Economy

Rave

The “Super Committee” Will Fail – Hooray!!

Posted 6 months ago|7 comments|399 views
Super Committee Broken Up About Failure
VIDEOS
Written by
Altruist
Eugene, OR
The super committee is bound to fail and it always was destined to fail, because the Republicans are refusing to compromise. All of the Republicans on the Super committee have vowed never to raise taxes for any reason, but it will be impossible to come up with the needed savings simply by draconian budget cuts.

Every economist knows that the only way to balance the budget is with a combination of budget cuts and revenue increases along with smart investments to grow the economy. Growing the economy is very important because that means more jobs which means less people dependent on government services and more people paying taxes, which reduces the deficit. http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/art...

So what happens if the super committee fails? If it fails there is supposed to be something terrible that happens to each side. They call that Sequestration.

What the Republicans consider terrible, is that the Military budget would be slashed by $600 billion. I think that would be great because the military budget doubled after 2001. We spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined, and we are ending our wars, and have no super powers to oppose us. There is more waste and fraud in the military than the rest of the government combined so that is where most cutting should take place. If Republicans had their way they would increase the military budget..

What the Democrats consider terrible, is that $600 billion of cuts will have to be made to discretionary programs. I really don't think that would be that bad either because if the Republicans had had their way All of the $1.2 billion in cuts would have come from discretionary programs.

The other reason I don't think this will be too bad, is that there is a whole slew of programs that are exempt from the sequestration cuts. Medicare and Social security are exempt as well as most retirement programs and the funding for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/u...

What is Really Really good about the failure of the super committee is that the Bush Tax cuts will automatically expire, and that increase in revenue will provide almost half of the savings the super committee was supposed to come up with in the first place. If the Republicans had their way the Bush Tax Cuts would become permanent and they would lower the taxes on the rich from 35% to 28%. http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/art...

The final reason that I think the super committee failure is a good thing, is that the public will see that the entire reason for that failure is the intransigence of the Republican Party. People now know that they are willing to destroy the nation to protect the wealth of the 1% and to make Obama look bad.

Fortunately the Republican Party is not blessed with brains, and their hatred of Obama and their obsession with their ideology is more important than facts or economic reality.
The American people will place the blame for the destruction of the economy and the obstruction of the recovery on the Republicans as they should. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...
UPDATE - 6 months ago
The failure of the "Super Committee" is good for 99% of America because it was based on a false assumption, that growth fiscal responsibility could be brought about by austerity measures that would effect only the poor and middle class.

Fiscal Sanity can only be brought about with shared sacrifice. The Corporations and the Rich need to suffer a little bit like the rest of the nation is.

Wall Street created the problem, why shouldn't they help solve the problem with a tiny .03% financial Transaction Tax. Like Rep. Peter Defazio's bill? http://www.registerguard.com/web/opinion...

Now that the committee has failed maybe we can work for actual change like saving medical costs by going to a single payer system that would cut costs in half. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11...
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
6 months ago: "Every economist knows that the only way to balance the budget is with a combination of budget cuts and revenue increases..."

Sort of like "every scientist knows that cow flatulence and big, white pick up trucks with gun racks are increasing the temperature to the extent we are all going to die!"

Like a "consensus".

Give me a break Al.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
6 months ago: You are very right Red! Probably about the same percentages 98% of scientists agree with Anthropocentric Climate Change with a few who have sold out to the fossil fuel industry dissenting. The only economists that would disagree that the three basic principles are necessary, reduce spending, increase revenue, and invest in growing the economy (Jobs), are those who prostituted their principles to the 1%. Welcome to the real world!
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
6 months ago: $1.2 trillion in cuts? Over ten years? That's an infinitesimal amount. That's like saying a family with a $35k income is trying to save $4.00.

We've just reached the $15 trillion debt mark on Nov. 15, 2011. That's $1.2 TRILLION in new debt in the past year under Obama. He'll soon be celebrating his $5 trillion mark, which would mean he singlehandedly added 50% more debt than all the other presidents combined. Give him another 4 years, and he will be able to double the debt he was given.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
6 months ago: Absolutely Box. Cuts alone don't even put a dent in the National Debt. They don't even come close making a serious dent in the deficit.

The only way to start paying off the national debt is to increase revenue.
1. We need a financial transaction tax which would raise hundreds of billions of dollars without costing jobs, it would not slow down the economy, and it would reduce the volitility and discourage harmful behavior.
2. We need a new WPA or CCC to put the chronically unemployed to work so they can get off the government dole and become productive taxpaying members of society.
3. We need a carbon tax which would generate hundreds of billions while lowering CO2 and reducing future climate change. This would make clean alternative energy more competitive and reduce our dependence on despotic repressive regimes that sponsor terrorism.
4. We need to reform the tax structure so it is more progressive, so the rich and the corporations pay their fair share, and eliminate all of the corporate loopholes so rich individuals and corporations can hide their profits off shore. Currently 3/4th of corporations pay no tax at all. Any tax reform must be progressive and produce enough revenue to not only balance the budget, but start paying off our debt.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
6 months ago: #1 I could agree with that, with a Constitutional Amendment clearly defining the maximum percentage. Otherwise, once it gets its foot in the door, it would just keep going up.

#2 Again, I could agree with that, provided the deficit problem had been solved, and it wasn't just being used as an alternative form of Welfare, driving the country into more debt. I would much rather see destitute citizens than a destitute government being taken over by the banks.

#3 A carbon tax would be the ruin of the country, would not reduce CO2 emissions, and would make everything cost more.

#4 I would think that fair share applies to all. The rich and corporations are already paying far far more than their fair share on a per capita basis. Very few corporations pay no taxes. If you have evidence that 3/4 of corporations pay no taxes, please introduce it.

If you want to look at other successful industrialized countries that are not having the same problems as we are, with high government service levels and little debt, then look at Australia. Their debt load is 20% of GDP, resulting from economic liberalization and the in-statement of a goods and services tax ,designed to encourage higher savings among lower income workers. In return, income taxes were lowered. The overall level of taxation in Australia has since been consistently reduced to encourage private consumption and investment, as opposed to higher government expenditure.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
6 months ago: The super committee was just another stall tactic. It was never intended to succeed in reducing the deficit, as they all admitted that the deficit would grow by $6 trillion in the same ten years they were trying to save $1.2 trillion.

Look to Italy, if you want to know what is in our future. The bankers have taken control of their government, along with Sicily and Greece. That's what a progressive social policy gets you these days.

The OWS movement is railing against the wrong end of the problem. The government is what needs to be overthrown and replaced with a fiscally responsible one. When the government is owned lock stock and barrel by the financiers, they also own the military who will do what they get paid to do.
6 months ago: OWS is openly funded and supported by Dems, their unions, and their media. (Look it up!)

The Super-Committee was designed to 'kick the can down the road', thus perpetuating the status quo. Desired by retro politicians, utterly destructive to the people.

The retro-political parties have transmorgafied into "Facists(D)" and "Socialists(R)".
Each is repugnant to the Constitution.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.