Politics & Current Events
cincychick35
member
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Should we go over the fiscal cliff?
A growing number of Democrats are suggesting that instead of reaching a deal, they should revisit deficit negotiations after Jan. 1, when the tax rates snap back up.
Progressive activists say the White House should be ready to walk away from the bargaining table. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a member of the Democratic leadership, added her voice Sunday. Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) argue it may be the only option.
The thinking is that, once taxes rise, lawmakers would then be able to say they voted to cut taxes, giving more flexibility to Republicans who feel locked into Grover Norquist?s anti-tax pledge.
They have some backup from analysts. The impact would be significant in the short term as taxes rise on every American ? but not catastrophic as long as Congress strikes a deal within a few weeks and reverses the damage.
I am beginning to think this might be better than rushing a deal which, in the end, might not be the best thing for America?
Re: Should we go over the fiscal cliff?
No. The economy will take a violent punch and it will make recovery that much harder.
Extremist on both sides are advocating walking away and letting the next Congress deal with it. That isn't the answer.
I'm with Ella. It would be foolish.
I didn't read the link, but if the plan is to let the economy fall, then come back in a few weeks to reverse the damage then I don't understand why they don't just avoid it from the beginning. If you make a deal in a few weeks, you can make a deal today.
Grover Norquist is a ***.
Just because someone doesn't pay any federal taxes doesn't mean they don't contribute to society through other taxes.
Commiting financial suicide, which is what going over the cliff would be, is never the right answer.
The economy would take a huge nose dive, as would the world economies too, since they are now so interrelated.
holy cow! is this just for your house. or does it include cars as well. I can't even imagine. we pay $2700 in property taxes for our home.
Patty Murray can bite me. She's a jerk.
I don't think we need to go over the financial cliff. If Congress lets it happen, that will only solidify my theory that they do not give a shiit about the people and are only working for the lobbyists and their own re-election campaigns.
Nope, just the house. And it's worth about $275,000. I live in IL where almost all of the school funding is through property taxes.
I don't know enough about the implications yet to give a straight yes or no answer. From what I understand, though, "fiscal cliff" is basically a misnomer. It's more like a fiscal slope. The world will not end on Jan. 1 without a deal and the country will not plunge into a recession. I'm not saying we don't need a solution, but a good deal is better than a hasty deal.
ETA: I do believe a deal will be reached before year-end though because the political stakes are too high. It's similar to the original debt ceiling negotiations. A lot hand-wringing and an 11th hour compromise.
In negotiations, you need to always be ready to walk if the deal goes sour.
If the Republicans dig their heels in and refuse a real compromise, the Democrats will have no choice but to walk. I suppose the reverse is true, but the Dems have shown willingness to negotiate and don't have a Grover Norquist.
The term "Fiscal Cliff" is a bit of a misnomer. It really is more of a Fiscal downhill slide. But that doesn't have the same ring to it.
Love that. This is what the ladies on MM discuss all the time. Cutting out the fat. Why do we get it for our families, but we can't get the federal government to do it?!
Serious question, no snark:
What are the "feel good" programs?
The federal government doesn't fund our police departments or our schools; that comes from local government. So you mean homeland security, our military programs and federal research grants? Those programs can stay?
What about old people? Should we get rid of Medicare and social security?
Should we stop funding the FDA, the EPA, Veterans Affairs, the CDC and child feeding, nutrition and healthcare programs? What about the Sept. 11 victim compensation fund? Too "feel good?"
I'm looking at the White House budget now (on WhiteHouse.gov) and really want to know where you see the fat. And look specifically at what we spend on what -- what's big ticket and what's a drop in the bucket.
Speaking as a scientist, you have no clue what you're talking about.
Compared to defense, we basically spend nothing on science, and it's a serious problem for future investment. Private industry has zero interest in training scientists, so it all falls on the government. If you like having the US be an innovator when it comes to science and tech, you really should support more science funding. The private sector certainly isn't stepping up to the plate.
Every time a Republican complains about a "wasteful" scientific research project, the end result is either said project has basically zero money (like, tens of thousands of dollars) or is part of a larger project to understand something about human biology and the greater environment. I get really, really mad when non-scientists talk about science policy in a way that shows they have no clue whatsoever.
You're a scientist too? Damn, your lady sure is lucky. :P
Oh, and, what he said.
Please to answer my question above.
feel good programs are things like campaigns against bullying or programs that duplicate themselves or printing 8000 leaflets and signs promoting their own programs that spend money. Many of these programs overlap and duplicate existing services. I'm not saying they have zero merit but due to the cost at a time when we are bleeding money they need to become the private cause of those passionate about it or become a good to have thing when we finally get some money but not a now thing.
FWIW, the schools DO receive federal funds. They are sent to the states and they states divy the money up between localities. Law enforcement receives stipends as well.
I understand what you are saying about innovation however at some point it becomes like telling someone who is 100K in credit card debt that they need to spend money to make money and it's a good idea to borrow more to start that consultancy business they always wanted to do. They might be a great consultant but first they should get their financial house in order.
The PBS thing that came up in the election is a polarizing one but it IS an example of feel good spending. Sure it's a microscopic part of the debt and spending but you don't fix your personal 100K credit card debt by slashing 20K a month expenses either. You cut out everything non-essential to existing like your $50 a month cable bill then you add things back in as you can afford them and you make a dent in what you owe.
It's not just one side that does it. All politicians seem to promise dollars to their supporters and it HAS TO STOP.Stop subsidizing Amtrak. It's inefficient at best and a huge money pit currently. Stop giving non-profit status to organizations like the NFL. Subsidizing of the arts. I don't understand why we federally underwrite plays and concerts that are not financially accessible to the general public. Millions of dollars are spent training people in other countries to make products that they can't sell. We lack serious job training here for displace and disabled workers. Why are we doing this?
I didn't say all scientific research was unnecessary or bad or not to be funded. Some of it is NOT innovative however. What purpose does studies on "gaydar" do for the long term good of governing us? Also some of our greatest achievements have been through privately funded research so it's not a matter that if government won't do it no one else will.
I'm not familiar with the gaydar study, but since it's in the social sciences I can almost guarantee the funding for it was pretty much entirely one Grad Student's time (cheap) and the pizza they fed the test subjects. It's actually a source of great frustration among academic scientists that general interest studies tend to get all the headlines while the heavy research most people don't understand is often ignored. I would also argue that the Grad Student who did the Gaydar study probably learned a lot about conducting studies and statistical significance that they will be able to apply to future research.
Very few great achievements have actually been through privately funded research, although I will grant some came from military spending and weapons development. Most of the greatest achievements are public-private collaborations. The public sector is great at "pure" research, the private sector is great at production and mass marketing. Off the top of my head in terms of real achievements that were solely private sector I can think of the Assembly Line and Walmarts Just-In-Time inventory management and distribution system. Perhaps I'm thinking too small, but for every other great discovery and achievement I can easily link it to public monies in one way or another.
We can't get the federal government to do it because even wasteful programs employ people, and they employ people and make companies tons of money in certain districts. Those Congresspeople can't vote to cut those programs because they'll lose their reelection campaigns. And since everyone does this, they vote for everyone else's pork.
It's wasteful when it's somebody else's husband who's employed by that defense contract, or when it's somebody else's company who got a million-dollar government contract. But when it's yours, that's essential funding.
I just looked it up and the gaydar study was 30,000. Hey small beans on 16 Trillion right? However back to the example of the 100K in credit card debt: if the person goes out and has dinner at Chez Louis for $50 it's not a huge deal and Chez Louis is known for cooking really healthy food so really it's an investment (ok that was a bit of sarcasm LOL). Then you find out that it's 20 meals a month at Chez Louis instead of making a salad at home and you realize that all of those things add up to quite a bit especially when you are borrowing to do them and THEN paying interest on them for 30 years. There was a book that came out I think last year that highlighted some of the stuff like this and it was mind blowing that this stuff was out there. We spent $700K on a play about climate change. ( a play that was not free to the general taxpaying pubic mind you). It's crazy. The book is very partisan so I'm not recommending it however it made a pretty good case.
My husband does contract work for the state. A few years ago the state ran out of money and told him to keep working and they'd catch him up later. It took them almost a YEAR to pay him. We went about a YEAR without a paycheck for him and it SUCKED. However, it did force him to develop the private part of his business so that they couldn't rock our world like that again and he's started taking fewer and fewer state cases so in the long run it was probably a good thing.
I'm not saying it's not going to be incredibly painful and that some projects with some merit are not going to get cut. However right now there are a lot of programs and people in need right now that are having to do without already. Our mental health system is a complete joke. I have a friend with a schizophrenic son and aside from institutionalizing him for short periods of time when he has violent episodes in our very decrepit and poorly run state mental hospital she has zero options for his care. She's elderly and has trouble caring for him. However medicaid will not pay for any kind of inhome care nor are there any types of group homes in our state for this type of thing. I imagine $700K or even $30K would go somewhere's towards helping that situation kwim? We can all think of great causes and feel distressed that someone somewhere might not get served but it's not unlike having to give up something like health insurance to buy groceries for some people. Our country is at that place where we have to do things like that or it's off the cliff indeed.