The economy is not a zero-sum game. If we concentrate on getting the economy to grow, most of these problems (the deficit, federal spending and revenue) are easier to solve.

But our government (both sides of the aisle) seem to do everything in their power to stall the economy and create uncertainty. For the last 6 months, what business person could make a reliable forecast as to the state of the economy? It certainly has not been an environment where you would want to invest in growing your company or employees, given the number of unknowns (future taxes, economic growth, spending, even health care expenses).

Our politicians on both sides seem to be creating a system where they and lobbyists are the only winners. By making short-term decisions, various interest groups are forced to pump more money, more often, into this lobby/politician funnel.

Of course the bill is the cause. If they didn't want the tax to raise in 2013, they'd make it permanent in 2010 or extended the current levels in 2012. They did not, which means they fully intended for it to happen exactly like it happened. E.g., have taxes for 77% of households be higher in 2013 then they were in 2012.

If they were permanent, the CBO would have to make projections assuming they are permanent. It's much easier for me to borrow your chainsaw every day than to ask you to give it to me, because then I can tell you you'll have it back tomorrow.

As it is, the CBO is able to make projections involving the cuts expiring next year each year for over a decade now. This time the projection turned out to be more correct than usual, which is to say still wrong.

There's a subtle difference between a companies prices and taxes. If I only bought from one store every week and for 10 years I paid $1 for a loaf of bread and one day the bread cost $2 I would still feel justified in calling that a 100% price hike regardless of whether they had announced that the $1 price was temporary 10 years ago. I'll admit there's some wiggle room to argue price hike or not but I don't feel as if I'm the one jumping through all the hoops to make my case.

Full disclosure: I normally pay around $4 for a loaf of bread.

Of course it is. "50% off this month only" is exactly the same, in money terms, as "we intend to raise price of it 100% next month". Of course, the former sounds much better, which is why you never see the latter, even though it is exactly the same thing. People have very hard time applying logic to money, for some reason.

> If a company has a huge sale for 1 month and everything is temporarily 50% off, we don't call it a 100% "price hike" the next month.

No, but if they had that "sale" for over 10 years, rather than one month, then you might call it a price increase.

Of course it's intentional. If they didn't intend for taxes to go up, they would not vote for legislation that is doing so. In fact, they did it twice - in 2010 andin 2012 - so they fully intended that there be a tax hike in 2013.

>>>> do you call it a "price hike" when a sale ends?

Of course. "Sale" is a marketing construct, there's no price but the actual deal price. Claiming that there's some other price, which just now, just for you, just this 5 minutes is not valid and another, much lower price, is now in effect but you have to hurry to buy it - is just a marketing trick. Amazon is running with "sale price" for decades now, and most of its "base prices" are pure fiction, and so do many other retailers. It is, obviously, very effective marketing trick - you fell for it completely and so do many others - but a trick nonetheless. There's no price but actual sale price. "End of sale" is a price hike.

Arguing over labels is a red herring. Is it a hike? Maybe. Who cares? Many reasonable people might say it's a hike, so don't hide from that or try and split hairs. At the end of the day it's the right thing to do... so do it, even if it's a hike.

So tax hike is not a tax hike if you plan it upfront? So if your employer says to you "you're getting a raise of $1000 for this year, but only for one year" it is not the same as getting a raise of $1000 and then getting a pay cut of $1000 next year? And the difference is... what exactly? That it was known upfront? How it makes anything different?

If all the right were Ron Paul drones :)

We would probably have less rampant abuse, though if Bush times is an indication of anything, the right can definitely be tempted by debt spending also, just in less egregious quantities. But I'd take Bush-level deficits (400bn) over Obama-level (1trln+) any day.

Since the benefits are capped, Social Security can be fixed by raising taxes, of course. This would mean abandoning all pretense that Social Security is some kind of self-paying insurance/pension program but it is pretty much done by now anyway. Medicare is much worse - it is projected to grow to almost 20% GDP next 70 years, which means to pay for it you'd need to double the taxes - which is what I mean by confiscatory taxation levels.

The trustee report assumes benefits will stop being paid when the trust fund runs out of money and cost will either be made to conform or services rationed appropriately. The CBO just draws a trend line on health care costs and assumes they go up forever and we'll always pay them. I think it's somewhat possible that the US will look more like the rest of the world in terms of costs as time passes. It's also very possible that we may end up paying radically more for senior care than we do now in 70 years but that's something democracies continue to decide for themselves. There's no blank check being written today about health care in 2083.

"It's not like Obama had control over the budget for 4 years now"

Because he's a dictator?

"and did nothing to reign in spending. "

Slowest increase in spending since Eisenhower?

"Here I was naively hoping there's some point where blaming Bush has to stop. Of course it will never stop."

Because it will never stop being true that he's responsible for the current fiscal mess? I'm sorry it's an 'inconvenient truth" for you that Bush sucked and got us in this mess.

"The rest is spending increases and tax revenue falling short of previous expectations"

This is actually what I meant by decreased revenues. My full quote as you can see is:

"decreased tax revenues -> deficit) and the continued unfunded wars, tax cuts and Medicare D program."

So perhaps that could have been punctuated better but it's not hard to see that I was making the distinction between the tax cuts and the decreased revenues due to recession/depression.

The Bill Clinton "is" thing is a bit like the hot coffee lawsuit: When you look at the details, it's quite a bit less silly then the news made it seem

The Paula Jones lawyers deposed Clinton earlier with a ridiculous definition of sexual relations, the judged chopped it down way too far, and Clinton didn't answer one more bit then he had to because they kept leaking shit, and no one answers more than they have to in a deposition.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CDOC-105hdoc311/pdf/GPO-CDO... for the grand jury testimony about all this. Look at page 454 by searching to read the start of it.

All that said, yes, there is a point where definition of a word doesn't really matter. So yes, I agree with you, George Bush hiked the taxes on Jan 1 2013 on the upper class due to a expiration clause on a tax bill, and the Republicans opted not to renew the payroll tax holiday Obama got in exchange for a 2 year extention of the Bush Tax Cuts. They did not agree to extend these cuts when he did not agree to continued extensions of the Bush tax cuts for the highest wage income earners.

Index it to inflation rather than wages. Choose a fixed basket of goods, compute their price in the future, adjust SS accordingly.

I.e., cause SS to provide a fixed standard of living, rather than an increasing one. Seniors will always live as well in the future as they do today, they just won't live as well as future wage earners.

Social Security is the easier to fix (IMHO). The nice thing about it is that it's a service for which there are a lot of examples. The basic premise that you put away money for your retirement and that money grows over time is pretty simple and sound. You could streamline it a bit to reduce overhead. Yes, the way it works now is somewhat broken (e.g.: I am not "saving" currently, but paying for people who are now retired, hoping that my grandchildren will pay for me), but in principle it needs only minor adjustments.

Medicare on the other hand is growing very rapidly and the broken healthcare system will only speed up its growth. I don't see a way to fix it without dismantling it and starting over. Not that I am in the Ryan camp: I am not advocating leaving seniors out in the cold. I am just saying that Medicare will require more than minor adjustments.

In current law it is already fixed. When it runs out of bonds in the "trust fund," it will automatically decrease its payouts to become revenue neutral.

Maybe we should just do away with SS all together? Just pick a date 20-30 years from now, and cancel the program at that time.

I'm young (under 30) and I just assume it won't be around by the time I'm 65.