Senate leaders pessimistic on fiscal cliff talks

World Dec. 31, 2012 - 07:15AM JST ( 16 )

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

Order by Time Order by Popularity

16 Comments

1

SuperLibDec. 31, 2012 - 09:21AM JST

Republicans say they intend to use the debt ceiling as leverage to extract more spending cuts from the president

Translation: Republicans have found a nice little political football to get spending cuts passed that they wouldn't otherwise have the votes for. Agree to their demands or they'll take the whole country's credit rating down with them.
1

globalwatcherDec. 31, 2012 - 09:50AM JST

GOP needs to remove SSI from the negotiation table to get it done. This issue can wait for the next spring.

What SSI increase are they talking about? I have received 1.7% hike while the medicare cost went up more than 1.7%. I am ready to compromise for the sake of country. Let's get it done.
0

sailwindDec. 31, 2012 - 12:06PM JST

But the deal was not meant to settle other outstanding issues, including more than $1 trillion in cuts over 10 years, divided equally between the Pentagon and other government spending.

I'm sure the President doesn't want to be reminded of this right now.

President Obama said unambiguously that the scheduled military cuts ordered by Congress in the absence of a debt-reduction deal will never take place.

Taking criticism from Mitt Romney over the slashes to defense spending set to kick in at year’s end, Obama emphasized that sequestration was not his idea.

“It’s something that Congress proposed,” Obama said. “It will not happen.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/10/obama-sequestration-will-not-happen-139250.html
-1

gaijinfoDec. 31, 2012 - 01:47PM JST

Let the government go broke. We don't need 'em.
1

Herve Nmn L'EisaDec. 31, 2012 - 02:26PM JST

" Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." James Madison Federalist Papers #10

How little has changed in two hundred years.

The highly bloated government with its limitless spending and largess at the expense of the citizenry is ripe for a major reduction.

This "cliff" would more aptly be called a "curb".

Another false "crisis".
0

LagunaDec. 31, 2012 - 02:45PM JST

The highly bloated government with its limitless spending and largess at the expense of the citizenry is ripe for a major reduction.

Again, Herve, I completely agree with you here. How many spy agencies does the US need? How many military bases, and in how many foreign lands (and with how many golf courses)? Cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is akin to a tax increase on the majority of Americans as they will now have to purchase privately or do without; eliminate several Pentagon programs and no one will notice the difference except the defense contractors (and watch how Republicans suddenly call for Keynesian spending here!).

Obama's ploy here is the debt ceiling. Any comprehensive agreement on taxes and spending absent that will leave the House GOP with ammunition for further damage; tying the two together allows Obama room not only to guide the US through this tough patch but also, potentially, to neuter that monstrosity so that it will not haunt future executives.

Hang tough. It will be an interesting ride, but no doubt, Obama, Reid and Pelosi have what is needed all packaged up and ready to go the minute January 3rd dawns.
0

sailwindDec. 31, 2012 - 03:00PM JST

How many spy agencies does the US need? How many military bases, and in how many foreign lands (and with how many golf courses)?

How many Federal agencies to manage weeds with along with a super committee appointed over them all to make sure they are all getting at the....errrrr.... root of this problem?

Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW)

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.

That's right 16!!!!! But let's not get serious and think that there isn't a few places we can't cut some spending here in the Government.
1

SuperLibDec. 31, 2012 - 04:35PM JST

And I'd support trimming useless fat from the government, sailwind. Everyone does. But I don't trust the Tea Party to navigate us through that. They've shown that they are completely irresponsible, and we both know that their knives wouldn't stop with any program that you'd list. The entire farm subsidies bill was held hostage so Republicans could try to gut food stamps.

The radical members want nothing short of eliminating every social program. They don't see the deficit as a problem, they see it as an opportunity. They will give sound bites like "we have to control spending" but they don't come out and state their real goal which is to break the federal government. I agree that spending does need to be cut, but I don't agree that all social programs should be eliminated and we should live in an "every man for himself" society. There are things like mentally and physically disabled people, the working poor, racism, sexism, single parents, addiction, unequal education, preexisting medical conditions, etc. I don't want to be part of a country that throws them in the gutter so I can keep a little more. Those people don't just vanish, they still live all around us. Next we'll have to start building walls.

The fact is the radical Republicans have no plan other than turning off the government. If you want to get people off of food stamps then let's talk about that. But don't hold a farm bill hostage so you can put millions of people off of food stamps overnight. Don't screw up our credit rating and raise our interest rates just so you can eliminate government jobs immediately with no plan to let those people transition into the private workforce.

The radicals are reckless, careless, dishonest, and should not be trusted.
-1

Herve Nmn L'EisaDec. 31, 2012 - 06:04PM JST

Laguna, I agree with you that the Repuglicans' sacred cow is the overt/covert Pentagram programs(snideness intended). Tremendous waste and one massive source of crony-capitalist special interests. But that is merely one side of the statist coin. The other side is all the social programs, the unfunded liabilities that, like invasive weeds, are coming into bloom and will choke out the productive plants. Those are the Dumocrats' sacred cows. The US is repeating the failings of past empires as the Romans. History repeats itself.
0

sailwindDec. 31, 2012 - 06:49PM JST

The entire farm subsidies bill was held hostage so Republicans could try to gut food stamps.

Hyperbole, its a farm bill in name only. It morphed from being a farm bill into a food stamp bill with only 20 percent of any aid actually to the American farmer. 80 percent is fund SNAP.

It’s Not Really a Farm Bill It’s a food stamp behemoth.

The link makes for pretty gringe inducing reading but the article does end on a happy note where a Bi-Partisan bit of reform actually was agreed upon.

The 2012 farm bill does include one reform, however: People who win the lottery will no longer be eligible for food stamps—even if they are unemployed and thus have no income. At last, something everyone can agree on.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/it-s-not-really-farm-bill_652901.html?page=1

The radical members want nothing short of eliminating every social program. They don't see the deficit as a problem, they see it as an opportunity.

You are so much smarter and better then this. Eliminating every social program? They couldn't even stop Obama-care from passing and that was with Mass electing a Republican Senator to try and stop it. They can't get pass square one to even reduce spending let alone eliminate anything. Heck, any suggestion that we need to actually do entitlement reform, the one thing every sane person knows needs to happen instead of just keep kicking that can down the road is met with howls of throwing Granny of the cliff.

There are things like mentally and physically disabled people, the working poor, racism, sexism, single parents, addiction, unequal education, preexisting medical conditions, etc. I don't want to be part of a country that throws them in the gutter so I can keep a little more.

Again pure hyperbole, they were with us when we traditionally spending 18 percent of our GDP on federal programs. they are still here now that we have been spending 24 percent of GDP the past 4 years and the food stamp program is just out of control now. And they are going to be with us if we spend 35 percent GDP or even 40 percent.

Secondly just for the record, the biggest health problem for the poor in the United States.........Obesity. I guess we can call our food stamp program a huge success after all.
0

LagunaDec. 31, 2012 - 07:30PM JST

The other side is all the social programs, the unfunded liabilities that, like invasive weeds, are coming into bloom and will choke out the productive plants.

People on both sides of the aisle recognize this. It was Reagan who first promised to "save" Social Security; the tweaks to the program under his administration vastly extended its life .< http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2005/03/05saving-light

No doubt the same will happen again. It will not, though, happen under a gun.

Medicare and Medicaid cannot be reformed without wholesale reform of the medical system in the US, something which Obamacare has commenced - and which the GOP opposes (at the moment; if a GOP president takes office and adopts the program wholesale, so will they). So, similar to SS, they will not be reformed under a gun.

Dumocrats' ...

Please. It is New Year's eve.

Sailwind, food stamps, in the midst of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression, now make up less than 2% of the Federal Budget, vs. about 3% which goes to direct farm aid. The maximum for a family of four is $668 a month, which works out to about $42 per person per week. If each person were to eat three meals a day, that's about $2 for each meal - maximum. You could eliminate food stamps entirely as well as eliminate all farm subsidies and you've saved less than 5% of the budget - less than Washington spends on interest payments - but at what cost?
0

sailwindDec. 31, 2012 - 08:10PM JST

You could eliminate food stamps entirely as well as eliminate all farm subsidies and you've saved less than 5% of the budget - less than Washington spends on interest payments - but at what cost?

Laguna,

Nobody is talking about eliminating food stamps. It's how its being administered through a 700 page legislative monster called a farm bill. This farm bill is rife with so many competing things that are have nothing to do with each other. The SNAP program or food stamps needs to be completely severed out of this monster so that it can be better managed scrutinized and means tested.

Even the far left Daily Kos agrees with this.

When is a "Farm Bill" No Longer a Farm Bill? An Example of Broken Governance

The point is, what does the Food Stamp program any longer have to do with the Farm Bill? They are two separate concerns, with a completely different constellation of issues and constituencies. They should be decoupled. Put Food Stamps, which are part of the social safety net, firmly under the purview and budget of the Department of Health & Human Services. It's funding should be a separate piece of legislation, negotiated on its own merits. The remaining, purely agricultural aspects of the true Farm Bill are complex enough, and deserve their own debate.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/11/1159846/-When-is-a-Farm-Bill-No-Longer-a-Farm-Bill-An-Example-of-Broken-Governance
-1

LagunaDec. 31, 2012 - 08:51PM JST

Hat's off to you, Sail! No disagreement here - though you notice that it is the GOP that can't seem to pass a farm bill - they are ripped three ways, between the grain states, the livestock states, and those who feel no money should go to farmers at all. Whatever; I believe in capitalism and that, whatever happens, prices will eventually set things right, no matter the unpleasantness for the producers.

Still, we're monkeying here with less than 5% of the budget.
0

Herve Nmn L'EisaDec. 31, 2012 - 09:10PM JST

Laguna, monkeying indeed! I, too, believe vehemently in true capitalism, without government interventionism.

You see, the problem is that government has become a massive behemoth.

My apologies if I offend your sensitivities, but whether I refer to the crooks as Repuglicans, Dumocrats, or Repuglicrats, it matters not. Not a one of any of them has the interest of liberty in mind.
0

badsey3Dec. 31, 2012 - 10:30PM JST

http://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/GAO-Fed-Investigation#outerpage144

The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131of the GAO Audit and are as follows..

Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000) Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000) Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000) Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000) Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000) Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000) Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000) Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000) JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000) Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000) UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000) Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000) Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000) Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000) BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000) and many many more

The accountants can start with the list above but the Donald Rumsfeld Pentagon $2.3 Trillion "untracked" loss itself has always intrigued me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU
0

SuperLibJan. 01, 2013 - 01:26AM JST

sailwind: Again pure hyperbole, they were with us when we traditionally spending 18 percent of our GDP on federal programs. they are still here now that we have been spending 24 percent of GDP the past 4 years and the food stamp program is just out of control now. And they are going to be with us if we spend 35 percent GDP or even 40 percent.

You are missing the point that I was trying to make. We both agree that government spending needs to be cut. The problem I have is with the radicals in the Republican party creating too much collateral damage in order to do it their way. On top of that you have Republicans who can't even agree with other Republicans on what to do and the result is gridlock within their own party.

If you want to talk about reducing food stamps then let's talk about it. If you want to decouple food stamps from the farm bill then let's do that. But at the very least we should have a reasonable and planned transition. Republicans were about to create chaos in the farming industry because of their own ineptitude, and that's a hell of a lot of collateral damage. They wanted to table the issue until after the election then couldn't get anything done because their own party had too many competing interests that created the gridlock. And these are the guys who want us to trust them to solve the problem?

The fact is that food stamp spending has doubled over the past 4 years because of the extraordinary recession. That's to say that we can cut the spending in half by growing the economy. But we have short-sighted congressmen who want to permanently change the system because of a temporary problem.

Same with the debt ceiling. The radical Republicans have found a way to cut spending, and that's to once again hold everyone hostage. The collateral damage will be our credit rating and our ability to have a functioning government. It's also a dangerous precedent to make. Future politicians will do the same regardless of who is in office. Again, short-term thinking with collateral damage.

How about the Veterans Job Corps Bill? Blocked by Republicans. They fear there are too many duplicate programs. Are they right? Probably so. But they want to start looking into that now at a time when we have a temporary situation with thousands of troops returning or who have returned? We both know that whatever studies they want to do won't be done until well after the returning troops will need them. The timing reeks of stupidity. More short-term thinking with soldiers being the collateral damage.

The list goes on and on. Boehner can't even get his own party to agree on the fiscal cliff. You have a bunch of kids squabbling for their own version of spending cuts and the rest of us are just sitting here waiting for them to sort their crap out. The collateral damage? The fiscal cliff.

Greece is a good example of how cutting too much government spending overnight can deepen the problems in an economy. Will the Republicans learn that lesson? There's a right way and a wrong way to go about this and the radical Republicans have the wrong way.