Solutions Initiative II: The fiscal cliff and beyond

[Winehole23]

an array of policy papers from across the political spectrum, offering ideas relating to the US's long-term fiscal sustainability.

http://www.pgpf.org/fiscalcliff/solutionsinitiative

[boutons_deux]

Pete Peterson? GTFO

[Winehole23]

there's a potpourri of suggestions. no need to stick at one.

[boutons_deux]

"long-term fiscal sustainability"

get back to us when Peterson is pre-occupied about "long-term SOCIAL sustainability" of Human-Americans in the 99% and esp the bottom 50%.


Bernie Sanders in a Fiery Speech: Do Not Cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid

A coalition of lawmakers led by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders joined yesterday to demand there be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid made during deficit reduction deals.

Sanders said:

Deficit reduction is a serious issue, but it must be done in a way that is fair. We must not balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the sick, the children or the poor.

Sanders also explained why Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit, as it is independently funded by payroll tax.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/bern...re-or-medicaid

Medicare, medicaid, SS, Pell grants, unemployment insurance, all those Bishop Gecko "GIFTS" to the 47% !

[boutons_deux]

Treasury Secretary Calls For Abolishing The Debt Ceiling

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the U.S. “absolutely” should get rid of the debt ceiling as soon as possible.

“It would have been time a long time ago to eliminate it,” Geithner told Bloomberg TV on Friday. “The sooner the better.”

Geithner did not commit to personally doing anything to eliminate the nation’s legal limit on borrowing. When pressed on the issue, Geithner told Bloomberg TV: “This is only something only Congress can solve. Congress put it on itself.”

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...-debt-ceiling/

He's ty guy, but that's a great idea. The debt ceiling is as stupid as a balanced-budget amendment, both are Repug/1% ideological fetishes, naturally detached from reality.

[101A]

Sanders said:

Deficit reduction is a serious issue, but it must be done in a way that is fair. We must not balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the sick, the children or the poor.

Bad metaphor.

It is impossible to pile onto the back of one who has no capacity to carry.

Much as Republicans screaming about NO tax increases is not productive; anyone proclaiming those programs off-limits is both irresponsible and illogical.

[boutons_deux]

"It is impossible to pile onto the back of one who has no capacity to carry."

of course it's possible. You can't tax them, but you can certainly cut safefty net spending on them. The Repugs fully intend to do it, esp with criminal sociopathic, Kock-sucker Ryan again leading the Repugs' attack.

[101A]

"It is impossible to pile onto the back of one who has no capacity to carry."

of course it's possible. You can't tax them, but you can certainly cut safefty net spending on them. The Repugs fully intend to do it, esp with criminal sociopathic, Kock-sucker Ryan again leading the Repugs' attack.

That would be not carrying them as high. They are on our collective backs.

[Drachen]

That would be not carrying them as high. They are on our collective backs.

Please remove the connection between your brain and your fingers when typing out a response to B_D. You will have a much more satisfying experience that way.

[boutons_deux]

That would be not carrying them as high. They are on our collective backs.

The Repugs want churchs and other non-profits to be the safety net, not govt. Ryan's twice-passed budget shredded the safety, and I'm he and the House Repugs intend to use that budget as their starting position, with no compromising.

[boutons_deux]

Fiscal cliff hysteria is manipulated by self-serving deficit hawks



the deficit crisis mongers are a persistent bunch. If they can't make a case based on economics, they turn to their good friend "the confidence fairy". The story presented to us in a column in the Washington Post was that business people will get freaked out if there is no deal by 1 January and that financial markets will panic. New York Times columnist David Brooks pushed the same line in a column earlier in the week.

This sort of warning, coming from people who have a near-perfect track record in being wrong on everything they say about the economy, would ordinarily be laughable. Unfortunately, these warnings come from people who have prominent positions in national policy debates. Therefore, it is likely that such warnings will be taken seriously.

The deficit hawks want to promote a sense of crisis because it is essential to advancing their agenda. If the 1 January deadline passes, the political ground shifts to those who just want to see an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy: after 1 January, the Bush tax cuts will have expired.

This means that when President Obama pushes his campaign pledge to keep in place the Bush tax cuts for 98% of households, he will be asking Congress to lower taxes for 98% of the people, not to raise them for 2%. It would be difficult even for a Republican Congress to refuse this tax cut.

The deficit hawks desperately want to avoid this outcome, both because many do not want to see taxes rise on the wealthy, but also because they see a crisis over this fiscal stand-off as providing an excellent opportunity to cut social security and Medicare. For this reason, the deficit hawks are doing everything they can to convince the public that waiting until after 1 January to reach a deal would be an economic disaster.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-deficit-hawks

[SA210]