How else are we going to cut the defense budget if we don't allow the sequester to take effect?

[grahamhgreen]

Last edited Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:39 AM - Edit history (1)

"YVES SMITH: I'm not sure that compromise is worthwhile. If we go over the fiscal cliff or into the fiscal slope, we're going to have the tax increases kick in. If Obama were interested in negotiating for a better deal for the ordinary person, he should actually go into January. But the whole fact that he wants a deal now says that, says that he is as conservative as Bruce says he is.

BILL MOYERS: You mean we should go over?

YVES SMITH: We should go over.

BILL MOYERS: And see what happens?

YVES SMITH: We should go over just because then we've already had tax increases put in. Republicans don't have the leverage of doing a deal without the tax increases already having taken place. You're in a very different negotiating position. Going past January 1 would actually be a very good outcome for ordinary Americans.

BRUCE BARTLETT: I'd say let the fiscal cliff take effect permanently. Now everybody's afraid to do that. They think the economy's too fragile. But if you look at what the Congressional Budget Office has estimated. They say, "Yes, we'd lose some growth for about half a year. But the medium and long term growth would actually be higher, because it would actually do exactly what everybody says they want to do, which is cut a lot out of the long-term deficits. And it would do so fairly by raising revenues a lot and cutting spending." What, how else are we going to cut the defense budget if we don't allow the sequester to take effect? Both parties are pretty much into that. So I say let's just let the whole thing happen. If I was a member of the Senate, I'd filibuster anything to get rid of it." http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-fiscal-cliffs-and-fiscal-realities/

Why not let the "Budget Control Act of 2011" be enacted, and fix whatever we don't like as separate bills? There is no cliff.

At the very least, we don't need a deal with cuts to SS in it.... please call the White House and say, "No cuts to Social Security, No chained CPI, cut the military instead; Social Security does not contribute one nickel to the deficit."

Call the White House 202-456-1111 (opens WED 12/26), and your rep [phone] (opens TH 12/27)!

[Warpy]

1. Not only that, but it's a BIG FAT BARGAINING CHIP

to get those fat cats to pay more taxes to support the bloated Pentagon that keeps goods and money flowing freely across the planet.

I just hope Obama realizes that, plus the fact that the Pentagon needs to go on a diet, anyway.

[grahamhgreen]

2. What does Bohner get for 800b? No cuts for Big War!!!!

Last edited Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:17 AM - Edit history (1)

It looks like this is the deal we'll see Obama put on the table today.

No cuts to war, which is 60-70% of the budget, the 800 lb gorilla in the room that the plutocracy will keep feeding, even if it means starving the elderly, orphaned, and disabled.

This is perhaps the main reason they fear the Budget Control Act of 2011; it finally cuts our crushing war budget!

[woo me with science]

3. They have no intention of cutting it.

which is why continuing to raise bloody hell about all this remains so important. Thanks for all your posts.

Democratic-controlled US Senate approves...new $633 billion war bill
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022060449

[grahamhgreen]

8. Calling their Fiscal Bluff is our best chance to cut the bloated Big War budget,

It's not wonder they're fighting tooth and nail to prevent it.

Great link btw,



I will keep posting this stuff til the end of the year if i have to.

[Chan790]

4. We're not.

Let's be very very clear about this...no matter how much we want it, cutting the defense budget is never really on the table and never will be. If nothing else gets passed before the cliff, expect either a rescinding or a postponement on the defense cuts to happen before they go into effect.

The defense budget will never be cut. Period. Full stop. End-of-story.

The faction inside the Democratic Party with the juice to see their way are insistent that SS be cut. That likely also will happen.

Don't like it? Support a smaller tent that excludes former moderate-Republicans fleeing the sinking ship, corporatist Democrats, Clinton allies & surrogates, hawks and fiscal-conservatives. Tell Hillary that if she wants to run in 2016, she'd better change parties or move to the left. Expect to lose a lot of elections until you upright the political landscape and Americans discover what an actual political-left looks like and why they want one.

[bahrbearian]

5. I could not believe that My Republican sister agreed with this.

I think that this is something the Public wants. So who are this politicans working for?

[grahamhgreen]

6. Big War is who they work for.

Big War IS the deficit. To ignore that is absurd.

[LooseWilly]

7. Works for me... over the cliff seems like the sanest course.

[gulliver]

9. I don't like to see one-sided "cuts" of any kind.

I'm one of these nuts who doesn't distinguish between government jobs/buying and other types. Call me crazy, but when the government "spends" money, I see it as someone getting a paycheck and using it to buy goods and services right here in the good old USA. The government is a main engine of common demand. I don't like cutting its pay.

Defense spending is so overdone here in the U.S. that it amounts to social spending. Most of this stuff defense workers build never does anything useful even if deployed. I would rather see the money spent on building infrastructure, cleaning up the environment, reducing our carbon footprint, etc. But I don't want defense spending cut just to give tax breaks to the wealthy.

I'm hoping the outcome of the fiscal cliff negotiations is no change to defense spending and a hefty tax increase on the wealthy and corporations. If there have to be cuts in defense spending, then I would like them used as a bargaining chip to get more stimulus in other industries and to smack the "hostage taking" debt limit weapon from the hands of the Republican Tea-whackos.

[grahamhgreen]

11. Ideally, I'd like to see the "Defense" monies re-applied to building

renewable energy.

The difference is that if we build a million wind turbines we get to use the energy they produce for decades, whereas when we build a million bombs, the economic impact is finished once they blow up.

But I also see productive government spending as simply a part of the economy. With the wind farms, however, they pay back. Not only are they a jobs program, they are also an investment that will generate future revenues.

[Recursion]

10. The House already undid the Defense cuts

And the Senate won't be far behind.