The whole deal should just go away. The President's vow to uphold the trigger is not good news.

[woo me with science]

The Super Committee should never have happened. It was a ploy to accomplish what over 300 economists specifically warned the President against doing: cutting deeply into the budget during the worst economy since the Great Depression. The economy needs stimulation from the demand side, and especially it needs structural reform. It does not need to be starved with draconian cuts across the board.

People are cheering the President's vow to uphold the trigger. I suspect it is because they feel it is the best possible deal, since 50 percent of cuts in the trigger are supposed to come from the military.

But that is not what the President vowed to uphold. Pay attention to what he actually said.

He did not say that the cuts would have to include the 50 percent in military cuts that are mandated by the current trigger. In fact, he specifically pointed out that there is a full year before the cuts need to take effect and plenty of time to "find" money before the deadline.

They will not have to account for any of cuts they approve until AFTER the 2012 election.

The President has promised only that the Super Committee will achieve its goal of deep austerity cuts to the budget precisely when people are hurting, and it will happen in a way that minimizes accountability until after the election. Anyone who seriously believes that these cuts will end up coming from the MIC is welcome to buy a bridge I have...

The whole deal should just go away.

[reggie the dog]

1. i agree whole heartedly

watch out though,

lots of people just started talking shit to me here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2358736

[ProSense]

2. Bullshit!

Fact Sheet: Reducing the Deficit, Raising the Debt Limit and Avoiding Default (PDF)

<...>

• If the Committee Fails to Report Legislation That Achieves $1.2 Trillion in Deficit Reduction, or Congress Fails to Enact the Committee’s Recommendations, Sequestration is Triggered. If the Joint Committee fails to come to a majority agreement on recommendations that achieve at least $1.2 trillion, or Congress fails to enact recommendations that produce at least that amount, sequestration is triggered, forcing across-the-board spending cuts. The sequestration will be similar to the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings trigger and, with interest savings, will make up the differential between the deficit reduction achieved by the joint committee and $1.2 trillion.
  
  
• Sequestration Will Use Balanced Approach to Spending Cuts.
  
  
  • 50% of Sequestration Will Come From Defense. If across-the-board cuts are triggered, 50% will come from defense spending (Function 050), with the remaining 50% coming from non-defense spending. The spending cuts would apply to FYs 2013-2021, and apply to both discretionary and mandatory spending programs with important exemptions (below). The amount of the defense spending cuts each year is estimated to be over $50 billion if sequestration is triggered.
    
    
  • Social Security, Medicaid, Veterans Benefits, and Other Essential Benefits Are Exempt From Cuts. If across-the-board cuts are triggered, the following will be exempt: Social Security, Medicaid, veterans’ benefits and pensions, payments to federal retirement funds, civilian and military retirement, and the child nutrition, and Supplement Security Income, among others.
    
    
  • Medicare Savings Are Capped at 2% and Are Limited to Providers Only – No Benefit Cuts. If across-the-board cuts are triggered, any cut to Medicare would be limited to no greater than 2% of the program’s cost. Any such cut would come from payments to providers and insurance plans. There will be NO Medicare benefit cuts or increases in seniors’ costs.

<…>

The only people who wants to see this go away are those determined to protect defense cuts.

[woo me with science]

3. Just wait and see.

It has been all over the news already. They are already looking for ways to exempt the military.

[ProSense]

8. Wait

"It has been all over the news already. They are already looking for ways to exempt the military."

...so you're going to help them out by advocating their position?

[woo me with science]

13. Yes, Prosense, they have a call into me this evening.

Whatever would they do without my help? :eyes:

[ProSense]

16. You know

"Yes, Prosense, they have a call into me this evening."

...no matter how often the spin changes reality gets in the way.

Democrats didn't cave, the supercommittee failed and the trigger is going to kick in.

[woo me with science]

17. Uh huh.

Obama should really have a talk with Panetta, so they are on the same page, hmmm?

I swear, the theater is priceless.

[ProSense]

19. Actually

"Obama should really have a talk with Panetta, so they are on the same page, hmmm?"

...maybe you should stop relying on half assed media reports that quote Panetta and listen to what the President says.

[woo me with science]

22. "One way or another..."

"One way or another, we will be trimming the deficit by at least $2.2 trillion over the next 10 years," he said, referring to a previous agreement for cutting $1 trillion in spending and the required $1.2 trillion in further cuts triggered by the committee's failure.

Wait and see. Fifty percent of cuts will not come from the military. You can bank on it.

[ProSense]

23. Hmmmm?

"Wait and see. Fifty percent of cuts will not come from the military. You can bank on it."

Until Congress passes legislation repealing the trigger, I'll let you wait.

I'm still waiting for the SOTU announcing cuts to Social Security.

[woo me with science]

25. Yes, Let's wait, indeed.

He will sign on to protect the MIC one way or another. One way or another, the military budget will be deemed absolutely essential for our safety.



SOCOM. Bush- 60 countries. Obama 120 countries by end of 2011
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2118912&mesg_id=2122224

OBAMA AGREES WITH PANETTA, ENDORSES MEDICARE ‘ADJUSTMENTS’ OVER DEFENSE CUTS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1692899

Panetta Starts Singing Contractors’ Tune After Closed-Door Meeting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1964568

Mercenary forces to double in Iraq after 2011
http://waronyou.com/topics/u-s-to-double-mercenary-forces-in-iraq-after-2011-military-pullout

Panetta: Cutting too deep would devastate military
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5025964

Drastic cuts in defense budget likely won't happen
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11317223/1/drastic-cuts-in-defense-budget-likely-wont-happen.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN

A Top Senate Dem Says Iran Plot May Be Act Of War
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5024359

[pnwmom]

31. They can look all they want. They won't succeed. nt

[JoePhilly]

5. The folks who claimed that Dems and Obama would cave need to change horses now.

I also notice that there is a crew over at the stadium moving the goal posts again.

[jtown1123]

37. No. The only reason we were saved is b/c the GOP rejected Democrats offers

which FYI included billions in cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Grover Norquist saved us. Not the Democrats.

[Bandit]

10. Both top Republicans have stated they will do whatever it takes to remove the trigger

They have sworn there will be no cuts to Defense..Just as they have sworn there will be no tax increases.. Eventually they are going to lose their battle and when they do America will reap great reward..

[Autumn]

4. I agree 100%

K/R

[Bandit]

6. The economy needs stimulation from the demand side,

The main reason we are having problems at the moment is because there is no Demand. People just don't have any money. The one's that do are buying overseas and big ticket items so they don't support the common worker with any spending...Stimulus spending is what needs to be done, but I don't understand what you mean by the "Demand Side"...

[woo me with science]

7. You're right. You just described exactly what it means.

Rather than supply side infusions, the money needs to be in the hands of the people.

[frazzled]

9. They way they will "find money" is by letting all or part of the Bush tax cuts to expire

as will happen on schedule.

The end of the two wars will be another.

[girl gone mad]

20. That doesn't add money to the private sector.

It's a net subtraction.

Taxation effectively destroys money, and you don't "find money" by destroying it.

[woo me with science]

26. The one percent is less interested in finding money for the United States

than they are in maintaining the spigot of money to themselves.

The Military Industrial Complex vastly enriches the one percent, from the oil companies to the defense companies to the banks that loan money at interest for our adventures overseas. There is no way in hell that they are going to let 50 percent of these cuts come from the MIC.

[quinnox]

11. It shows how bad an idea the 'super committee' was to start with

These are just words, Obama is posturing, republicans are posturing. None of these so called cuts are gonna happen anyway. Its all nonsense.

[ProSense]

14. Hmmmm?

"These are just words, Obama is posturing, republicans are posturing. None of these so called cuts are gonna happen anyway. Its all nonsense."

The Republicans have to posture. Obama doesn't have to posture. The cuts have already been signed into law.

[woo me with science]

15. Oh, I think program cuts will happen...

but not until after the election.

Cuts to the military, not so much.

[DFab420]

12. Paul Krugman disagrees with you..I tend to listen to the learned...

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/The-supercommittee-will-fail-Hooray-Paul-2277129.php

[Johonny]

18. I read that and it sounds like he agrees

Better to have no deal than a deal that imposes spending cuts in the next few years.

[ProSense]

21. "weaponized Keynesians "

Krugman: Bombs, Bridges and Jobs

<...>

Right now the weaponized Keynesians are out in full force...What’s bringing out the military big spenders is the approaching deadline for the so-called supercommittee to agree on a plan for deficit reduction. If no agreement is reached, this failure is supposed to trigger cuts in the defense budget.

Faced with this prospect, Republicans — who normally insist that the government can’t create jobs, and who have argued that lower, not higher, federal spending is the key to recovery — have rushed to oppose any cuts in military spending. Why? Because, they say, such cuts would destroy jobs.

<...>

[woo me with science]

24. Regardless of political statements now, the President will end up signing on

to protect the military budget. You can bank on it.


SOCOM. Bush- 60 countries. Obama 120 countries by end of 2011
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2118912&mesg_id=2122224

OBAMA AGREES WITH PANETTA, ENDORSES MEDICARE ‘ADJUSTMENTS’ OVER DEFENSE CUTS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1692899

Panetta Starts Singing Contractors’ Tune After Closed-Door Meeting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1964568

Mercenary forces to double in Iraq after 2011
http://waronyou.com/topics/u-s-to-double-mercenary-forces-in-iraq-after-2011-military-pullout

Panetta: Cutting too deep would devastate military
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5025964

Drastic cuts in defense budget likely won't happen
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11317223/1/drastic-cuts-in-defense-budget-likely-wont-happen.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN

A Top Senate Dem Says Iran Plot May Be Act Of War
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5024359

[woo me with science]

35. You are right. He does. nt

[Major Hogwash]

27. We're going to save over $500 Billion dollars next year because the troops are coming home.

I guess you didn't "factor that" fact into your equation.

[Major Hogwash]

30. We're going to cut OVER $900 BILLION DOLLARS NEXT YEAR!!! Not just $500 Billion.

Rachel just had it on her program.

[woo me with science]

32. Um, Major Hogwash? Do you know how big the total Defense budget for next year is?

I strongly recommend checking your math.

The *total* Defense budget for next year is approximately 665 billion dollars. So, no, they are not cutting 900 billion from next year's budget. Even you must agree that Obama probably does not plan to stop all funding of the Defense Department in 2012 and then make hundreds of billions in further imaginary cuts to a Defense Department that no longer exists.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But seriously, if you are going to try to engage on this topic, it helps to have at least some grasp of the ballpark numbers we are talking about.

I'm pretty sure that what you saw on Rachel was a reference to projected cuts over TEN YEARS. Back in June, the debt ceiling negotiations resulted in an agreement to cut $450 billion from Defense over ten years. The automatic trigger, if implemented as written today, would add approximately another 500 billion to that. Again, over ten years. That part is important. That would result in approximately the numbers you are excitedly repeating.

But as I have just been telling you, there is no way that this trigger is going to be implemented at that level. I will even go one step further and predict that we won't even get the 450 billion. Something is going to happen to make keeping the MIC well-funded extremely important to our safety.

Look, it is a mere few hours after Obama's address, and his Secretary of Defense has ALREADY come out with a statement of alarm over how we cannot afford to allow these cuts to materialize: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/22/us-usa-debt-defense-panetta-idUSTRE7AL05220111122

We have seen this song and dance before, many times. There are always huge cuts projected, but they are always conveniently in the future...and somehow they never really materialize.

Stay tuned and you will see.

[TheKentuckian]

28. I don't care if the military cuts happen or not the thing should be killed.

The entire train of thought is circumstantially absurd. Austerity is a suckers bet and the people will lose every single time. It is simply too much to take out of the economy, we have a serious demand deficit and even the military cuts will hurt since they cannot be temporarily re-purposed as stimulus and the domestic cuts are just plain unacceptable even though the "Big Three" are mostly left intact.

That half trillion over ten doesn't magically make the rest of the cuts a good thing or even tolerable and yes, it is an automatic defeat to be shrinking the pie at all.

Austerity does not work, the reduced spending shrinks the broader economy and revenues fall further.

[woo me with science]

33. This is the most important reply in the thread.

Thank you.

You are exactly right, and thank you for bringing the thread back on point. Austerity not only won't help; it will be destructive...not only to individuals but to the nation and the economy as a whole. To suggest, as Obama did repeatedly during the debt ceiling debate, that this course of action will yield a "sound fiscal situation" is at odds with reality and the projections of over 300 economists.

Someone posted recently, pointing out that the oligarchy does not just wage military wars for profit. Economic warfare against the 99 percent can be just as profitable to them. Just talk to the people in Greece and Italy who will now be ruled by unelected corporate bosses.

[TheKentuckian]

39. Yup, that is what will be ever evaded in the debate, which proves how false the entire path is.

The people cannot win the austerity game, the "best" that can be done is to structure it in a way that keeps the millions off the barricades.

This has become the essential difference in our two major parties, one is guided by those who wish to keep the people off the barricades if they can for a few peace keeping carrots (if they don't cost too much, otherwise they have peas) as they fleece them for corporate profit and the other either stands to profit by folks in rebellion, those that think the stick beats the carrot philosophically, and those who cannot get out of the pig trough long enough to give a fuck.

Democrats do not offer an opposition to a slide into fascism (or at least corporatism, if there is a real distinction), just a competent and smoother transition. The opposition offers a quick and direct path with a heaping helping of theocracy.

Clearly one is worse than the other, at least during the transition and arguably after with less of the religious influence allowing for a more representative and equal corporate authoritarian rule but I think it is equally clear that both tracks lead to an unacceptable end.

[lonestarnot]

29. A bullshit attack on Mr. President's strategy.

[TheKentuckian]

34. What game are we playing? How to lose the war and negotiate spinnable terms

to bring your troops along?

Or is it how to do what you well know is the wrong thing in something resembling an acceptable fashion.

Any strategy that involves surrendering while managing defeat is at least questionable from go.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

36. The trigger is law

and while, yes, laws can (and sometimes should) be changed, unless there is an agreement on the table to restore cuts for both defense spending and other discretionary spending, then I don't see how he could, in good conscience, agree to sign a law restoring these cuts until or unless some kind of more balanced deal emerges that all parties sign on to. Otherwise, what then was the point of the whole fight over the debt ceiling last year? The automatic cuts were designed to pressure both sides on the Super Committee to come to a balanced agreement to reduce the deficit, which, of course, they have now failed to do, so now, by law, they have to be implemented (after the 2012 election I believe). The Republicans are now essentially trying to weasel out of the deal and President Obama is saying that he is not going to to let them do it nor is he letting our side out of our obligations as well. All this could, conceivably, still lead to a balanced deal at some point- if the Republicans ever decide to get their heads out of Grover Norquist's ass- but that seems rather unlikely until the teabaggers get swept out of the House in 2012. I agree that it wasn't a good deal for anybody and we shouldn't even have had to go to the point of no return with the debt ceiling but, once again, the Republicans decided to play with fire and we all got burned in the end. Republicans are now feeling the heat and trying to avoid the "consequences" of their stupidity but they will just have to deal- like the rest of us. :banghead: :nopity:

[redqueen]

38. K&R