest unemployment in decades. No one knows what to do about the long term unemployed, or the 99'ers. But it's not like ending the extensions would create jobs for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Some predict high unemployment could be a new normal for years, maybe even double digits. We'll have to weigh "welfare" and re-training programs against the social costs of MILLIONS of people out of work, idle and frustrated. So again, what's your suggestion?
UI has a dedicated funding source. It is not meant to cover so many weeks. It is *temporary* assistance. Not permanent assistance. There are jobs out there. They can be found. However when someone who used to make 80k can only find low wage work it makes economic sense to keep collecting U/I and dedicate their efforts to finding another "good" job instead of settling with minimum wage type jobs. That is what I meant by a potential lifestyle change at least for a year or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Pretty piss-poor insurance, if you ask me, more so than how social security is a piss-poor retirement.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Real unemployment insurance would be private, and offer you more than whatever it is they offer now... and don't forget that 50% has a sliding scale, with higher wage earners making much less than 50%... even though they pay more.
It's a progressive system...
In MA your maximum monthly benefit is $629 a week, which is about $35K a year. And I think that's taxed.
SS should only be one part of someone's retirement.Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
SS should only be one part of someone's retirement.Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
Lewk actually has something of a point here. Lots of UI claims being denied here in California, because our UI system is broke. Its funding is all IOUs at this point. Benefits were extended and this being California, funds to support that extension did not follow. It would have gone broke even without the extension though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
What's permanent about temporary extensions? And if the contributions are underfunded (like CA) that's a projection or accounting error. That structural gap doesn't remove the need for UI or its stabilizing role in society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You still haven't said what the alternative should be.....
You're mixing reality with your political ideals. There aren't enough jobs for everyone who wants one! There are 5 times as many lookers as openings. You're assuming that millions prefer collecting 1/3 of their income through UI, instead of working for lower pay?Quote:
There are jobs out there. They can be found. However when someone who used to make 80k can only find low wage work it makes economic sense to keep collecting U/I and dedicate their efforts to finding another "good" job instead of settling with minimum wage type jobs. That is what I meant by a potential lifestyle change at least for a year or so.
You'll have to show some proof of all these 80K earners content to be idle, swallowing their pride, refusing lower paying jobs or minimum wage jobs, while they job hunt. Prove that isn't some hype cooked up by anti-unemployment insurance groups, convinced the system is being abused by lazy-ass couch potatoes who just don't want to work.
I wonder what's going to break when millions more lose unemployment benefits, give up on trying to keep their house, and go on public assistance. Or worse, they steal or peddle drugs or sell sex to feed themselves...at a time when we already can't afford the amount of law enforecment we need to keep this a civil society. This is no small crisis. It's unemployment benefits or public assistance or jail. One way or another people are going to get themselves fed. I guess there is always death as a cheap, less stressful option.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
And Social Security wasn't meant to be for everybody, only destitute oldsters otherwise heading fro the poor house. Guess what? It ain't that way anymore. Your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
SS should never replace a complete retirement. Such a society would be disgusting as everyone would become utterly dependent on government. There used to be pensions, there are 401k, private savings, real estate assets, part time work and when times are difficult family, friends, charity and the church. SS has a role, sure since everyone pays into it they should get something out of it. But to say that SS = retirement is just plain wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by ']['ear
Good thing your are just clarifying that I didn't say that, because otherwise you'd just be a dickweed setting up a straw man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
As I said, it was originally intended only for the destitute elderly, who no longer have the wherewithal to alter their circumstances. Sort of a "no catfood" insurance policy for all of us. It was, in fact, referred to as "social security insurance." I think it should stay that way, and no benefits going to anybody above a certain income, adjusted by zip code.
Is your main complaint teh gummint being used for safety nets, or people relying on those safety nets? Maybe you should stop and think about why millions more are surviving with UI or SS benefits than originally intended. Those librul sssocialist programs are what's keeping our society slightly civil, during The Great Recession.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Still waiting for your suggestions of alternatives.....
Those pensions are underfunded or broke, call in PBGT to salvage the pieces? 401-Ks and private savings lost billions in the market, too bad for those retiring during the bust, apply for Medicaid? Part time work for millions means minimum wage with no benefits, apply for food stamps? Pile 2 families in one home, is it handicapped accessible, who stays home to care for granny? Will your church pay for her hip replacement costs and nursing care, how about Medicare?Quote:
There used to be pensions, there are 401k, private savings, real estate assets, part time work and when times are difficult family, friends, charity and the church.
When all else fails, line up at the church pantry for some canned beans and a bag of rice, thank the gummint for subsidizing Food Banks.
You should be glad SS wasn't privatized.Quote:
SS has a role, sure since everyone pays into it they should get something out of it. But to say that SS = retirement is just plain wrong.
Hate on teh gummint programs all you want, but saying family/friends/charity/church can adequately fill the gaps for MILLIONS of unemployed (or poor, ill or elderly) is delusional. Balancing our budget shouldn't mean dismantling federal safety nets, but rumor has it Texas is considering opting out of Medicaid and other federal funding. Guess that's one way to get rid of poor people, huh.
And the breaking news story of the day is, Fed predicts weak recovery for several years
For anybody interested in what the projection for actual unemployment is, just multiply the numbers in the chart by 2.
But at least they predict low inflation. :rolleyes:
Maybe the Fed has it backward --- with super low interest rates, they're killing workers and savers, just to help out the credit/debt/banking industries? People will work longer, retire later, and spend less, meaning less job openings and fewer new jobs.
That doesn't make any sense.
What doesn't make sense? That I say the Fed's dual mandate is quite possibly pitting one goal against the other?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Nearly everything in that post was the opposite of the truth...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-middle-class/Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Also, labor participation is something economists track. That includes near-retirees, and the whole youth demographic. Where are the NEW jobs? Are the open positions from growth or attrition, being filled with new workers? Or are businesses merging and being more productive with fewer employees?
So because we're not getting new jobs now, the low interest rates both A) kill jobs, and B) are intended to kill jobs? Taking notes from kathaksung? Would this be a good time to tell you that correlation isn't causation and that we can't judge motivations from outcomes?
Low interest rates are only helping bankers and investment firms, when they borrow cheap from the Fed and buy Treasurys. But that won't make the banks suddenly solvent. They've had trillions "injected" and/or "toxic assets" taken from their balance sheets, but they're still basically broke. Not broke enough to forego golden parachutes or million dollar bonii, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Low interest rate loans for the consumer sounds good, but banks aren't lending and people aren't borrowing. Why would they loan money to average people who don't have job security? Who buys a house when they're worried about their job or retirement?
Plenty of news outlines the near-retiree's choice to stay at work; companies not hiring new workers, letting positions absorb internally to attrition. Same news shows retirees looking for part-time work to patch their busted retirement savings. Low interest rates hurts savers and retirees who live on fixed income. How can you dispute that?
Don't start that tactic, Loki. It doesn't work. :donkey:Quote:
Taking notes from kathaksung? Would this be a good time to tell you that correlation isn't causation and that we can't judge motivations from outcomes?
GGT low interests rates = gas for the economy (and bubbles/inflation) while high interest rates put the breaks on the economy (and also fights inflation). Sure there a bazillion other variables but all things being equal that is what occurs with the Fed setting interest rates. If it costs less to borrow money more people will borrow money and more goods are purchased, more capital investments are made ect ect.
Now weather or not the Fed *should* set rates and create market distortions is another matter...
