HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » grahamhgreen » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1 2 3 Next »

grahamhgreen

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Dec 30, 2004, 02:05 PM
Number of posts: 12,707

Journal Archives

Market up 166 on news of NO DEAL. As predicted. Cliff is BS!!!!!

More when I'm not typing on my phone!

PS congrats, we are winning this for now!

"The Fiscal Cliff Is Just a Long-Overdue Hangover" - Harvard Business Review

"US annual GDP is just over $15 trillion. So the sum of the cuts ($1.2 trillion) over ten years is just over seven percent of one year's GDP. If this amount were to be cut in one year, it would indeed cause a Depression-level contraction. It would be a monumentally bad idea, right up there with Hoover's 1932 tax hikes. But the actual cut for 2013 is a tenth of that figure, less than one percent of GDP, each year, over ten years, which is far less dramatic.....

So the real effect of the fiscal cliff, on the cuts' side at least, is less than one percent of GDP a year (assuming strong negative fiscal multipliers), half of which is in a defense budget that is bigger now than it was at the height of the Cold War and desperately needs downsizing. Indeed, after the cuts the real rate of growth in both defense and discretionary programs will still be around 1.5 percent a year. Jumping over the cliff does not even produce an absolute decline in spending.

But of course, the cuts are only half the story — the other portion of the cliff comes in the form of tax hikes. Payroll taxes will go back up to their 2009 level, while income tax rates will rise across the board — to where they were in the 1990s. Americans will pay, by one estimate, up to $400 more a year in taxes for the bottom 20 percent of earners, up to $14,000 a year more for the top 20 percent of earners, and up to $120,000 a year more for the top one percent.Yet even then, at the end of this ten-year phase-in of higher taxes and lower spending, Americans will still pay less in tax than practically all other taxpayers in rich countries.....

Since the Bush tax cuts of the early 2000s, the US federal government has taken in about 18 percent of GDP in revenues while spending 25 percent. That's where the US budget deficit comes from. Multiply that over time, and you get a large proportion of the "out of control debt" that Congress has been banging on about since 2008. But if Congress really cares about the level of debt, then raising taxes and cutting spending are precisely what's needed."

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/12/the_fiscal_cliff_is_just_a_lon.html



There are 2 main reasons for the deficit: tax cuts & big war.
not Medicare or Social Security.

Please call the White House 202-456-1111, and your rep (202) 224-3121!

Tell them NO CHAINED CPI, no cuts to Social Security, it does not add one nickel to the deficit! Cut Defense instead (it is the elephant in the room).

SS DOES NOT ADD ONE NICKEL TO THE DEFICIT. Why is it on the table

in deficit talks?

Anybody got a real answer?

Tell them no cuts to Social Security! CALL: Obama 202-456-1111 & your reps 202-224-3121

Call the White House 202-456-1111, and your reps (202) 224-3121!

Tell them no Chained CPI, no cuts to Social Security, it does not add one nickel to the deficit! Cut "defense" instead.

We've got two days left to call.

And, personally, I would advocate to them that they go off the so-called 'fiscal cliff', rather that signing off on a "Grand Bamboozle" at the last minute that will have no debate among the American People.

OMFG Chris Hayes is straight up fear mongering for Big War on MSNBC tonight...

Chris is saying that there is no good name for the "fiscal cliff", and he went through a slew of names, all bad.

The one name he did not use "The Budget Control Act of 2011" - the ACTUAL NAME of the legislation that's about to be enacted.

That's right, it's not a cliff, it's not a monster, it's budget control.

The big issue, of course, are the cuts to the military profiteers, these are serious cuts to the bloated military budget that is 60-70% of our total budget, serious cuts that progressives have been trying to enact since Eisenhower's "Cross of Iron" speech.

So why is he fear mongering about the "cliff"? Could it be that Chris works for a media conglomerate that is owned by one of the biggest military contractors in America, and enacting budget cuts to the military is not in his bosses financial best interest...?


Reminder: Progressives Have a Great Solution to the 'Fiscal Bluff'!

Summary: "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that any deal replacing the Budget Control Act of 2011 (aka Fiscal Cliff) should contain serious revenue increases and no Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefit cuts.

The Deal for All resolution, H.Res 733, which additional Members will cosponsor through the end of the year, advocates four key policies that have built the middle class, expanded the nation’s economy and must play a significant role in any future budget negotiation:

(1) No cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits;

(2) Must contain serious revenue increases, including closing corporate tax loopholes and increasing individual income tax rates for the highest earners;

(3) Significantly reduce defense spending to focus the United States Armed Forces on combating 21st century risks; and

(4) Promote economic growth and expand economic opportunity by including strong levels of job-creating Federal investments in areas such as infrastructure and education, and by promoting private investment."


INFO: http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/deal-for-all/

RESOLUTION: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.RES.733:


Call the White House 202-456-1111, and your rep (202) 224-3121 (opens TH 12/27)!

Tell them no cuts to Social Security, it does not add one nickel to the deficit! Cut defense instead.



Yes, I will keep posting this stuff until someone can give me a rational reason the President wants to take food out of the mouths of the elderly, while propping up Big War. Especially when Big War is 60% of the deficit, and Social Security does not add one nickel to the deficit.

Call the White House 202-456-1111 (opens WED 12/26), and your rep (202) 224-3121 (opens TH 12/27)!

Tell them no cuts to Social Security, it does not add one nickel to the deficit! No chained CPI!

Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email

Source: Allgov.com

" The federal government will continue to access Americans’ emails without a warrant, after the U.S. Senate dropped a key amendment to legislation now headed to the White House for approval.

Last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved an amendment attached to the Video Privacy Protection Act Amendments Act (which deals with publishing users’ Netflix information on Facebook pages) that would have required federal law enforcement to obtain a warrant before monitoring email or other data stored remotely (i.e., the cloud).

The Senate was set to approve the video privacy bill along with the email amendment, which would have applied to a different law, the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act. But then senators decided for reasons unknown to drop the amendment.

Currently, the government can collect emails and other cloud data without a warrant as long as the content has been stored on a third-party server for 180 days or more. Federal agents need only demonstrate that they have “reasonable grounds to believe” the information would be useful in an investigation."

Read more: http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/congress-at-last-minute-drops-requirement-to-obtain-warrant-to-monitor-email-121225?news=846578



Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas From the Feds, Who Can Still Read Your Emails Without a Warrant

"t's no secret that the CIA and FBI can read your emails for any old reason they choose without having to clear it with anyone first (because you're a terrorist). That was on track to change with an amendment attached to an upcoming bill... before said amendment was quietly dropped from said bill.

The bill in question is the smoothy titled Video Privacy Protection Act Amendments Act of 2012, which requires video service providers like Netflix to allow you to opt out of having your information posted on places like your Facebook page. According to AllGov, an amendment that was attached to the bill that would've required the federal government to obtain a warrant before snooping around your inbox disappeared as the bill was passed.

The Senate was set to approve the video privacy bill along with the email amendment, which would have applied to a different law, the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act. But then senators decided for reasons unknown to drop the amendment.

As it stands now, any email or other data stored on a third-party server (i.e. not your own computer) can be accessed by the feds as long as it's at least 180 days old. That's a rule that will become even more problematic and dangerous as companies continue to push customers to store data on cloud services.

Of course, the feds' ability to read your emails is probably not going to change anytime soon, either. This story isn't splashed across the front of any newspapers or leading any news broadcasts, and it's not winning or losing anyone any elections. On we go." http://gawker.com/5971164/merry-christmas-from-the-feds-who-can-still-read-your-emails-without-a-warrant

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

"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 (202) 224-3121 (opens TH 12/27)!
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »