Obama warns of human cost of fiscal cliff

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 2

    TheQuestion

    Then negotiate like adults. If it's really that important take the preconditions off of the table and discuss revenues and spending modifications based on their merits rather than along partisan lines.

  • 1

    yabits

    The Republicans’ proposal would raise $800 billion in new revenue by closing tax loopholes and ending some deductions as part of the broader $2.2 trillion Republican package, including $1.2 trillion sliced from federal spending, with half of that coming directly from Medicare, the federal health program for the elderly.

    What will be the human impact of the cuts to the Medicare program?

  • 1

    paulinusa

    yabits: If there is any doubt before, it's become crystal clear now. The Republicans have a don't give a damn atitude about the poor and will let the country go down the drain defending tax rates of the rich.

  • -2

    yabits

    If there is any doubt before, it's become crystal clear now. The Republicans have a don't give a damn atitude about the poor...

    I think it would be better for the nation if the Republicans who support their own proposal to come out and admit it openly.

    As their standard-bearer, Willard Romney, said during the campaign, "I'm really not concerned about the very poor.." I suggest that these GOPers in Congress follow his lead.

  • -2

    yabits

    This is scary, right out of "Dr. Zhivago", with the comrades explaining to Dr. Zhivago why his home was far too large for just his family; and made into a tenement, "to make it fair."

    "Scary" to the lunatic fringe perhaps. But everything usually scares them.

    What wealthy person has been asked to sacrifice his or her house? First, second, third, or otherwise?

  • 3

    paulinusa

    What sacrifices will Obama make?

    He will only pay more taxes like other wealthy people. Nothing more.

  • 1

    Wolfpack

    What about the human costs of collapsing social programs that we all know is coming - and Obama seems to be doing everything he can to avoid fixing? Obama can take 99.9% of the wealthiest peoples money and it will not solve the problem. Spending is out of control and the paltry money that will come from higher taxes is not being used to address the annual deficit problem - it is only feeding an ever growing spending spree.

    Tax rates are not the issue - it's just a distraction. Obama keeps piling government program over government program and they are obviously unsustainable. The structure of the American entitlement state is the problem. Obama is in La La land while the ship of state is going under. How many more years of trillion dollar deficits will it take for people to wise up to the fact that trickle-down government is a disaster in the making. Obama is such an idiot. It is pure lunacy to insist on spending at an unprecedented rate when there is no way to pay for it no matter how much Obama redistributes the wealth of others.

    America is toast under this amateur.

  • 0

    yabits

    He will only pay more taxes like other wealthy people. Nothing more.

    Exactly. That is the "only" sacrifice expected from the wealthiest folks.

  • -2

    yabits

    What about the human costs of collapsing social programs that we all know is coming

    There's no reason they have to collapse. Just because conservatives have always hated the programs and wanted to cut the underpinnings doesn't make it a foregone conclusion.

    The rest of your post goes down an intellectual cliff from there and doesn't rate comment.

  • 1

    yabits

    There's no reason they have to collapse.

    To put things into some perspective: One month of what the US spends in Afghanistan would buy groceries for every American family for over a year. Not just the neediest -- every family.

  • 0

    sailwind

    What sacrifices will Obama make?

    He will only pay more taxes like other wealthy people. Nothing more.

    Not if his past tax 2011 Tax return is any guide. He did what every other rich person and family is going to do that is is going to do, take of advantage of every shelter they can legally use to not pay more taxes.

    President Obama and his wife, Michele, gave a total of $48,000 in tax-free gifts to their daughters, according to tax records made public on Friday.

    The president and his wife separately gave each daughter a $12,000 gift under a section of the federal tax code that exempts such donations from federal taxes.

    There is nothing illegal about the president’s taking advantage of this tax shelter, but it does raise eyebrows given that he has lamented the myriad tax exemptions used by the wealthy—“millionaires and billionaires” like himself—to pay less in taxes. He has yet to propose a comprehensive plan to reform the byzantine tax code.

    http://freebeacon.com/obama-family-tax-shelter/

  • 0

    yabits

    Not if his past tax 2011 Tax return is any guide. He did what every other rich person and family is going to do that is is going to do, take of advantage of every shelter they can legally use to not pay more taxes.

    So what? He's going to pay a higher rate on his earned income. "Shelters" are not limitless. That's why entities like the CBO can actually estimate how much more revenue will come in when the Clinton-era rates are restored on the top income brackets. (They take all those shelters into consideration.)

    he has lamented the myriad tax exemptions used by the wealthy

    The exemption you pointed out -- one's giving a tax-free gift to one's kids -- is not likely among the "myriad" tax exemptions that Americans should lament over. It's rather shameful and telling that the "freeperbeacon" couldn't come up with an exemption more "eyebrow-raising" -- Obama's records being public and all.

  • 0

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    Yabits, it's become comical listening to Obama-apologists defend his own tax-avoidance gymnastics while he continues to blather on about how the better off should pay more. Do as I say, not as I do. The emperor has no clothes.

  • 3

    sailwind

    That's why entities like the CBO can actually estimate how much more revenue will come in when the Clinton-era rates are restored on the top income brackets. (They take all those shelters into consideration.)

    Raising taxes to Clinton's rate is not going to solve the problem, cutting federal spending to the level of 18.2 percent of GDP that it was under Clinton from Obama's 25 percent of GDP to match his tax rates is the only true balanced approached here. It's not being pusued at all as the goal by either party. Democrats restore the Clinton rates, Republican's show us the REAL spending cuts to 18.2 of GDP. Card's on the table face up.....DEAL.

    I submit an article that really sums this up perfectly.

    Under Obama, federal spending now exceeds 25 percent of GDP, and his has been the biggest increase of any of his predecessors over the last 60 years – even for two-term Presidents.

    The real debate over deficits isn’t over whether to go back to Clinton-era tax rates. It’s how to get back to Clinton-era spending levels, and then create a tax system that will adequately fund it. The 18.2 percent level of federal spending is one piece of Clinton-era nostalgia worth recalling – as well as the bipartisanship that eventually produced it.

    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/12/05/Clintons-Spending-Cuts-Not-His-Tax-Hikes-Worked.aspx#page1

  • 0

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    Sail! The HORROR!! Cut spending?! REAL cuts?! How blasphemous!

  • -1

    saidani

    Obama is a socialist with an agenda. What he learned from Japan's lost decades was not how to avoid them but how to recreate them for America. Given the situation in Europe and Japan, haven't Americans figured out that a welfare state is a recipe for economic decline?

  • -2

    skipbeat

    Let the Bush-Obama's tax cut expired. Start fresh.

  • -2

    skipbeat

    Extending the Bush-Obama's tax cut is not helping the country in the long the run. People are paying less taxes toward SS. It should be the maxium so that retirees can get what they earned and future retirees can have something to look forward to. Don't have a problem paying more taxes when it goes toward the future. Congress must and should not touch SS/medicare funds.

    If everyone is not doing their fair share now, everyone may pay a higher tax rate in the future to make up for losses that occurred in the past and now.

  • 2

    Laguna

    Raising taxes to Clinton's rate is not going to solve the problem, cutting federal spending to the level of 18.2 percent of GDP that it was under Clinton from Obama's 25 percent of GDP to match his tax rates is the only true balanced approached here.

    Entirely correct, Sailwind. My son is off to college next year, and his tuition would put my expenses well over the percentage of my income that I feel comfortable with, so I told him to get a job and attend a community college. He protested, saying that expenditure as a percentage of income is relative to needs which change over time, but I brushed him off: What does he know. He's only a kid.

  • 2

    yabits

    He protested, saying that expenditure as a percentage of income is relative to needs which change over time, but I brushed him off: What does he know. He's only a kid.

    I suspect that apt example will "sail" right over the heads of many.

  • -1

    Wakarimasen

    Big yawn. The cliff is drop in the ocean of what need to be done to get finances back in control. Eventually US is going to have to print dollars big time.

  • 3

    yabits

    Raising taxes to Clinton's rate is not going to solve the problem

    I haven't heard anyone claim that raising rates alone will "solve" the problem. Let's avoid phony issues here.

    cutting federal spending to the level of 18.2 percent of GDP that it was under Clinton from Obama's 25 percent of GDP to match his tax rates is the only true balanced approached here.

    I don't know what the magic number is for spending cuts, or why 18.2 -- point two?? -- percent has any special magic to it. I agree that spending has to be cut, and defense spending probably provides the optimal place to cut significantly -- making sure we're taking care of our veterans at the same time.

    I don't know why Republicans are enamored of that 18.2 percent: When Bush ran in 2000, he promised up and down that he would keep federal spending in line with Clinton's. As we know, with a Republican-controlled Congress to help him, he raised discretionary spending more than any president since LBJ. And, in 2004, Republicans fully supported him again! The nation didn't get into the terrible crisis requiring much more federal spending until late in Bush's second term.

  • -2

    sailwind

    My son is off to college next year, and his tuition would put my expenses well over the percentage of my income that I feel comfortable with, so I told him to get a job and attend a community college.

    Not sure of your finances, but obviously you feel it would be to way to "taxing" on your income to pay for a full time college and are using another viable to stay and live within your financial means. I would consider this a smart move on your part as you could have opted for "borrowing" the difference from a rich relative in China with the "promise" that you'll pay it all back when your son graduates and starts making a decent salary.

  • -1

    saidani

    When Bush ran in 2000, he promised up and down that he would keep federal spending in line with Clinton's.

    Yes, but Bush was a failure in many ways, especially concerning common sense fiscal issues. Must Americans (and the world, for that matter) suffer a continuance of those failures because of political posturing? Obama has done nothing to reverse the decline begun by Bush. If anything, he has taken them to a new level which will have ripples around the world. The destruction of the USD (which is the only way to get out from under all the debt save outright default) will have adverse affects everywhere. What's the end game?

  • -5

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    Laguna,

    Best advice you could give your child, " so I told him to get a job and attend a community college."

    Individual responsibility.

    Perhaps you're familiar with Fred DeLuca, self-made billionaire. After succeeding in his business, DeLuca realized his dream to go to college and graduated from the University of Bridgeport.

  • -4

    cleo

    My son is off to college next year, and his tuition would put my expenses well over the percentage of my income that I feel comfortable with, so I told him to get a job

    But you knew 18 years ago that this time would come and that you really needed to budget for it. I hope you don't complain about government failures to budget for the maintenance of infrastructure, or the pensions of the boomers.

  • 2

    yabits

    Yes, but Bush was a failure in many ways

    Yes, a two-time failure. With the complete support of his party.

    Which makes them equally culpable in the failure.

    Obama has done nothing to reverse the decline begun by Bush.

    Many will argue with you there. Ending the money pit known as the Iraq debacle for starters.

  • 4

    yabits

    I would consider this a smart move on your part as you could have opted for "borrowing" the difference from a rich relative in China with the "promise" that you'll pay it all back when your son graduates and starts making a decent salary.

    Therefore betting against your own son over the long run.

    If a person has the talents to become, say, a great engineer or great medical professional, and they are not able to realize those talents because of his or her parents' financial situation, doesn't society lose out? Aren't there public policy implications here that the conservatives and libertards fail to take into consideration?

    With my sibling, I told her I'd be willing to go into hock to finance her first year at school, but that, if she was good enough and motivated enough to go further, she'd have to get an academic scholarship -- which she ended up doing, as well as supplementing it with on-campus employment. But the fact that monies were available for scholarships was of key importance. There must be a mix and balance of individual and collective responsibility.

  • 1

    yabits

    But you knew 18 years ago that this time would come and that you really needed to budget for it.

    Yes, and those begging for bread could have been eating cake all along.

  • -5

    Kapuna

    "Everyone is going to have to share in some sacrifice. But it starts with folks who are in the best position to sacrifice.” Note everyone does share in some sacrifice, 47% don't. Get rid of the income tax and adopt a consumption tax. Then, everyone will share in some sacrifice.

  • 1

    Laguna

    The median age in America increased from 32.9 in 1990 to 35.3 in 2000 and 37.2 in 2010, with seven states recording a median age of 40. Reagan tweaked SS funding with just this in mind; Clinton balanced the budget in an attempt to create a nest egg. When Bush was elected in 2000, as incredible as it seems, the worry was that disappearing American debt would wreak havoc on financial markets by removing the T-bill; Bush promised that his tax cuts would both return money to citizens and protect America's nest egg.

    Nice sentiments, but it didn't turn out that way. That is why Bush's tax cuts must be revisited - Bush himself never couched them in moral terms; he just pointed out that Washington was at the time awash in revenue (despite warnings that that would likely be ephemeral).

    Many on this site cite the need for cutting expenditures but fail to recognize two main types: Optional and mandatory. In the former case, money not spent by Washington simply means a task left undone - military spending, say, or infrastructure to some extent. In the latter case, money not spent by Washington requires other parties to pick up the cost, often at a much higher rate. Delaying Medicare benefits by a year, for example, would require citizens to pick up their private insurance - somehow, and if possible - for another year, and study after study has shown Medicare to be far more cost-efficient than private insurance. In effect, Washington would be saving some 75¢ for every $1.00 it shifts to taxpayers in out-of-pocket expenses. Also, as insurers are no longer allowed to discriminate due to age under the ACA, requiring them to insure this age demographic would necessarily require that they raise premiums on every other age demographic.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/03/raisingthe-medicare-age-may-be-good-gop-politics-but-single-payer-is-the-better-solution-for-all-americans/

    Romney never seemed to get that a company balance sheet, which can be righted by shifting off obligations, is quite different from the Federal balance sheet. Penny wise and pound foolish: that is what the Boehners are professing.

  • -2

    saidani

    Ending the money pit known as the Iraq debacle for starters.

    Yes, well, Obama has made up for that spending cut as the debt continues to soar. Of course, bombing Libya and supporting rebels (including al Qaeda) in Syria doesn't come cheap, either. But, perhaps you could enlighten us about Obama's spending cuts that he has yet to outline.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Therefore betting against your own son over the long run.

    If a person has the talents to become, say, a great engineer or great medical professional, and they are not able to realize those talents because of his or her parents' financial situation, doesn't society lose out?

    Doesn't square with reality, student loans are not denied based on the students parents financial situation, that's the whole reason for the student loan program in the first place. Society doesn't lose out unless the loans are easy to get and not likely to be paid back therefore creating a student loan bubble much like the bubble that burst in the housing market and causing massive grief worldwide.

    Oh wait.....The Scariest Chart Of The Quarter: Student Debt Bubble Officially Pops As 90+ Day Delinquency Rate Goes Parabolic

    Outstanding student loan debt now stands at $956 billion, an increase of $42 billion since last quarter. However, of the $42 billion, $23 billion is new debt while the remaining $19 billion is attributed to previously defaulted student loans that have been updated on credit reports this quarter. As a result, the percent of student loan balances 90+ days delinquent increased to 11 percent this quarter

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/scariest-chart-quarter-student-debt-bubble-officially-pops-90-day-delinquency-rate-g

  • 0

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    yabits,

    " With my sibling, I told her I'd be willing to go into hock to finance her first year at school, but that, if she was good enough and motivated enough to go further, she'd have to get an academic scholarship -- which she ended up doing, as well as supplementing it with on-campus employment.'

    That's a nice story. Good for the both of you, charity at work with some personal responsibility thrown in. That's great.

    As a matter of conscience, in my college days I worked(paid handsomely for photographic skills) and only accepted privately funded scholarships, managing to fund my education at Brown. Alumni very often also support scholarships, as do I, but that's a very different issue from government(tax-extracted) largesse.

    I hope one day the difference is more discernable to those of the OWS/entitlement persuasion.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Many on this site cite the need for cutting expenditures but fail to recognize two main types: Optional and mandatory.

    Mandatory expenditure: Provide for the common defense

    Optional expenditure: And this is just one example of so many others just like this that I can provide:

    The Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic weeds (FICMNEW) was established through a Memorandum of Understanding signed by agency leadership in August 1994. FICMNEW represents **an unprecedented formal partnership between 16 federal agencies **with direct invasive plant management and regulatory responsibilities spanning across the United States and territories.

    A total of 16 Federally Tax Funded agencies are involved in managing weeds and a super weed committee even formed and funded to oversight it all. And we can't figure out where to even start with what could use a little trim in Federal spending?

  • 2

    Laguna

    Thanks for backing up my point, Sail. According to this otherwise stiflingly boring article,

    Federal agencies now estimate that the loss in productivity among our primary agricultural commodities due to competition with exotic plants totals about $7.4 billion dollars annually and an additional $3.6-$5.4 billion is spent trying to control these pest species. http://web1.cnre.vt.edu/forestupdate/newsletters/Volume16/16.2.1.htm

    I'm no weed expert (though I can't wait to retire to Washington State), but again, it seems logical that a bit of federal funding to coordinate actions among agencies and the private sector is not to be begrudged when facing annual losses topping $10 billion.

    Funny how some seem so selective in their memory of the preamble to the Constitution, selectively retrieving only "provide for the common defense" while completely ignoring the very second point, " promote the general welfare." Damage caused by kudzu dwarfs that caused by terrorists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudzu_in_the_United_States yet conservatives get all jump-up-and-down hot-and-bothered when the government fights the former but don't bat an eyelash at, say, the F-35, on which the United States is projected to spend an estimated US$323 billion for development and procurement (that cost doesn't include actually operating the thing: The total lifecycle cost for the entire American fleet is estimated to be US$1.51 trillion over its 50-year life, but that's likely a low-ball figure).

    That works out to some $84 million a day - or $3,500,000 an hour, every hour, committed for 50 years - for an airplane.

    Remember that figure when you start complaining about helping farmers to control invasive weeds.

  • 1

    Alphaape

    What will be the human impact of the cuts to the Medicare program?

    @ yabits: I would suggest you read an article from USA Today that talks just about Medicare and Medicade. It seems that since Obamacare has begun to take affect, the Federal Govt haas begun to roll out a large effort required by the new health care law, the Affordable Care Act that will move up to 2 million of the nation's sickest and most expensive patients into managed care. In the story it talks about how a woman who was on Medicaid before, was able to see her Oncologist of choice before. But now under this new "experiment" (not my words but words used in the article itself), she was no longer able to see the doctor of her choice that she has been seeing for years, but was forced into a position where some bureaucrat in some office is going to decide what's best for her.

    Though I am not a fan of Obamacare, and it seems reading the article that she was able to get treatment for her condition for years, what is troubling is how the government has decided to "experiment" with the sickest, oldest, and poorest. And yet Obama keeps screaming that his plan only goes after the top "2%.": I remember a year ago that he was leading the charge against the top "1%" with the OWS. It seems just like with the promise that there will not be any shortage and cuts to the current programs when Obamacare kicks in, and now they are doing just that, we will see that magical "2%, families making more than $250,000" somehow drop down to those in the true middle class, and even further.

  • 0

    Alphaape

    Even those who were big supporters of Obamacare are crying foul over this "experiement."

    Do we need to bring reform to the tax code and make cuts, I believe so. But just trying to stick it to only the top "2%" and only make promises on cutting spending sometime down the road is not the answer.

    My suggestion, across the board 10% cuts that can be implemented by not filling personnel who are retiring and otherwise leaving some (not all) positions open. And a cut back on government spending.

    Article link for the Obamacare experiment: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/05/medicare-medicaid-experiment-on-managed-care/1736115/

    In my opinion, just like they promised one thing with Obamacare and are starting to do another, whatever plan that will come forth, it will only be done to make headlines, and they will find ways to do something else.

  • -2

    Serrano

    "let the rates on the two percent of richest earners go up from 35% to 39.6% to finance cuts to the bloated deficit"

    If I was told I have to give 39.6% of what I earn to a government that wastes as much money as the U.S. government, I'd move to another country. And it will never go to reducing the deficit, it will just get spent under this joke of an administration.

    yabits: "The rest of your post goes down an intellectual cliff from there and doesn't rate comment."

    LOL! This is what liberals say when they are unable/too lazy to refute what someone has said.

    yabits - I'm laughing at the superior intellect.

  • 0

    Alphaape

    The structure of the American entitlement state is the problem.

    @ wolfpack: Bingo! Just today an article came out that stated that the PA State Dept of Public Welfare has come out and said that it would be better for a woman with 2 kids (single parent) to have a job that only paid $29,000 a year than a similar woman with a job that pays $60,000 a year. With the amount of tax payer supported subsidies that the lower paid woman is eligible (Food Stamps, Section 8 housing, Meidcare and child health care, etc) she would have more disposable income than the single mother who works at a higher paying job.

    That type of system and mentality of entitlement will not work in the long run. The system is set up to reward those who don't make it, and if you try to better yourself you get screwed. So much for trying to better yourself in PA.

  • -2

    sailwind

    Laguna,

    16 separate Federal agencies managing the war on obnoxious weeds that then needed to have a super committee appointed to coordinate the "weed war" is just flat out ridiculous. I'm no weed expert either but you can't be serious if this doesn't strike you as a tad bit of overkill. Also States have weed control boards, Counties have weed control boards and even some cities have them. There is a veritable weed fighting army out there in the trenches getting to the "root' of the problem. I'm pretty sure that a more streamlined chain of command structure from the federal level on down to the guy or gal who is tasked with reaching down and grabbing the offensive botany specimen and deporting it back to whatever country it came from (as I am sure there is some federal regulation someplace that prohibits "'plant abuse") would be feasible to save a some tax payer dollars here.

    As far as this,

    yet conservatives get all jump-up-and-down hot-and-bothered when the government fights the former but don't bat an eyelash at, say, the F-35,

    Not true, not True at all.

    Reports out of Washington indicate that senior Pentagon officials and key members of Congress alike have become much more concerned about Lockheed’s struggle to get airplanes built and tested. So far, only four flight test airplanes have flown, out of 13 that are scheduled.

    At the urging of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the Senate Armed Service Committee held a closed-door hearing last week to grill Pentagon officials on the F-35 program.

    "I came out of the briefing with serious concerns," McCain told Bloomberg News. "There’s already been significant cost overruns. It’s hard for me to believe that all of that has come to a halt."

    http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/110865/some-see-%E2%80%9Cdeath-spiral%E2%80%9D-for-f_35-jsf.html

    Remember this also before you just claim Conservatives don't care about costs and cost over runs when it comes to defense programs.

  • 1

    Laguna

    "I came out of the briefing with serious concerns," McCain told blah blah News.

    McCain always has "serious concerns" about things that, as far as he is concerned, spring up around him like mushrooms. He has "serious concerns" about Rice; he no doubt has "serious concerns" about invasive flora. The difference is the severity of the root of his "serious concerns": Rice, the F-35, and other issues he lumps into his universe of that deserving "serious concern." He might have well been a tad more budget-conscious regarding the F-35 in earlier stages; he is, after all, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, and there are clearly differences between a woman not yet nominated for any posts, a hugely expensive weapon directly under his purview, and goat food.

    Just like Alphaape above getting all teary-eyed about a Medicare beneficiary not allowed to see her favored oncologist (though, according to the article, she eventually was) but in his next post lamenting the single mother in Philly bringing up two children for receiving benefits for bringing up two children, some people seem to be all over the map. Money certainly is not free; the woman in Philly will lose the vast majority of her benefits the minute her children reach maturity - to suggest she'd rather get by on $29,000 than work probably an equivalent amount for $60,000 is a red herring; kudzu will probably survive the Apocalypse along with cockroaches, hair restoration products and left-over AOL installation disks; but none of these are under the purview of Sen. McCain. He nonetheless manages to summon equal outrage for all - effectively equating the budgetary outrage of the F-35 to all else.

    Oh - I did a bit more conversion: this baby is costing us a bit over $58,000 a minute, or basically $1,000 every second of the 31,536,000 seconds in a year over the 1,576,800,000 seconds scheduled for the program - except that the aircraft frames are expected to fail well before that mark. One might have serious concerns about that.

  • -1

    sailwind

    Oh - I did a bit more conversion: this baby is costing us a bit over $58,000 a minute, or basically $1,000 every second of the 31,536,000 seconds in a year over the 1,576,800,000 seconds scheduled for the program - except that the aircraft frames are expected to fail well before that mark. One might have serious concerns about that.

    Canada does have serious concerns, just cancelled their purchase of the planes less than 4 hours ago due to the costs. The market is talking and pretty sure big changes for the F-35 and the program is going to be happening here after this bit of news. Which by the way makes your numbers not really factual in implying that the U.S taxpayer is the only player on the hook here. The plane is being made for a 8 member nation consortium, mutual defense pact arrangement type of contract I'd assume, well 8 members now as Canada has had enough of the continued price hikes. This also rather defeats your contention that the program isn't immune from being cut, modified or changed, interesting to see free market forces at work here with Canada more than likely going to say Europe for their next generation fighter, France makes some top of the line stuff by the way.

    Federal government cancels F-35 fighter purchase

    The decision is sure to have ripple effects around the world, as any reduction in the number of aircraft on order causes the price to go up for all the other buyers. Canada is one of nine F-35 consortium members, including the United States.

    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Federal+government+cancels+fighter+purchase/7663407/story.html

    As far as concern and calculations, I'm more concerned about these figures, $4 billion per day, $170 million per hour, $2.8 million per minute and more than $47,000 per second, That's the breakdown of how much the national debt rises PER DAY now. That and along with making sure that when transferring Kudzu across state line that my USDA PPQ Form 526 is properly filled out:

    USDA requires permits for the importation and/or interstate movement of Federal noxious weeds (FNWs) - aquatic and wetland, parasitic and terrestrial- under the authority of 7 CFR 360. You will find a list of the regulated taxa in 7 CFR 360.200.

    Section 403 of the Plant Protection Act (PPA) defines Noxious Weed as:

    “any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health, or the environment.”

    Apply for a permit
    

    If the species is a Federal noxious weed, and/or a parasitic plant, then fill out PPQ Form 526, Application for permit to move live plant pests or noxious weeds.

    http://www.aphis.usda.gov/planthealth/permits/organism/federalnoxious_weeds.shtml

  • 0

    SuperLib

    AlphaApe: Bingo! Just today an article came out that stated that the PA State Dept of Public Welfare has come out and said that it would be better for a woman with 2 kids (single parent) to have a job that only paid $29,000 a year than a similar woman with a job that pays $60,000 a year. With the amount of tax payer supported subsidies that the lower paid woman is eligible (Food Stamps, Section 8 housing, Meidcare and child health care, etc) she would have more disposable income than the single mother who works at a higher paying job.

    What he's done is found a sweet spot with, no doubt, an ample amount of time and research to do it. He's picking specific incomes, specific situations, and adding in what he needs to add in to get the numbers to jive. One thing left off your list was "4-star child care" which is the biggest contributor. Not food stamps, not Section 8, and not child health care. Now that he's worked the numbers to create his outcome he publishes them, then people like you take this very specific situation and apply it to all of America.

    That type of system and mentality of entitlement will not work in the long run. The system is set up to reward those who don't make it, and if you try to better yourself you get screwed. So much for trying to better yourself in PA.

    And above is the end result. The specific example is applied to everyone and the conclusion is "the system is set up to reward those who don't make it."

    Maybe you should be asking yourself why the system produces full-time jobs that are at or below the poverty levels. Because of the government?

  • 0

    Alphaape

    One thing left off your list was "4-star child care" which is the biggest contributor.

    @ SuperLib: You missed the point. The person who works and amkes money is not eligible for things like 4 star child care, while the woman who works but just barely makes it does qualify for childcare, along with reduced lunch for their children. I personally know of people in my own family who take full advantage of our system of welfare just to get over on the rest of the taxpayers, and who do so thinking it is their right.

    Not saying we shouldn't help those who need it, but just like people want to blame people who have a lot of money and take advantage of the tax laws to come out ahead in paying as few taxes as possible, some people work the system at the other end of the spectrum.

  • 0

    jeff198527

    America dug its own grave. Now it has to lie in it.

  • 0

    yabits

    Society doesn't lose out unless the loans are easy to get and not likely to be paid back therefore creating a student loan bubble much like the bubble that burst in the housing market and causing massive grief worldwide.

    Society stands to lose a great deal more when the general education level of the population is not kept to as high a standard as possible, and people are unable to get the knowledge and experience necessary to hone their skills and abilities.

    During some random reading, I happened to chance upon this rather disturbing set of statistics: Conservatives like to use the analogy of a family making ends meet and living within its budget to the federal government, as well as how much more efficiently the private sector manages things. Well, think again:

    What if the fiscal cliff is the wrong cliff?

    "One premise of the people who built the 'fiscal cliff'--who committed Congress to either make big inroads on the deficit or have big inroads made automatically, meat-cleaver style--is that government debt is central to our economic problems. What if they're wrong?

    "I don't mean 'What if public debt isn't a problem?'--because it is, and I don't doubt that addressing it in some measure is a good idea. I mean: What if public debt is such a small part of the problem that we're setting ourselves up for pain followed by disappointment? What if we'll make lots of budget cuts, dampening economic activity in the short term, only to find that the long-term benefits, while real, are dinky in the scheme of things, and there's a much bigger problem that's been left unaddressed?

    "That's the view of some analysts whose voices aren't getting much airtime amid all the freaking out about the fiscal cliff. They say that private debt--mortgages, credit card bills, business loans, etc.--is a much bigger problem than public debt, and we're going to have to confront it before we truly recover from the great recession."

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/what-if-the-fiscal-cliff-is-the-wrong-cliff/265964/

  • 0

    sailwind

    During some random reading, I happened to chance upon this rather disturbing set of statistics:

    You obviously missed the most important one then.

    Households back to slashing debt, Fed says

    The Federal Reserve, in its voluminous flow-of-funds report, reported household debt fell an annualized 2% in the third quarter to $12.87 trillion, marking the 16th period out of 18 that has seen a decline. The 2% drop was the largest since the second quarter of 2011.

    http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-12-06/economy/356370931household-debt-government-debt-third-quarter

    Now if the Federal Govt and Obama could actually do what Americans have been doing around their kitchen tables the last 16 Qtr's out of 18 Qtr's reducing spending and cutting back on the debt load we'd actually get somewhere.

  • 0

    yabits

    You obviously missed the most important one then.

    Why is that "the most important" statistic? (Because you say so?)

    Especially when it -- 2% of nearly $13 trillion -- doesn't even touch more than half of total private debt? And especially when reduced consumer spending impacts areas of the economy that we most need to help us grow.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-M0LbYFHtPs

    Pay close attention to bullet points 4 and 5 at the end. I believe those are more important points than the one you gave. Debt restructuring -- which hasn't been discussed here -- appears to be a much more important tool than household debt repayment, which is mainly consumer debt.

  • 0

    yabits

    Now if the Federal Govt and Obama could actually do what Americans have been doing around their kitchen tables

    Do you think cutting 2% of the federal budget deficit in one year will cut it? The total deficit for 2012 is around $1 trillion, according to CBO estimates.

    If you think cutting 2% of that should be the goal, then that level of reduction can easily be reduced through increased tax collection alone.

  • 0

    yabits

    then that level of reduction can easily be reduced

    sorry, should have read "then that level of reduction can easily be realized...."

  • -1

    sailwind

    Do you think cutting 2% of the federal budget deficit in one year will cut it?

    As I said, you've obviously haven't really looked into this very much.

    When factoring in inflation, American households have deleveraged by about 13% since the onset of the Great Recession.

    Household net worth — the difference between assets and liabilities — rose $1.7 trillion to $64.8 trillion.

    http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-12-06/economy/356370931household-debt-government-debt-third-quarter

  • 1

    yabits

    As I said, you've obviously haven't really looked into this very much.

    You make it appear as though you have looked at this in great detail. I rather doubt it. Factoring in inflation, the annual rate of de-leveraging was around 2.5 to 2.6 percent. I'll ask again: is that the percentage of deficit reduction the Federal government should have as a target?

    Household net worth — the difference between assets and liabilities — rose $1.7 trillion to $64.8 trillion.

    I am not sure what the point of that statement is. The federal government has loads of assets too, starting with lands, mineral rights,etc. Care to estimate the value of all that and present it as a "net worth" statement?

    Also, one must be aware that the vast majority (over two-thirds) of total household net worth is held in "deposits, corporates, mutual funds, pension funds and other assets, was all in one way or another tied into the stock market and the viability of the financial sector." Less than one third of that amount is held in what are called "tangible assets."

    It appears that President Obama has had a very good record on that score. His administration's early efforts to prioritize saving the financial sector is the primary factor to the steady growth in household net worth over the past four years.

    http://www.thetraderswire.com/us-household-assets-78-2-trillion-liablilties-13-5-trillion-net-worth-64-8-trillion/

  • -1

    sailwind

    is that the percentage of deficit reduction the Federal government should have as a target?

    Matching at the Federal level as to what the American people have been doing around their kitchen tables when their discussing and working on their family budgets and how much they have been cutting back on their personal debt would be a pretty good target actually. The ground is already prepared by the American people to be expecting the Government to be doing he same thing they are in to get the national kitchen table discussion to resemble the local dining room table one to get the spending and debt back under control.

    Though no one at all either the Republicans or the Democrats are proposing anything close to actual deficit reduction at all. Only slowing down the rate of spending. Anything posted that even implies that actual deficit reduction at the federal level is a factor in the current cliff discussions and raising taxes on the 2 percent to address the deficit is nothing more than fantasy talk and a total red herring.

    The federal government has loads of assets too, starting with lands, mineral rights,etc. Care to estimate the value of all that and present it as a "net worth" statement

    Found a pop quiz for you on Uncle Sam's assets, since this really started with my pointing out that the Student loan bubble is starting to burst,

    Pop Quiz! Without recourse to your text, your notes or a Google search, what line item is the largest asset on Uncle Sam's balance sheet?

    A) U.S. Official Reserve Assets B) Total Mortgages C) Taxes Receivable D) Student Loans

    The current banter is all about the Fiscal Cliff, but that complex set of issues will be addressed -- one way or another -- before the next quarterly update of this grim quiz. However, the student loan bubble, the biggest slice in Uncle Sam's pie, will haunt our economy for many years to come.

    http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/Federal-Government-Assets-and-Student-Loans.php

  • -1

    Alphaape

    However, the student loan bubble, the biggest slice in Uncle Sam's pie, will haunt our economy for many years to come.

    @ sailwind: YOu may have noticed that Obama signed into law on Friday a new provision of the student loan laws that will start on Dec 21, 2012 (I guess the Mayans were correct predicting the end of the world). What it does is allows people who have taken student loans to be able to pay only 10% of disposable income to pay off the government issued loans. This will last for 20 years, when the person can be given debt forgiveness for the loan. Also, if you decide to major in what the government determines to be "socically relevant" and is a benefit to the public (i.e. something to do with the public sector) your loan will be forgiven in 10 years vice 20.

    This is just another move by Obama in freezing private industry out of another market i.e student loans. Why would anyone go to a private lender to get a loan, when you can get a government loan, and who is to determine what your "disposable income" will be. One could have a high mortage, high car note, and other bills, and then come up with some small number that they will have to pay off their student loans for the next 20 years. A lot of room to rig the system.

    The real benefit from this colleges with the soon to be large influx of money coming in. The big looser in all of this, the taxpayer. Think of the housing "bubble" and people getting loans on homes they couldn't afford, and the taxpayer was on the hook. Same thing will happen when the government finds out that people will all of a sudden not have the "disposable income" to pay back their loans, and after 20 years of paying only minimum payments,the loan is forgiven. But the money is still not paid back, and the tax payer has to make up the difference.

  • 0

    yabits

    YOu may have noticed that Obama signed into law on Friday ...

    What Friday? Date please.

    Signed into law? That must mean it was passed by a bi-partisan Congress before it got to the president's desk for signature. On this particular bill, what was the vote count and how did it break out by party in both houses?

    This is just another move by Obama ..

    See what crap this is? A bill that passes through Congress, with the House controlled by Republicans, and a Senate that is subject to a minority party filibuster somehow gets translated into a "move by Obama." Geez, but what do some of you people use for brains?

  • -1

    Alphaape

    What Friday? Date please.

    @ Yabits: This past Friday, Dec 7. At Yahoo News, the article "Education Department announces new 'Pay as You Earn' student loan repayment will start Dec. 21" gives you more information. From the article, one thing you should note is: "Congress had scheduled the new program to phase in in 2014, but the Obama administration took regulatory measures to make those options available sooner. It's estimated 1.6 million borrowers could take advantage of the program."

    So yes yabits, in a way you are correct. Congress did pass the bill. But Obama decided to use "regulatory measures" to make a change to the start date, something that wasn't in the law. So a President who can just "change it as it goes" will not be a good thing for America in the long run. Imagine if Bush (and he did) did the same thing, you would be one of the cheerleaders screaming on the abuse of his power.

    Geez, but what do some of you people use for brains?

    I could ask the same of you. I get you may not like people who have opposing viewpoints to yours, and you think those on the right just get talking points from Fox News, but this article came from Yahoo, so I woud suggest you might just do a little research on your own for awhile. Link to the article: http://news.yahoo.com/feds-student-loan-repayment-options-142402532.html

  • 1

    yabits

    "Congress had scheduled the new program to phase in in 2014, but the Obama administration took regulatory measures to make those options available sooner. It's estimated 1.6 million borrowers could take advantage of the program."

    So what? Millions of students need some relief now. Not in 2014. Over 20 years, with a percentage taken out of their salaries, the vast majority of those loans will be paid off with interest.

    But Obama decided to use "regulatory measures" to make a change to the start date, something that wasn't in the law.

    So? It's within his authority as president to do. How does easing some of terms on student payback of federal loans constitute the end of the world -- Mayan or otherwise?

    Imagine if Bush (and he did) did the same thing, you would be one of the cheerleaders screaming on the abuse of his power.

    A pure crock. Students need some help in this economy. I would be for whoever helps them, be it Obama or any other president.

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • Reservations and Operations Executive

    Reservations and Operations Executive
    Destination Asia Japan、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥2.0M ~ ¥3.0M / Year
  • Marketing & Communications

    Marketing & Communications
    East West Consulting (イーストウエストコンサルティング株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: Salary negotiable
  • Country Manager

    Country Manager
    Gallo Japan KK、Tokyo
    Salary: Salary negotiable
  • Business Development Leader

    Business Development Leader
    GPlus Media K.K. / 株式会社ジープラス・メディア、Tokyo
    Salary: Salary negotiable Commission Based Depending on Experience
  • IT Operations Manager

    IT Operations Manager
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ

More in World

View all

View all