patrick.net

$700B/yr is $5000 per household, $400+ per month.

So we need to create $400+ of wealth per household per month to just pay the military burden. Insane.

I'd rather pay $400 a month (or adjusted equivalent for my income range) directly to provide jobs to people than pay $400 a month to build fighter jets that will never be used.

If the Democrats can just find their balls, which somehow I doubt they will, then all they have to do is nothing. These automatic spending cuts, though painful to some, are exactly what the country needs. Particularly, the military cuts.

When all those red state military job programs are gone, the people in those areas will want health care / insurance reform. They will want a social safety net and the right for labor to organize. And all of a sudden, the battle between corporations and the people won't seem so irrelevant now that it's their ability to make an income that's one the line. I suspect that the line "corporations are people, too" won't ring so sweetly when there are no cushy government jobs for red state residents. Michael Moore will become their hero.

Of course, this all depends on the Democrats finding their balls. We're screwed.

Dan8267 says

If the Democrats can just find their balls,

Hah, as if they had balls to begin with. I'm not sure there's been one since JFK.

Automatic cuts combined with expiring Bush tax cuts = more or less fiscally sound budget.

We'd still have to address social security in the medium term, but it'd be a damn sight better than where we are now.

Kevin says

I'm not sure there's been one since JFK.

126 Democrats (out of 209) in the House, and 21 (out of 50) in the Senate voted against the war in Iraq.

182 out of 210 voted against the Bush tax cuts in the House, and 38 out of 50 voted no in the Senate.

Kevin says

Automatic cuts combined with expiring Bush tax cuts = more or less fiscally sound budget.

I saved a whopping $300 from Bush's tax cuts. Meanwhile, the scumbags who caused Great Depression 2 saved $300,000. I'd gladly give up my $300 to make those scumbags give up $300k.

Those who earn their wealth should keep it, but most of those in the top 0.5% didn't earn their wealth, they stole it from us using stupid financial schemes like mortgage back security derivatives. So tax the shit out of them.

From the cited article: "The law, which Toomey opposed, said the cuts must be evenly divided between the military and domestic spending. Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps, veterans' benefits and other politically sensitive programs are spared the budget ax."

Apparently, when someone says: "Apparently "across the board spending cut"" isn't really "across the board".

I'm a Republican who favors an across the board spending cut. Let ALL programs get cut equally and I don't mind seeing a few more bases close or fighter jets cut.

Kevin says

Republicans are giant pussies. They insist that they want a government that is fiscally sound, but the truth is that what they want is to gut any program that they don't like. The actual size of the government does not matter to them, only what the government does. Specifically, they want more wars, more weapons, and more big fat military contracts to employ people in their little backwards region of the world since without it they'd have no jobs at all.

I know, wouldn't it be great IF there was a Party that was the exact OPPOSITE?

Dan8267 says

I saved a whopping $300 from Bush's tax cuts. Meanwhile, the scumbags who caused Great Depression 2 saved $300,000. I'd gladly give up my $300 to make those scumbags give up $300k.

The Bush tax rates are worth about $7000/yr for an upper middle-class family ($200k household income, 2 kids, healthy investment income).

Oddly enough, they're worth about $7000 to me, too.

The main driver is the dividend income tax rate.

shrekgrinch says

As long as people willingly entered into those mortgage contracts, they didn't steal a dime.

I didn't enter into a mortgage contract or buy any mortgage back securities, yet I am personally paying for the Great Depression 2 from

1. Loss of economic opportunity.
2. Loss of purchasing power of my savings.
3. Loss of my tax dollars for bailouts.
4. Loss of home buying opportunity due to overpriced housing and loss to rent.

To say that the people in Goldman Sachs haven't fucked over people they didn't do business with is incorrect.

Dan8267 says

4. Loss of home buying opportunity due to overpriced housing and loss to rent.

There's this...
http://miami.craigslist.org/pbc/reb/2686075644.html
Then there's this...
http://miami.craigslist.org/pbc/reb/2725120632.html

I think you've confused your self for someone else. As many people have post bubble. Everyone thinks they are brand spanking new 3000sq ft McMansion Material.

The GOP says

http://miami.craigslist.org/pbc/reb/2686075644.html

The first house is pretty much a tear-me-down unless you're really looking for a 1970s crap house. I guarantee you that the owner hasn't been maintaining it and you'd need to replace the A/C, water heater, and major appliances based on my experience renting places like this. It's only a bit overpriced for that, but not as much as most houses down here.

The second house is way overpriced.

However, if your point is that the market in south Florida is heading towards reasonable, then I agree. A little longer and we'll see a balanced market.

However, even when we achieve a fair market, it's not like the bubble hasn't cost us all plenty in terms of loss years and years of rent. Yes, we were responsible to not participate in the greed orgy, but that orgy still affected our bottom line. Hence my point that the financial players who caused the bubble and the Second Great Depression have affected us all.

Bellingham Bill says

$700B/yr is $5000 per household, $400+ per month.

So we need to create $400+ of wealth per household per month to just pay the military burden. Insane.

How does that compare to the amount per month per household for all out combined welfare payments (include everything spent on social programs).

zzyzzx says

How does that compare to the amount per month per household for all out combined welfare payments (include everything spent on social programs).

Social Security is $750B, $5600 per hh

Medicare for seniors is $500B / $4000

'course, those are paid services, not welfare per se.

Medicaid is $350B / $2700 per hh

Welfare is $103B / $800

EUC is $120B/ $900

Other (Section 8 etc) is $250B / $2000

Of course¹, it's better to spend $5000 on stuff that improves peoples' lives than $5000 for stuff that serves no useful purpose.

¹ assuming you're not a conservative

PolishKnight says

Apparently, when someone says: "Apparently "across the board spending cut"" isn't really "across the board".

It's across the board for discretionary spending. Do you know what that term means?

Do you know how the budget works, the difference between the federal income tax and payroll taxes, or...

oh, fuck it, why bother again?

Bellingham Bill says

Of course¹, it's better to spend $5000 on stuff that improves peoples' lives than $5000 for stuff that serves no useful purpose.

I'd be willing to bet that most of the people making this argument have never even had a year where they paid $5k in federal income tax...

I've never understood why GOP doesn't lobby for privatizing the military outright. Close down all the standing army and stand up a bunch of mercenary outfits in their place. Might need a little Constitutional rejiggering but they are always up for that when there's plunder possibilities.

Vicente says

I've never understood why GOP doesn't lobby for privatizing the military outright.

Why privatize what you already own?