The Fiscal Cliff thread.

[chipwhich]

You're intelligent enough to not make such sweeping false generalizations. Many baby boomers I know, including me, support extending the age, as well as making cuts to medicare and medicaid (before we even get to improving efficiency and reducing fraud).

Or we could push the age to 80 and solve the whole problem?

Pushing up the retirement age certainly allows the politicians to have more money to spend in the general fund.

Not against fixes if there is some budgetary controls from our leaders. But that isn't happening.

[Jumbo]

Or we could push the age to 80 and solve the whole problem?

Or I could just drop by your place and beat the crap out of you.

[chipwhich]

Or I could just drop by your place and beat the crap out of you.

That works

I am reminded when my father was handling my grandparents in their elder years and my father sat on the phone on hold for 2 hours with medicare and the recording came on and said sorry we are too busy now and disconnected him. Grandfather had Alzheimer's.

Then when my parents signed up for medicare and my mom got a bill for 4 months, which was supposed to be billed quarterly. She called the medicare office and said hey I thought we were supposed to be billed quarterly, and the nice woman on the phone said yeah 4 months is quarterly

It's really sad. But hey it's the system we have been dealt.

[Larry]

Or we could push the age to 80 and solve the whole problem?

Pushing up the retirement age certainly allows the politicians to have more money to spend in the general fund.

Not against fixes if there is some budgetary controls from our leaders. But that isn't happening.

So, your point is

A). You can't deal with what people actually said, so you'll just make things up, instead. And

B). You're opposed to slowing the growth of entitlements, because you can invent a maybe that you're somehow sure will be evil

Am I understanding you correctly?

[Wrong Direction]

Pushing up the retirement age certainly allows the politicians to have more money to spend in the general fund.

No it doesn't. It just makes the extremely bad debt problem coming in the 2020s and beyond (which makes today's problems look minor), look slightly less bad.

[chipwhich]

So, your point is

A). You can't deal with what people actually said, so you'll just make things up, instead. And

B). You're opposed to slowing the growth of entitlements, because you can invent a maybe that you're somehow sure will be evil

Am I understanding you correctly?

No what I said is it certainly is a bandaid solution

A person starts working FULL time at age 25 and pays into SS for 40 years only to hope they can take a distro at 70. 80. 90.

That is one approach to fixing the issue. It's nothing more than a band aid. But if you can explain how it isn't a band aid feel free.

My grandparents needed SS at the earliest age. Grandfather was a construction worker and farmer with no retirement. Grandmother was a secretary with a small pension.

My mom is a retired govie as a secretary, she made more in retirement than my father did prior to SS after a successful career at IBM where he made much more money than my mother.

My parents don't need the money but hey I guess that's why we are where we are.

---------- Post added January-2nd-2013 at 11:37 PM ----------

No it doesn't. It just makes the extremely bad debt problem coming in the 2020s and beyond (which makes today's problems look minor), look slightly less bad.

Exactly my point

[Prosperity]

You're intelligent enough to not make such sweeping false generalizations. Many baby boomers I know, including me, support extending the age, as well as making cuts to medicare and medicaid (before we even get to improving efficiency and reducing fraud).

Look, there's a reason why social security is a third rail right? It is the one thing that politically is immune to reform (only rivaled by medicare). Why is that? It's not because the solutions are complicated. It doesn't take a math wiz or policy guru to figure out obvious solutions like raising the retirement by a few years or mean testing. But these obvious solutions to an obviously big problem do not ever get off the ground politically.

Makes sense to follow the money. And big surprise it goes to the most powerful and wealthy age group. Obviously it is admirable that you, Larry, and your many acquaintances would vote against your short term interests. But I wasn't talking about every single baby boomer, but instead the group as a whole.

But yes the post was uncalled for in the sense that it was hyperbolic. I don't think baby boomers would get rid of public education to squeeze a few more years of viability out of SS or medicare, and also in the sense that lots of non boomers also dont want real cuts. But I am certain that SS and medicare will not be significantly reformed until we literally can't pay the bill. And reform won't happen earlier because baby boomers are very numerous, powerful, and wealthy, and they directly benefit from these programs. If even close to half would have been OK with reform then it would have been reformed by now.

[Jumbo]

But I wasn't talking about every single baby boomer, but instead the group as a whole.

I said I know you're not stupid.

There are good reasons to phrase comments on important topics with optimum precision if you want people to get the most out of that you have to say, and also avoid potentially alienating folks who might side with you (as well as allowing weak phrasing to lower your gravitas in general).

Sorry if I seem persnickety , but I set high standards for you (entirely unasked, I might add ).

Plus, sometimes I'm just unintentionally annoying.

[chipwhich]

short term interests.

This kind of says it all.

[Fergasun]

The rich folks have certainly done a good job at dividing the upper class over our "national debt crisis".

I think hard-core liberals as in "these programs are good for the really poor, and I see myself as rich enough that I support them" are really hard to find these days. Median household income in this country is $51k. Median household income in.... oh I dunno Fairfax County (where I was raised) is $106k. Median household income in Los Angeles County, where I currently live is $56k. Dunno what that has to do with anything, other than it seems like most people at the upper end of the income scale (not exactly the 2%) are buying into the "hey, let me hold onto more of what I make" attitude versus "I'm pretty well off, these programs are helping folks worse than me". I'm no hard core liberal to be honest but more open to that point of view thinking "my 2% payroll tax increase is certainly going to help some disabled or elderly person..."

Larry,
In response to what I wrote above. I've not seen Democrats argue directly that "deficits don't matter", but the democratic line certainly seems less concerned over spending than the GOP. I don't see why Democrats should embrace "entitlement reform" (which seems like a euphemism itself for something like "screwing over the poor") unless there really is an impeding problem. As in, we are certain that the 25% cut in benefits is right around the corner; we are in the middle of a debt crisis. But the GOP, certainly wants to act like there is a crisis, we are Greece, etc. because they don't want to spend any money to pay for the social programs that were established years ago.

What's funny to me is that whoever was in for Rush today (and another right wing commentator, so it can't be a coincidence) were running with the talking point that its Obama creating all these crisis points because he can make big changes during times of a crisis (ie. the Rahm Emmanuel quote from 2008). I think it's the GOP that has been more interested in creating false crises points to get urgency on cuts they would like to see.

[Elessar78]

Excerpt from White House Burning by Simon Johnson and James Kwak

"The fundamental problem is that gov't spending on Social Security and health care will grow faster than tax revenues. In our "optimistic" scenario, where all recent tax cuts expire and the rest of the gov't (other than Social Sec and health care) remains at the early 1930s levels mandated by the 2011 debt ceiling agreement, the deficit will grow to 5% of GDP around 2030 and continue upward. (The Nat'l Debt will be at 68% of GDP in 2030 and rising). If, instead, the income and estate tax cuts are extended, the deficit will be over 8 percent of GDP in 2030 (with the national debt at 103 percent of GDP) and climbing rapidly. In the latter scenario, the economy will not be able to grow fast enough to keep pace with both rising interest payments on the debt and rising primary deficits. Before we reach that point, however, something will have to give; the only question is what.

If the short-term deficit problem is due to tax cuts, the long-term deficit problem is largely due to health care. If the tax cuts were allowed to expire and, in addition, gov't health care spending could magically be kept at 2021 levels, there would be no long-term deficit problem. . . . There is no magic wand, however, that can freeze health care spending. So the federal gov't does have a long-term deficit crisis—but it is the product of a national health care crisis."

"Our health care problems are broader than our deficit problems. The long-term deficit could be eliminated, if you were willing to eliminate Medicare, medicaid, CHIP, and gov't subsidies for buying health insurance. But that would only shift costs onto indiv. families and increase total health care spending . . . Such a solution only makes sense if we care about the budgetary health of the US gov't but not the real health (and financial health) of the people it serves."

Early on the authors outline reasons why the US pays 2x as much per person on health care as the typical industrialized country, yet we have lower life expectancy than the others:
- our insurance system incentivizes health care providers to order too many tests and procedures
- doctors are encouraged to become specialists, instead of PCPs
- we over-consume health care because we only see part of the cost
- higher administrative costs
- high income inequality (or else would be doctors would turn to other professions)
- malpractice insurance costs forces doctors into "defensive medicine" that orders too many tests and procedures to shield themselves from lawsuits.

[Larry]

Larry,
In response to what I wrote above. I've not seen Democrats argue directly that "deficits don't matter", but the democratic line certainly seems less concerned over spending than the GOP. I don't see why Democrats should embrace "entitlement reform" (which seems like a euphemism itself for something like "screwing over the poor") unless there really is an impeding problem. As in, we are certain that the 25% cut in benefits is right around the corner; we are in the middle of a debt crisis. But the GOP, certainly wants to act like there is a crisis, we are Greece, etc. because they don't want to spend any money to pay for the social programs that were established years ago.

What's funny to me is that whoever was in for Rush today (and another right wing commentator, so it can't be a coincidence) were running with the talking point that its Obama creating all these crisis points because he can make big changes during times of a crisis (ie. the Rahm Emmanuel quote from 2008). I think it's the GOP that has been more interested in creating false crises points to get urgency on cuts they would like to see.

I'll certainly agree that there is a widely held belief that the D's don't care about deficits.

But there's plenty of historical evidence that says that that belief isn't true.

Both of our recent Presidents (and political Parties) have enthusiastically passed major entitlement programs.

But only one of those Parties actually bothered to raise enough revenues so that their program didn't run up the deficit. (For the first decade.)

One Party passed rules, demanding that any bill that raises the deficit, has to be "paid for", somehow. The other Party's first action, upon gaining power, was to unanimously repeal that rule.

One of my Facebook friends posted a link to this "article". It's really, really, slanted. (I think it's pretty clear that, while they don't come out and actually say it, that they're at least targeting those people who think that our current deficits are entirely due to the Bush tax cuts.). But, I think that the actual facts that they use, to try to support their propaganda, are, actually, facts.

Common Dreams: Deficits Were On Purpose To Cause This “Crisis”

Before ‘W’ got in and made changes in taxes and military spending we were paying off the debt. Bush said the deficits that resulted from his changes were “extremely positive news.” (Yes, that is in quotes, click the link.) Before that Reagan also caused deficits on purpose. He called it “starve the beast” — as if democracy is a “beast” that needs to be killed. So don’t fall for all this deficit hysteria, let’s just fix what caused the deficits and move on.

Any time any DC elite complains about “the deficit” remind them that when Clinton left office we had a huge surplus, so big that at the rate it was being paid down the entire US debt was going to be paid off in 10 years. Bush demanded that we give back the people’s money and Greenspan warned of the danger of paying off the debt. Etc. Etc. Etc. Then Bush doubled military spending — and started two wars on top of that!

So we went from big surplus to huge, huge deficits. Bush said it was “incredibly positive news” when we went back into deficit spending. He said it was good news because it continued the plan to use debt to force the government to cut back. He said that. It was the plan. (Don’t take my word for it, click the links.)

[Elessar78]

I'll certainly agree that there is a widely held belief that the D's don't care about deficits.

The Ds don't care about deficits? I know this isn't your sentiment but the GOP is the party that doesn't care about deficits. Reagan "proved" deficits don't matter. Cheney cites that as proof that deficits don't matter. Bush 43 certainly did not care about deficits.

So for all the rhetoric about "tax and spend" Liberals, if it were true, at least we tax (create revenue) to cover the spending. Instead of pulling stunts like cutting taxes AND jacking up spending.

Deficits don't matter until they do. Like I posted above, a time is coming eventually when health care spending and social security outpace growth. My tin foil hat theory is that this is the GOPs long-term play. Eventually we won't be able to afford medicare, medicaid, chip, etc and they'll be no other avenues to keep it viable. So guess what? They just go away. Scorched earth politics.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

So, the GOP just woke up and decided there was a health care system problem... interesting.

4 years later I'm still waiting for the GOP to propose something that helps solve this problem.

---------- Post added January-3rd-2013 at 09:37 AM ----------

TSF, all you're saying is don't add any more to the debt but grow the economy so while debt to GDP is at 95%, in 10 years it could be down to 85%, 75% and so forth?

Debt is different from the deficit. The deficit is the difference between yearly intake and expenditures. The debt is the overall amount of money the government owes. (I realize you probably know this.)

I'm saying you reduce the deficit to a point in which GDP is growing faster than money owed, so that the deficit is not as significant. I think that's what you are saying, but I don't know what percentage we should try to get it to. I just know that we don't want a government running in the black.

[Larry]

BTW, I really should state:

No, I don't think that the Dems are these fiscally conservative people who have a deep concern about deficits. I assume that they know just as well as the R's do that the best, time tested, way to stay in power, is by handing out free candy.

I think it's very likely that the Dems deficit controlling actions are merely because they know that they're vulnerable to the image that's been created. Not out of any deep concern over deficits.

OTOH, I will point out that, while the Dems probably don't care about deficits, that yes, there is ample support for the conclusion that the Republicans actually do like them. That they make useful weapons.