Fiscal Cliff

I can't believe anyone would vote down your posts, georgeob1. But funny things happen in political threads.



What if government simplified the regulations by spelling out exactly what banks could legally do, rather than what they must not do? Bills would be far shorter -- to the point where Congress could actually read what it voted on. Laws would be easier to follow.

I'm certainly in the camp that feels security cocktails pieced together from MBSs and CDSs make no real contribution to our economy's growth.

Surely, you're not suggesting regulations that could be understood by the majority of people in the industry?

Screw industry! They have $500 per hr lawyers who can interpret the laws for them. I would like laws to be written so I could understand them.

Pretty sure the answer to this lies in the fact that actions are considered to be legal unless a specific law makes them illegal. That prevents newly-discovered actions from automatically being illegal by default, something that nobody really wants.

The list of 'things you CAN do' would be pretty damn long, too...

Cycloptichorn

The Democrats all time shill EJ Dionne wrote a piece in the Washington Post today trying to convince his fellow liberals why the Fiscal Cliff deal was a good thing for Progressivesensibilities which, of course, means it wasn't.

Certainly wanted to see spending cuts, but I suspect that I'm more content with the tax increases than most progressives.

It's another can kicking, but the notion that this was only Obama's first bite at the revenue apple seems a bit thin.

I never supposed that some tax increases wouldn't be necessary. The questions that arise involve which taxes, and how much increase. Also, is Congress clear on whether they are trying to increase revenue, stimulate the economy, punish the rich, or some combination. I don't think anyone will argue that if we give Congress money, it will spend it.

Tax now, cut spending sometime in the sometime or other future is what I expected. Again, what spending might be cut, and by how much. Maybe we can hope that someday they will actually cut spending - not decrease the rate of increase. I said "hope", not "expect".

Everyone in Washington is dancing around the specifics of spending cuts. Everyone knows we need to make them but no one is willing to put the list on paper. I say let the sequestration cuts happen and get over that hump.

We are a consumer-driven, capitalistic economy...and "government" is a major engine of consumption.

What government spending would you cut that wouldn't have almost a one-for-one negative impact for each increment of positive impact the cuts would make?

The Pentagon budget keeps hundreds of thousands of people at work in decent paying jobs. Eliminate the Pentagon budget completely...and the economy goes so far into the tank you would not be able to find it with a microscope. Cut the Pentagon budget in half...and the economy would go into the tank, but you probably could find it with a microscope. Cut it significantly to impact on the deficit...and the economy would go into the tank, but you might still be able to spot it with the naked eye.

Cut the safety net programs and money would be saved. Some people would end up starving or freezing on the streets, but I guess we could save money by just digging ditches and having mass burials for them. And old people are going to die anyway, so why bother treating them as they face the end of life? We could humane and just kill 'em...or we could just let them die of natural causes.

Roger...the only way this problems gets handled properly is by changing the system major league.

Ain't gonna happen right now. We have to do a LOT more suffering before we head in that direction.

For now...we just have to make do somehow. And the only way I know anyone ever does that is to live on plastic!

Said another way:

Budget cuts are a dream...a fantasy. Sustained budget cuts don't even get that high up the ladder.

I would like to see cuts begin with military/CIA and such.

Which is exactly why the sequestration cuts are the perfect starting point. ~9.4% of the military budget and 8.2% everywhere else spread over 10 years.

And I hope that someday the lion will lie down with the lamb.

We will see the sort of spending cuts we need when there is no other choice, which means we will be in Greek Mode. Still there will be the shrill voices on the Left screaming that austerity is death; we need to keep spending. Undoubtedly, we will also see Greek Mode street riots by folks who can't imagine life without another governmental fix, and who are only too willing to believe the progressive demagogues telling them is more money to be had if they just lynch the rich.

We haven't seen even a fraction of the worst with Greece because they are among the first and only a nit. When the US hits the skids, there will be no one to bail it out.

I have no more faith in American Democrats or Republicans than I do in Greek politicians, because I don't have a lot of faith in a very large segment of the American population. As long as The Takers can swing elections, we will have politicians catering to them...just like in Greece.

At this point the question is how long before this happens, not if it will happen.

Unfortunately the good things we expect from the future always take long to materially than we expect, while the bad things rush in on our predictions.

We'll hit rock bottom long before we have flying cars.

Surprise, surprise.

And so when our fiscal irresponsibility renders us at our weakest, we will have already cannibalized our defenses.

'cept all that does is cut, minorly, into the amount of spending that rises each year.

And the cut to military spending is a joke, considering that this budget has risen by 100% in the last decade. It needs to be cut by a similar amount to approach anything even resembling fiscal sanity.

Cycloptichorn

Odd you say that, as the consistent prediction - by you and other conservatives - of imminent, runaway inflation has mysteriously... taken longer to materialize than you expected.

Cycloptichorn

Well, changing the slope of the curve is step one, imo. There's all sorts of hand ringing over this amount of spending cuts. It was considered so large and so painful that it would force congress to act. Huh! I'm fine with the sequestration cuts as a down payment.

Not so odd that you would make such a sweeping comment.

Find even one of my posts where I have even mentioned inflation.

You are conflating the comments of one poster with many others.

Where is Setanta when we need him?

So, when you throw around words like 'America will become like Greece...' what exactly are you referring to?

It's almost as if, when you write that, you don't realize that the end result of what you are taking about is... runaway inflation. But surely that couldn't be the case.

Cycloptichorn

I don't have a problem with it as a down payment. I wish that no deal had been done on taxes, and they had all been allowed to rise to the levels the law set them at originally...

Cycloptichorn

Can't you ever admit you were off the mark?

If you really think that runaway inflation is the only problem facing Greece you are far more ignorant than even I imagine.

Your problem in A2K is premature ejaculation. For some reason you think you have to respond in seconds to a post.

Next time, stop and take a breath. If you've screwed the pooch (as you did here) either admit it or remain silent. You seem to have an incredibly high self-regard for yourself: " No matter what stupid comment I, Cyclo, makes, I can bury it under my next brilliant retort!"

Guaranteed response in less than one minute.