• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The fiscal cliff

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Greenspan: Recession 'small price to pay' to fix debt
By Ben Rooney @CNNMoneyInvest November 16, 2012: 11:32 AM ET

Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said that spending cuts are needed to get the nation's debt load under control.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said Friday that a mild recession would be a "small price to pay" for getting the nation's debt problems under control.
In an interview with CNN's Ali Velshi, Greenspan said cutting spending on "so-called social benefits" would hurt the economy, but argued that it would cause less damage than raising taxes.

"I think if we have to have a moderate recession to solve this huge fiscal problem that's in front of us -- I think that's a very small price to pay," he said. "We're not going to get out of this thing without pain."
Greenspan said he was not referring specifically to the automatic spending cuts and tax increases that are set to go into effect January 1, known as the fiscal cliff, but to the "broad crisis with respect to our debt."
The "inexorable rise" in government spending on social benefits, which occurred under both Democratic and Republican administrations, has corresponded with a decline in household savings, said Greenspan.

The decline in savings has undermined the economy by removing the "root source" of funding for capital expenditures and therefore productivity, he continued. As the economy has slowed, the government has been forced to borrow "foreign savings" to pay for social benefits at home.
"This is obviously an unsustainable situation that we have got to come to grips with sooner rather than later," he said.

Greenspan acknowledged that cutting spending on benefits would be painful and damage the economy in the short run, but he said there is no other alternative and warned that investors are losing patience.
"I don't see any way out of this without the brute changes that need to be made, and they are hurtful," he said. "But if we don't do it the market is going to do it for us."
While Greenspan said he opposes increasing taxes, he does support allowing Bush-era tax breaks to expire in exchange for a reduction in government spending.

"If you have to allow a rise in taxes to cut a deal on a major benefit cut, that's a good deal for me," said Greenspan.
President Obama is meeting with top congressional leaders Friday to begin the process of negotiating a solution to the fiscal cliff.
The Wall Street Journal said the Obama administration is considering a plan to replace massive spending cuts with a combination of smaller, targeted cuts and tax increases. By postponing the so-called sequester, lawmakers could put off a number of large deficit-reduction decisions until mid-2013.

I personalty think this is the best way to solve the current issue. As Obama says we all need to pay are fair share, he needs to also say, we all need to take a fair cut in what the government offers us.

If we go into another recession, as have no made no changes in our debt we are screwed. But if we can go into a controlled recession, where the goal is to get the government back in order, then I think it is the right thing to do. It is like when a company goes into bankruptcy protection to recognize, it has short term pains, but the company can then come out much stronger.

I just dont believe the government can increase entitlement programs and cut debt. We need to make the hard decisions to set us up for the long term.
 
Ben Stein Tells Incredulous Fox & Friends Hosts Taxes Are Too Damn Low

Former Republican speechwriter and game show host Ben Stein likely won't be invited back on Fox & Friends any time soon after the conservative economist dropped a megaton truth bomb in the studio earlier this morning.

Asked by Gretchen Carlson what needs to be done in order to fix the economy, Stein said unequivocally that taxes need to be increased for upper-echelon earners.

"I hate to say this on Fox, and I hope I'll be allowed to leave here alive, but I don't think there is anyway we can cut spending enough to make a meaningful difference," Stein said. "We going to have to raise taxes on very rich people, people with incomes of like say, 2, 3 million a year and up, and then slowly move it down."

Thinking he may have misheard the Ferris Bueller star, Steve Doocy asked Stein if he doesn't think "Washington just has a spending problem."

"I do not think they just have a spending problem," Stein replied. "I think they also have a too-low taxes problem. And while all due respect to Fox, whom I love like brothers and sisters, the taxes are too low."

http://gawker.com/5953010/ben-stein-tells-incredulous-fox--friends-hosts-taxes-are-too-damn-low
 
^ Interesting.

What is sad and scary is that since money runs this country, those who don't like the tax raises will just tighten up their assholes, take their millions (upon millions) and go home. Afterall, they will address the issue as a crippling tax raise put on by the President in an effort to help boost the right side's moderate votes. Yes, wealthy business owners won't be holding the same profit margins, but that isn't necessarily an indicator of bad business. It is just an indicator of a changing financial climate. They don't want that because at the end of the day, we're all human and part greedy.

Sad cycle.
 
Interesting Ron Paulitarian view on the fiscal cliff:


With the re-election of President Obama and a Republican-dominated House of Representatives, media attention has shifted from the election to what has been called a "fiscal cliff" and what a divided government in Washington is going to do about it. This cliff, however, is a much deeper and more dangerous problem than what is being portrayed, and is a result of unsustainable debt and a highly-flawed monetary system.

Yes, there are real short-term dangers for what looms ahead in 2013. Beginning January 1, the Bush tax cuts will expire. Despite the president's complaints that these disproportionately benefit the wealthy, the cuts actually helped increase the amount of money the federal government took in and their expiration raises taxes on nearly all Americans. Even if Congress passed the president's proposed tax increases, it would only add less than $100 billion to the Treasury every year, still leaving over a $1 trillion budget deficit.

In addition, the economy of the last five or six years has essentially been propped up by almost $4 trillion worth of bailouts, stimulus programs, and QE Fed money printing, so much so that that the president's "temporary" stimulus programs of 2009-2010 have now been adopted as discretionary spending for the last two years.

The federal government is looking at a situation where taxes are set to increase while they have exhausted the traditional Keynesian tools of "monetary injections" and money printing to keep the economy limping along in the short-run. But despite these practical realities, the real fiscal cliff is not any spending or revenue problems, it's the debt burden.

The reason that the U.S. government has been able to maintain its binge of spending, borrowing, and printing money is that the interest rates on the national debt have been incredibly low, roughly about 2%, a manageable $300 billion a year. But when the national debt reaches $20 trillion and interest rates likely return to a historical normal of about 5%, that means that interest payments will be about $1 trillion. How is this going to be possible with the projected decrease in tax revenues?

The U.S. government has borrowed trillions under the illusion that interest rates will remain low and have made entitlement and budgetary obligations that are just staggering when one takes a look at the long-term reality of the numbers. According to Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff, a former senior economist with Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers, Washington’s total debts and obligations are actually over $200 trillion. That’s about $2.8 million for every family of four in the nation.

Either the U.S. government can tax this much out of the private sector (a practical impossibility) or it can continue to do what it has been doing for decades, which is slowly monetize the debt using the Federal Reserve. Rather than scare Americans with a huge tax bill, the Fed essentially creates the money out of thin air and adds it to the Treasury's balance sheet. While this may hide the reality of the debt problem in the short run, this essentially does two things: continues to discreetly destroy the purchasing power of the dollar (a hidden tax), and make the rise of interest rates inevitable.

This is the real fiscal cliff: a dollar and debt crisis practically unseen in world history. Because the U.S. dollar is the de facto world reserve currency, the breaking of the dollar affects not just us but many around the world as well. This is why so many countries are threatening to, and have already, looked to gold for financial security. If one thinks the popping of the housing bubble was bad, just wait until the dollar bubble bursts.

And Americans have already felt the sting. Since 1971, when the U.S. defaulted on its financial obligations and closed the gold window, the median wealth of U.S. families has plunged more than 50%, and almost 30% just in the past decade. While the "official" unemployment rate hovers around 8%, others project that the real unemployment rate is almost 23%. Additionally, the fact that the stock market is near the high of its up-and-down flow of the last decade is a sign that many assets are incredibly overvalued.

And with the realities of the fiscal cliff ahead, this may just be the beginning.

All of these occurrences are predictable, of course, with an understanding of sound economic theory. Throughout history, central banking and the growth of government power always coincide with shrinking middle classes, devalued currency, a less prosperous economy, and the loss of economic and personal liberties as the state seeks to squeeze every penny it can out of the productive sector of the economy.

The economic data I cite above should give weight to the argument that indeed there is a fiscal mess that politicians are predictably kicking down the road. If we really wanted to fix some of these problems in the short-run, then we could take Congressman Ron Paul's advice and drastically scale back our overseas empire, patch over those who currently rely on entitlement programs, introduce a sound currency, and work our way out of this.

But fundamentally, this crisis is not a mathematical one, it's a philosophical one. If we continue to demand tax cuts and government checks at the same time, then there is little hope.

What we need more than reforms from Congress is a revaluation of what the role of government is and ought to be in a free society. If we expect it to maintain an empire that must intervene in every corner of the globe, run a massive welfare state, bailout and subsidize large corporations, maintain the largest prison population in the world, grope us at airports, control the money supply, and countless other things it shouldn't be doing, than except a long fall off of the fiscal cliff.
 
http://gawker.com/5953010/ben-stein-tells-incredulous-fox--friends-hosts-taxes-are-too-damn-low

"I do not think they just have a spending problem," Stein replied. "I think they also have a too-low taxes problem. And while all due respect to Fox, whom I love like brothers and sisters, the taxes are too low."

This is dumb as hell. Ben Stein has lost his damn mind. If Obama took every penny earned over $1M... just flat out stole it... it would only run the government for about 4 months (and that's assuming that most of the rich wouldn't bail on the US, which they would). With the way people talk about needing to gouge the “rich”, you’d think we didn’t have one of the most progressive tax systems in the world.

I honestly don't know what we can do as a country anymore. Our government is addicted to spending, our president refuses to acknowledge the situation and instead talks class warfare, people go along with it like sheep because they don’t understand the economic/financial disaster that lies ahead and the only people in Washington who would normally stand up to it have lost their backbone because they care about their jobs more than their country.

It’s like we’re a family maxing out the credit cards, spending truckloads of money on luxury items we don’t need and can’t afford… and the solution everyone is preaching now? WE NEED MORE CREDIT CARDS!

We are doomed. If things keep going this way, even in just the Obama’s 2nd term, it’s not a matter of if the country crashes… it’s a matter of when.
 
This is dumb as hell. Ben Stein has lost his damn mind. If Obama took every penny earned over $1M... just flat out stole it... it would only run the government for about 4 months (and that's assuming that most of the rich wouldn't bail on the US, which they would). With the way people talk about needing to gouge the “rich”, you’d think we didn’t have one of the most progressive tax systems in the world.

I honestly don't know what we can do as a country anymore. Our government is addicted to spending, our president refuses to acknowledge the situation and instead talks class warfare, people go along with it like sheep because they don’t understand the economic/financial disaster that lies ahead and the only people in Washington who would normally stand up to it have lost their backbone because they care about their jobs more than their country.

It’s like we’re a family maxing out the credit cards, spending truckloads of money on luxury items we don’t need and can’t afford… and the solution everyone is preaching now? WE NEED MORE CREDIT CARDS!

We are doomed. If things keep going this way, even in just the Obama’s 2nd term, it’s not a matter of if the country crashes… it’s a matter of when.

what works better when a family has too much debt

1 - cut spending as much as possible
2 - cut spending as much as possible and get a small raise

Ben Stein is saying that the country has too much debt to fix with #1 alone.
 
Interesting Ron Paulitarian view on the fiscal cliff:

This article makes a ton of sense... and this is coming from someone with generally "liberal leaning" social views. We can't expect to be world policers, pay for all of these entitlement programs, plus allow a federal reserve system which is a privately owned "for profit" entity to control our monetary supply! The Fed has been doing just what this article says... keep interest rates artificially low and printing more money to cover up the government's spending. This indirect tax has been devaluing our (middle class) wealth for decades, yet the average Joe is too naive to understand what is happening. I honestly think the ONLY thing that can truly change the course of this country is either a 3rd party, independent candidate who is able to break through on a "shrink the government and audit the Fed" platform, or a flat-out political revolution in the USA, demanding a change in our national policies.
 
Washington will never change from the inside. It has to change from the outside, and that's us, the people.

Problem is people are more caught up in their "fantasy" football teams than paying attention to real things, such as our devaluing dollar and shrinking middle class.
 
Last edited:
what works better when a family has too much debt

1 - cut spending as much as possible
2 - cut spending as much as possible and get a small raise

Ben Stein is saying that the country has too much debt to fix with #1 alone.

They shouldn't get a raise for doing a shitty job. It's their fault we are in this position in the first place. Prove they can show some restraint and cut spending first. Then maybe I wouldn't mind them asking for more.

If you give them a raise, they'll just cut less...fact. The raise has a cost too. You are taking it out of the hands of people much smarter than politicians. You are taking the money out of the hands of job creators and giving it to a group of idiots that have zero self control.
 
They shouldn't get a raise for doing a shitty job. It's their fault we are in this position in the first place. Prove they can show some restraint and cut spending first. Then maybe I wouldn't mind them asking for more.

If you give them a raise, they'll just cut less...fact. The raise has a cost too. You are taking it out of the hands of people much smarter than politicians. You are taking the money out of the hands of job creators and giving it to a group of idiots that have zero self control.

I'm just not sure why taxes has become a bad word. The rates are historically low but some people just refuse to acquiesce to tax increases. Spending cuts are fine, there is a lot I want cut as well. I just don't get why they can't make cuts and bring in more revenue at the same time.
 
what works better when a family has too much debt

1 - cut spending as much as possible
2 - cut spending as much as possible and get a small raise

Ben Stein is saying that the country has too much debt to fix with #1 alone.

I'll leave all discussion about how tax cuts raise government revenue off the table for a moment. The point I was trying to make is that even if you tax the bejeezus out of the "rich" so that you're not only eating them but picking their bones clean, it doesn't even come close to solving the deficit problem. Why are we wasting breath discussing something that amounts to a drop in the bucket? What should be the priority when a family has too much debt?

1 - Sit down at the table and analyze and cut all unnecessary expenditures until they can afford to pay for your bills.
2 - Beg and plead for whatever raise you can get, realizing that you can never get a raise big enough to cover your spending.

I've heard plenty about tax increases. All the right can talk about is how they're willing to bend over on tax increases which don't even come close to fixing our problem. Yet, where is the talk about spending cuts? Where is the talk about balancing budgets by reducing our insatiable, bloated government? Nowhere. That's why crap like this from Stein gets me so riled up.

Government doesn't want to cut spending, they want to INCREASE it. Raising taxes on the wealthy is a distraction from the fact that they need to stop the spending NOW if we want to survive as a country. Until they bring major spending cuts to the table, I don't want to hear a thing about tightening government's grip around the golden goose's neck.
 
They shouldn't get a raise for doing a shitty job. It's their fault we are in this position in the first place. Prove they can show some restraint and cut spending first. Then maybe I wouldn't mind them asking for more.

If you give them a raise, they'll just cut less...fact. The raise has a cost too. You are taking it out of the hands of people much smarter than politicians. You are taking the money out of the hands of job creators and giving it to a group of idiots that have zero self control.

Obama wants $2.50 in cuts for every $1 in new revenue. He isn't asking for a tax increase in a vacuum. Stein says you can't get make up the gap with cuts alone.
 
I'll leave all discussion about how tax cuts raise government revenue off the table for a moment. The point I was trying to make is that even if you tax the bejeezus out of the "rich" so that you're not only eating them but picking their bones clean, it doesn't even come close to solving the deficit problem. Why are we wasting breath discussing something that amounts to a drop in the bucket? What should be the priority when a family has too much debt?

1 - Sit down at the table and analyze and cut all unnecessary expenditures until they can afford to pay for your bills.
2 - Beg and plead for whatever raise you can get, realizing that you can never get a raise big enough to cover your spending.

I've heard plenty about tax increases. All the right can talk about is how they're willing to bend over on tax increases which don't even come close to fixing our problem. Yet, where is the talk about spending cuts? Where is the talk about balancing budgets by reducing our insatiable, bloated government? Nowhere. That's why crap like this from Stein gets me so riled up.

Government doesn't want to cut spending, they want to INCREASE it. Raising taxes on the wealthy is a distraction from the fact that they need to stop the spending NOW if we want to survive as a country. Until they bring major spending cuts to the table, I don't want to hear a thing about tightening government's grip around the golden goose's neck.

Where are you getting that they want to increase spending? From everything I've seen that's just flat out untrue.
 
I'll leave all discussion about how tax cuts raise government revenue off the table for a moment. The point I was trying to make is that even if you tax the bejeezus out of the "rich" so that you're not only eating them but picking their bones clean, it doesn't even come close to solving the deficit problem. Why are we wasting breath discussing something that amounts to a drop in the bucket? What should be the priority when a family has too much debt?

1 - Sit down at the table and analyze and cut all unnecessary expenditures until they can afford to pay for your bills.
2 - Beg and plead for whatever raise you can get, realizing that you can never get a raise big enough to cover your spending.

I've heard plenty about tax increases. All the right can talk about is how they're willing to bend over on tax increases which don't even come close to fixing our problem. Yet, where is the talk about spending cuts? Where is the talk about balancing budgets by reducing our insatiable, bloated government? Nowhere. That's why crap like this from Stein gets me so riled up.

Government doesn't want to cut spending, they want to INCREASE it. Raising taxes on the wealthy is a distraction from the fact that they need to stop the spending NOW if we want to survive as a country. Until they bring major spending cuts to the table, I don't want to hear a thing about tightening government's grip around the golden goose's neck.

what part of asking for $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1.00 in new revenue leaves you thinking there is no talk of spending cuts?
 
Whatever CUTS the government speaks of are not REAL cuts like us average Joes think of them.

Congress does the budgeting for America in 10 year increments.

For example:

Lets say congress has allocated 500 Billion for our military spending over the next ten years.

They speak of these "cuts" but really they are just making adjustments to their baseline budget.

The politicians then campaign with some bullshit slogan like "we've already sliced 5 billion in military spending"

There was no real "cut" made, only a slight change in their budget allocation. The ridiculous spending continues like nothing ever happens and people get off your case.

This is too insignificant. Us average
Cavs fans aren't listening in on the budget hearings, so we don't have a say in how much money our military gets.

All we can do is look at the facts. Fact is our military is more advanced and more powerful than any other military combined. We have enough technology to intercept missiles, stealth nuclear submarines, you name it, we have it.

What we can't afford to do is police the world and get in stupid conflicts like Iraq which drain this country out of our ass completely unnecessarily.

Saddam is dead! The world is a safer place! Bullshit! it's no different than it was before and America is more at risk now because we are setting up an empire in someone else's backyard. They don't hate us because we're free and rich, they hate us because we are on THEIR turf setting up shop.

If you want to talk about real cuts then we need to look at our foreign policy and stop policing the world and setting up an unsustainable empire over seas.

Rather than puffing smoke and scaling back our baseline budgeting, we need REAL cuts and that includes DRASTICALLY scaling back our empire and worrying about America before fucking Israel or anywhere else first.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top