Obama says fiscal cliff deal makes tax system fairer

What I don't get is how conservatives in their millions want to cut SS and Medicare.

I mean really? Why would anyone want to kick their own retired/disabled/poor family, friends and relatives in the gut?

It's heartless to the extreme, especially when the DoD is still running heavy bomber squadrons - relics of the Vietnam war - and has 11 - write that down: 11 - aircraft carrier battle groups, and hey, let's not mention the tank battalions.

Tanks? In today's warfare?

Scrap the tanks, scrap the most of the long range bombers, scrap (or lease to the British) at least one carrier fleet.

But no. Conservatives won't have it.

Bits of metal before their own mothers - the Conservative Way. Save billions.

This is beyond belief. Early in 2011 Boehner had a deal with Obama that enacted large cuts in social programs. He walked away. A few weeks ago he could have accepted a deal with more spending cuts and didn't accept it. Recently, he decided to sit out negotiations and demanded the senate pass a bill, which it did. Now he predictably can't keep the tea party kooks in line. And Cantor is dying to be house speaker. Couldn't give a damn about the country. Good grief!

Wolfpack - "Then sit back and watch the Democrats and the media go insane at the very idea of being fiscally responsible."

Heh, it's largely the GOP's fiscal irresponsibility that ramped the deficit to its current level.

The GOP's 2 unfunded wars, the prescription benefit subsidy....and interest costs on both - all authored by Republicans, the same ones who - like yourself - are now howling for "fiscal responsibility."

Wolf, the only person you're kidding is yourself. 

Same pig. Different lipstick. Nice try though. :-)

Herve - "Unless the out-of-control spending is very seriously addressed, the debt rating will get downgraded again. When that happens, as I believe it will, the cost of servicing the debt will rise more. At this point, it seems inevitable as real cuts have yet to be on the table."

Agreed. It's just a shame conservatives would rather put their own mothers and grandmothers on the alter of fiscal sacrifice than sacrifice some of the DoD's bits of metal.

Missiles over mothers - gotta love conservative "compassion." :-)

I say slash the DoD budget by at least 20% after quickly reviewing which weapons systems are really necessary. That would not include 40-ton battle tanks, a large number of ICBMs, at least one possibly two  aircraft carrier groups, and 50-75% of the long-range bomber squadrons.

Get an independent audit team in to do the job and if any senators whine about how manufacturing in their home states would be affected, kick them out of any associated negotiations and slash their 2013 pay packets by 20%.

On top of that, peg back SS by half to 1% a year for a decade and leave Medicare untouched. 

Bass - "Trimming the defense is not a bad idea, but completely gutting it, is a total catastrophe."

Gutting defense? Who's talking about gutting defense except the voices in your head?

Total strawman. 

Unless the out-of-control spending is very seriously addressed, the debt rating will get downgraded again. When that happens, as I believe it will, the cost of servicing the debt will rise more. At this point, it seems inevitable as real cuts have yet to be on the table.

Republicans must be seething as yet again they realize they have become out of date and defunct.

You sound like a 16 year-old girl who calls her dad "old fashioned" because he asks her to get a part-time job, instead of constantly relying his credit card...

What if we could construct tighter guidelines on those who receive welfare and social security? If you are physically capable and mentally fit for work...GET A JOB! There are more jobs out there than most (who have looked) will admit to. "It is just too demeaning to flip burgers and far to laborious and sweaty to roof houses or pick vegetables." Furthermore, we have the distinguished honorable mention as being the most obese nation in the world. Putting people back to work is a two fold strategy that might just help our present entitlement program deficit.

If I ever meet John McCain, who insisted we add the Ronald Reagan when we DID NOT NEED the carrier at all, I will be tempted to slap him.

Herve: The wealthy will hire more tax lawyers to minimize their exposure, like Laguna mentioned his Mom had done, and will find ways to further reduce future exposure.

So why is it exactly that Republicans put their party on the line to protect these people when there was no threat to begin with?

Both tax hikes and spending cuts on things like the military are entirely necessary. The idea of a small, non-intrusive government may have worked long ago, when the country was small, but it clearly doesn't anymore.

You gotta pay your debts at the end of the day. Especially those folk who benefit tremendously from livng in the US by getting filthy, filthy rich. 15% effective tax is an absolute scandal in my opinion. Those who can afford it the most get away with blue murder in the US.

bass4funk: "Thanks again to the hijack party we call democrats. Seems like 2013 has just gotten off to crappy socialist start."

Wow, someone's upset. So far the Democrats are now terrorists, socialists, and hijackers. Newsflash: if they were voted in they didn't hijack anything, and your reference is EXTREMELY rude towards 9/11 victims. Second, they are HELPING you, from yourself mostly, not hurting you.

"...nada and they want to to tax the bejeesus out of businesses and you call that fair???"

They want to let expire what GWB, whom I might add took a surplus and turned it into a deficit and pushed the US to the cliff, put in place. They are not taxing the rich or businesses, they are letting tax cuts go -- tax cuts that help ONLY the rich and should never have been put in place to begin with. Romney himself admitted as a GOP candidate he would ensure the rich stay as such and the poor suffer, so who are you to suddenly knee-jerk and claim it's the party looking out for the people who are the bad guys?

Your being misleading with the data.

Sail, respectfully disagree. Does the US have a larger territory to defend than it did in 1965? Have not technologies been invented which should reduce the costs of this defense? Some in the GNP would like to pin Pentagon spending to GNP; this goes against everything they say regarding other government spending. Requirements must be fulfilled, but please, do not pretend that the Pentagon is not the most bloated of all federal government organs, both in the way it spends its money and the way that it exceeds its need.

Laguna, just answer the question. Why does the US have such low interest rates on its sovereign debt? I'd like to hear your answer.

Herve, the US auctions off all of its debt - it is the free market which determines what interest rate will be paid. Perhaps you lack sufficient faith in the free market.

More like " Same pigS. Same lipstick."

The current "deal" is a bad deal. Real spending cuts are necessary, not tax increases.

The usual is More tax and spend Tomfoolery.

The beauty is that we won't have to resort to violence or even threats; a simple grass-roots movement---let's call it "Two-and-Done"---that mobilizes voters to remove all of the lifetime slugs in Washington will go a long way to ending fiscal cliffs, enfunded wars, outsourcing, irresponsible social programs that pander for votes, etc. What do you say?

I'll do you one better: Endorse and foster a "pledge," similar to Nordquist's pledge not to raise taxes, whereby each Senate candidate swears to serve no more than two terms, and each House candidate serves no more than three terms. In addition, each candidate agrees to give up the pension, perks and benefits they would otherwise receive after they leave office.

In other words, they are just there to serve and move on.

@Yabits. I'm with you except for the "pledge" part. Today's politicians are by definition liars and will do anything to save their own political skin---US$170,000 is just too tempting a salary when combined with all the perks. No, I think we need to DEMAND an end to the perks, pensions, etc. The average person could do a better job than Reid, Cantor, Boehner, Pelosi, etc. We need to create a congress that serves two years max (House included in my opinion) receives the huge salary mentioned earlier and then LEAVES and makes way for the next person. Seriously, though, let's do this!

Actually, I am all for this fiscal deal not going through, as I would like to see all of the Bush tax cuts on income and estates expire (as the Republicans originally wrote them into the law). The extra revenue would go a very long way to cutting the debt-to-GDP ratio.

The average person could do a better job than Reid, Cantor, Boehner, Pelosi, etc.

Maybe so, although I consider most of those people just about average.

I'm with you except for the "pledge" part.

Well, Nordquist's pledge has been very effective. We the people simply need to demand a new standard. For example, were I to run for office, I would pledge the above, plus taking on three staff members (from the two major parties, plus an independent) among who might be the next candidate for office.

We need to create a congress that serves two years max

Well, if you're talking about the senate, that would require amending the Constitution, which just isn't going to happen. No, it is up to "we the people" to ensure the candidates live up to their pledges.

The bill just passed and awaits the president's signature.

Another congrats to Obama. Republicans must be seething as yet again they realize they have become out of date and defunct.

The House vote took place after a conservative rebellion fizzled when it became clear there were not sufficient votes in the restive Republican caucus to send an amended version of the bill with spending cuts back to the Senate.

They article forgot to add that radical Republicans couldn't threaten to destroy anything to get their way, so we actually put it to a vote instead.

Wolfpack: The House should amend the Senate's bill - change tax cuts to under $1 million

Honestly, why would you care if it's $400,000 or a million, and why would you make that the lead point? You're most concerned with this tiny sliver of the population? This isn't religion....

It was a serious compromise by both sides. I am disappointed both that Obama didn't hang tough on the $250,000 threshold and that he didn't wring out any solution to the debt ceiling. Really, all the agreement is is a holding measure for the next two months; more comprehensive solutions will come from the new Congress, which will be marginally more Democratic and far more liberal.

“While I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they’ve already racked up through the laws that they passed,” the president said.

He also forgot to mention the part about how they pass them and he happily approves them and signs those spending sprees into the law. Because he sure hasn't use his veto on anything that had to do with increased spending by claiming it cost to much and we just can't afford it to rack up the debt the anymore.

Also, I don't know if he's just be willfully ignorant for the press or just doesn't want to get into the details of how our Government works but he won't have another debate with this Congress the 112 Congress is soon to be no more. The 113 Congress will be sworn in January 3rd. He can then tell the new 113 Congress after it is sworn in the spirit of a fresh new start to also pound sand if they dare offer any sort of concern about the U.S yet again hiking up the national credit card to limits with so many zeros behind the number that no one can fathom to set the tone and spirit for the the next two years.

Listening to the details of what the Senate already passed I would say it's actually a Huge Win for Republicans. So they have a marginal punitive tax increase on successful people but the Bush tax cuts will have no expiration date for incomes under $400k. Now the House has all of the leverage back with the debt limit and they can flip Barry the bird in 2 months.

Thank you Joe Biden... The House better pass this now...

Herve, your statement implies that markets are nervous over American debt. They are not, as continued record-low interest rates on long-term debt attest. What they are nervous about is exactly what the GOP prescribes: precipitous cuts in federal spending.

The lack of spending cuts is exactly what will cause Wall Street to meet this deal with a yawn. The ACA in reality merely shifts costs from unrecoverable free care given in emergency rooms to a beneficiary-funded system - just as the GOP had always wanted until it was proposed by a Democratic black president. (In fact, the promise that the ACA will lead to lower overall healthcare costs in the US is greatly looked forward to by economists.)

An interesting point of this agreement is that it ends the "holiday" on Social Security contributions. As a liberal, I am not opposed to this for two reasons: Social Security should be funded specifically by its beneficiaries; and the beneficiaries need to understand the relationship between their contributions and what they will receive. Still, that is a big chunk of pocket money out of the American paycheck. (Fortunately, the extension of unemployment benefits was achieved - those with no income will not be hit by a payroll tax increase anyway.)

I hope to see this balanced by greater infrastructure spending by the new Congress. Roads, bridges, schools, rail - much needs to be done, and now is the time to do it, with interest rates so low and unemployment high. This will be a major theme of the new Congress, and markets will respond positively.

Sail - "Terrible not very well thought out consequences will happen unless other Nations are also slashing there defense budgets to go along with the U.S. by the same ratio

Sail, mate, relax....take a deep breath and release some of the pent up paranoia. 

Annual U.S. defense spending is more than the combined total of the next 20 largest national defense budgets COMBINED.

Your country is not under threat of being invaded any time soon but the way some of you conservatives talk it's like you're afraid the Chinese army will be marching through Times Square tomorrow 9am sharp.

If the U.S. slashed defense spending by 20% - as I suggested - it would still have the world's biggest defense budget, you could sleep easy there.

My point was, America doesn't need 11 carrier battle groups, long range bomber squadrons, masses of ICBMs or tank battalions on standby for god's sake.

The only things creating the artificial 'need' you have hopelessly fallen for is 1/ state jobs, and 2/ paranoia among a scared portion of the American public that the nation actually needs to keep all its war toys.

It doesn't, you know it, and you make yourself look ill-informed by pushing the case that it does.

And how exactly, or by whom, pray tell are said interest rates set? If you set your own credit card interest rate near zero, wouldn't you be prosecuted for fraud?

Heh. If this were not posited as a joke, it really would disqualify every subsequent statement you made. (It was posited as a joke, wasn't it?)

Your going to gut the costs of long forged security pacts with the U.S paying the lions share. Your not really cutting anything, your just cost shifting to nations that have been paying very low percentages of GDP toward defense.

Sail, you are conflating what is essentially discretionary spending with what is also essentially mandatory spending. If the US cuts back on its military spending, foreign allies will either have to pony up to cover the loss or accept a lower level of security - but, at the same time, adversaries might well use the chance to cut back on their own expenditures as well. Russia's defense expenditures plummeted after the fall of the Soviet Union, and so did the share of defense expenditures of its adversaries aimed at it. China faces an aging population dwarfing that of the US and at any rate will remain unable for the foreseeable future to project its power far outside its borders beyond anything but ICBMs. In short, a dollar less spent on defense by any country is a dollar not wasted.

Expenditures on income support for the aged as well as on health care are quite different. A dollar subtracted here is either a dollar which must be made up by the private sector or by a notch-down in quality of life. SS, Medicare and Medicaid are justifiably popular for two reasons: they are stable and they are efficient - much more so than anything the private sector has managed to produce.

Yes, they are expensive - but that would be expected. The American federal government has oft been likened to an insurance company with an army; that is not a bad thing, in my opinion. The GOP would have to government to simply be an army.

http://www.ntu.org/governmentbytes/images/defenseoutlays_constantdollars.gif

Ah - the link above is to Pentagon spending in constant dollars. We're spending more now than we were at the peak of the Vietnam War. Feel safer?

http://costofwar.com

I rest my case.

Obama: We can't not pay bills that we've already incurred"

It'll take decades to pay off the bills that the U.S. gov't has incurred just since Obama took office.

the strange thing was - the rich were able to make deductions based on charitable works for the most part. the real rich mind you- not the upper middle class. which is what the original obama plan was targeting.

the real rich will continue to pay little tax even though they are in a high bracket - the fight was never about the real rich but the best of the middle class. the democrats needed to tax couples where both husband and wife make a good salary still and that was the upper middle class- not the rich.

not the rich guy from family money sitting back all day with 10 cars- that's why the republicans let the higher bracket go in negotiations- they kept the upper middle class from being taxed.

President Obama is still doing what President Bush did - Ignore the almost half of the country that voted against him- that will be to his deficit as it was to George Bush's deficit

Obama should label the GOP as fiscal terrorists and outlaw all their anti-Americsn activities. Only then might something positive actially get done for the people and the country.

Obama should label the GOP as fiscal terrorists and outlaw all their anti-Americsn activities.

How exactly do you propose that he actually outlaws their un-american activities? Disband Congress and then appoint himself as a dictator of the U.S?

What I don't get is how conservatives in their millions want to cut SS and Medicare.

Because they can't remain fiscally solvent in their current formats, both are going broke and they will not be there for future generations to start with.

Herve Nmm L'Eisa has a point; if we spend more than we collect then it doesn't matter who we tax and by how much. We must reexamine all government in its entirety; this means enititlement programs, the military, the number of "non-essential" government workers and the out-of-control pay packages these elected people make.

On a more local note, let's us (the voters) demand term limits. Let us decide amongst ourselves that we will never vote for another pol who has served two terms. The main reason for most of the problems in the States, especially this Fiscal Cliff, is that the pols working on it will not feel one bit of pain if we do in fact go over. Congress has essentially become the King that America fought a revolution against and it is time to overthrow that King. The beauty is that we won't have to resort to violence or even threats; a simple grass-roots movement---let's call it "Two-and-Done"---that mobilizes voters to remove all of the lifetime slugs in Washington will go a long way to ending fiscal cliffs, enfunded wars, outsourcing, irresponsible social programs that pander for votes, etc. What do you say?

ohhh - these sort of dealsalways 'hang in the balance' - like they were on some midday soap drama. It's sad that so many people believe this dance wasn't choreographed well beforehand.

"fiscal-cliff" yet more real life newspeak

The Fiscal Cliff has just averted. The House has just passed the bill. Yey!!

I'm thinking that I just might produce a documentary film about Puerto Rican Rum distillers and how much they import rum into U.S.

That way I'll be able to take advantage of that nice juicy tax break that just got passed by those serious high minded Congress critters and that Obama is about to ink.

‘Fiscal Cliff’ Deal Also Doles Out Millions for Hollywood, Railroads, Rum Producers

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/fiscal-cliff-deal-also-doles-out-millions-for-hollywood-railroads-rum-producers/

"One set of taxes is going up in 2013, however: The deal does not address the temporary payroll tax holiday that expired Tuesday. That tax is rising by 2 percentage points, back to its 2010 level."

That little nugget will hurt every low and middle income wage-earner. This is a failure for the Democrats, but they fail to notice. The tax increases they just inked will not only fail to increase revenue, but will have the negative consequences as have been forewarned. The wealthy will hire more tax lawyers to minimize their exposure, like Laguna mentioned his Mom had done, and will find ways to further reduce future exposure. Potential business expansions won't happen and some businesses will contract. Watch the March unemployment figures rise above 9% officially.

This acceptance of Obama's proposals will shortly lead to a downgrade of US debt as is already being discussed due to not actually tackling spending (including so-called entitlements). Obama thinks he won a battle, but he's gravely mistaken and near-sighted as Mr Magoo. Programs such as SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obamneycare are all bankrupting the nation. Sorry, but it's gonna get a lot, lot worse for those struggling to make ends meet already.

I say slash the DoD budget by at least 20%

Terrible not very well thought out consequences will happen unless other Nations are also slashing there defense budgets to go along with the U.S. by the same ratio.

Bill Gates before he handed the reigns over to Panetta as SECDEF had already embarked on streamlining and cutting the DoD budget. In 2011:

In 2011, military spending declined by almost $9 billion, the first such decline since 1998.

By contrast, the 1.2 percent fall in U.S. military spending in 2011 resulted in a 0.6 percentage point fall in the global share, as military spending by the rest of the world simultaneously increased.

http://www.cfr.org/geoeconomics/trends-us-military-spending/p28855

Your going to gut the costs of long forged security pacts with the U.S paying the lions share. Your not really cutting anything, your just cost shifting to nations that have been paying very low percentages of GDP toward defense. Since the security pacts have been pretty stable over the decades, the cold war never did go hot and China hasn't invaded Taiwan or North Korea hasn't re-invaded South Korea the price has been pretty much stable in what it takes to keep the peace. That price isn't going change. So cutting U.S defense expenditures by 20 percent is going to cause a gap in that security and Japan is going to make the difference as she will not leave herself defenseless or in a position to be intimidated by China or a belligerent Russia for that matter.Same with Germany, France Poland etc.

And this makes for a much more unstable world and that is why U.S leadership has been vital as the lead in the defense for the free world in our various alliances. The U.S defense budget has been shrinking due to some real well managed oversight the past few years but cutting to much to fast and doing it smartly and your going to start to fray strong security alliances such as NATO and our Asian pacts and that is a rubicon that should not be crossed if history is any guide. Cutting defense is wise where it can be cut but not at the expense of laying the seeds for future conflicts due to shortsighted policies that does not think of the geopolitical implications and impacts first.

johnnybravo: "Um sushisake what about the Democrats supporting illegal aliens, and their babies here in the States?"

You mean the people you hire to work for you because it's cheaper and you don't have to offer benefits? I KNOW! You might actually have to acknowledge them as humans and give them the same as other Americans get! They might not have to sit at the back of the bus any more!

Laguna, just answer the question. Why does the US have such low interest rates on its sovereign debt? I'd like to hear your answer.

The US government's cost of long-term borrowing can be decomposed into a short-term rate plus a term premium which investors demand to cover the interest-rate and inflation risks of holding long-term bonds. The short-term rate is substantially a function of monetary policy: the Federal Reserve sets an overnight rate that very short-term Treasury rates must generally follow. Since the Federal Reserve has reduced its policy rate to historic lows, the short-term anchor of Treasury borrowing costs has mechanically fallen. But this drop is a function of monetary policy only. It tells us nothing about the market's concern or lack thereof with the risks of holding Treasuries...

@smith

They want to let expire what GWB, whom I might add took a surplus and turned it into a deficit and pushed the US to the cliff, put in place. They are not taxing the rich or businesses, they are letting tax cuts go -- tax cuts that help ONLY the rich and should never have been put in place to begin with. Romney himself admitted as a GOP candidate he would ensure the rich stay as such and the poor suffer, so who are you to suddenly knee-jerk and claim it's the party looking out for the people who are the bad guys?

What an absolute farce. Romney never said, the poor should suffer, verbatim? You are taking it to the extreme. How is Obama looking out for the so called poor? If he really were doing that, then why is he NOT creating more jobs in the private sector? People like me who are job creators will lose out. it will stifle my growth and I will probably have to either let some people go or I will have to cut their salary, but I refuse to let Obama drive me out of business, even though, I have to sacrifice some of my workers. By the way, what and how are we going to deal with Obamacare once it is implemented? You think trying to rob the rich will suffice to care for a nation of 350 million people. You think the quality of healthcare overall will go up? You are sadly drinking the sweetest kool aid if you think that.

@sushi

In my head. I wish, I really wish. Personally, I would rather find out what is in the head of most liberals...sawdust.

Your being misleading with the data. We are spending less of our GDP on defense then we were during the Vietnam era. The amount in constant dollars is more only because our economy has grown about two thirds larger than it was during the Vietnam era.

No. What is "misleading" is omitting what used to be counted under the 1960s defense department spending now separated out into other agencies. For example, much of the expense of our nuclear weapons programs now falls under the Department of Energy -- an agency that didn't exist in the Vietnam era.

Likewise veterans benefits and health care, which now falls under the the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Coast Guard and many other national/civil defense-related programs were shifted to the Department of Homeland Security. Much of NASA's work has become defense-related over the decades, yet their budget falls under the Department of Commerce. A greater reliance on National Guard units is something that still has to be funded by the taxpayers, but you won't find those expenses on the bottom line of the Defense Department's budget.

When you bring all that defense-related spending together -- spending that was once nearly all part of the Defense Department's budget -- the percentage of GDP exceeds that spent during the Vietnam era. (A time when we were fully involved with a Cold War with the Soviet Union.)

No. What is "misleading" is omitting what used to be counted under the 1960s defense department spending now separated out into other agencies. For example, much of the expense of our nuclear weapons programs now falls under the Department of Energy -- an agency that didn't exist in the Vietnam era.

The expense of the nuclear program was not counted in the 60's DoD budgets, I might advise some basic research on your part before posting on the matter. The Atomic Energy Commission was tasked and budgeted with the development and oversite of the entire Nuclear program including military and civilian applications up until 1974 and then absorbed into the newly formed Department of Energy..

The Federal agency (known as the AEC), which was created in 1946 to manage the development, use, and control of atomic (nuclear) energy for military and civilian applications. The AEC was subsequently abolished by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and succeeded by the Energy Research and Development Administration (now part of the U.S. Department of Energy) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. For related information,

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/atomic-energy-commission.html

The Coast Guard and many other national/civil defense-related programs were shifted to the Department of Homeland Security

The Coast Guard has never been a part of the DoD and were also not counted in the 60's DoD budgets. The Coast Guard was budgeted and administered under the Department of Treasury until 1967 and then was placed under the Department of Transportation.

veterans benefits and health care, which now falls under the the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Have never been funded through DoD budgets, That is the whole reason for an entirely seperate funded agency for Veterans.

spending that was once nearly all part of the Defense Department's budget -- the percentage of GDP exceeds that spent during the Vietnam era.

It was not nearly all part of the Defense Department's budget, seperate functions that also had military defense applications were spread out and funded differently then just as it is now. The monies budgeted and allocated directly to DoD through Congress has not exceeded that spent during the Vietnam era as a percentage of GDP.

Fact.

" the US auctions off all of its debt - it is the free market which determines what interest rate will be paid."

As I quoted how the interest rate is set by the FED, and which subsequently also does the buying back of the monetized debt, it's an extreme twist of verbology to call that "free market". It's price fixing with a heavy sauce of insider trading. It's no wonder all the nice folks at or connected to FED are Goldman-Sacks schleppes.

"Well, if you're talking about the senate, that would require amending the Constitution, which just isn't going to happen." OK, valid point! Do you think your plan could get traction in the States? I personally think it's great.

bass4funk: "Here we go again, the Democrat terrorist groups are out in full force once again..."

Bye-bye credibility! The Democrats are now suddenly 'terrorists' because bass doesn't like that they are living up to promises and making the tax system fairer. Spending cuts, especially on defense, are also necessary.

"U.S. President Barack Obama said Tuesday he had fulfilled a campaign promise to make the U.S. tax system fairer…"

Fairer than what? Fairer than Hollande's 75% tax? Well, Ok, maybe that.

" he sure hasn't use his veto on anything"

That is absolutely true!

"Agreed. It's just a shame conservatives would rather put their own mothers and grandmothers on the alter of fiscal sacrifice than sacrifice some of the DoD's bits of metal."

Um sushisake what about the Democrats supporting illegal aliens, and their babies here in the States? That's a big drainage on our system.Giving them Free medical , food stamps , free education, etc, and to top it off they don't pay any taxes.. Just look at California. It's a mess!

(In fact, the promise that the ACA will lead to lower overall healthcare costs in the US is greatly looked forward to by economists.)

Premiums for family health plans hit $15,745

It sounds like good news: Annual premiums for job-based family health plans went up only 4% this year.

But hang on to your wallets: Premiums averaged $15,745, with employees paying more than $4,300 of that, a glaring reminder that the problem of unaffordable medical care is anything but solved.

Although employers and government are doubling down on efforts to keep health care costs manageable, most experts believe the sluggish economy provides the likeliest explanation for the moderate rise in premiums. Last year's spike is blamed on a mistaken bet by insurers that the economy would recover faster.

The survey includes more than 2,000 small and large employers. Asked what kind of increase they're expecting for 2013, employers said their best estimate at this point is 7% -- sure to prompt more pain. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/personalfinance/story/2012/09/11/premiums-for-family-health-plans-hit-15745/57748808/1

For a variety of reasons, this tally(of 940 billion dollars) doesn’t remotely reflect the bill’s real ten-year costs. First, it includes 2010 as the initial year. Therefore, the CBO would normally count 2011 as the first year of its analysis, just as it counted 2010 as the first year when analyzing the initial House bill in the middle of 2009. But under strict instructions from Democratic leaders, and over strong objections from the Republicans, the CBO dutifully scored 2010 as the first year of the latest version of Obamacare. If the clock were started in 2011, the first full year that the bill could possibly be in effect, the CBO says that the bill’s ten-year costs would be $1.2 trillion.

But even that wouldn’t come close to reflecting the bill’s true costs The CBO projects that over the next four years, less than two percent of the bill’s alleged “ten year” costs would hit: just $17 billion of the $940 billion in costs that the Democrats are claiming. In fact, the costs through President Obama’s entire presidency, since he was reelected, will be $336 billion. What would the president leave behind for his successor? According to the CBO, he would leave behind costs of $837 billion during his successor’s alone. If his successor were to serve a second term, he or she would inherit a cool $2.0 trillion in Obamacare costs — about six times its costs during Obama’s own tenure. This legislation is a ticking time-bomb.

To see the bill’s true first-decade costs, we need to start the clock when the costs would actually start in any meaningful way: in 2014. The CBO says that Obamacare would cost $2.0 trillion in the bill’s real first decade (from 2014 to 2023) — and much more in the decades to come.

But $2.0 trillion wouldn’t be the total ten-year costs. Instead, that would merely be the “gross cost of coverage provisions.”  Based on earlier incarnations of the proposed overhaul, the total overhaul, the total costs would be about a third higher — making the total price-tag between $2.5 and $3 trillion over the bill’s real first decade.

How would we pay for all of this? According to to the CBO, by diverting $1.1 trillion away from the already barely-solvent Medicare and spending it Medicare, and by increasing taxes on the American people by over $1 trillion. Among the Medicare cuts would be cuts of $25,000 in Medicare Advantage benefits per enrollee — up from $21,000 in the previous scoring. To be clear, those living in South Florida wouldn’t have to worry about this, as the newly politicized nature of health care would cause them to be exempted. These cuts would affect only less-fortunate seniors, namely those living in just about any other part of the country.

The take-away from this is that the hoodwinking has yet to really begin.

Your country is not under threat of being invaded any time soon but the way some of you conservatives talk it's like you're afraid the Chinese army will be marching through Times Square tomorrow 9am sharp.

Not the U.S but Taiwan is always looking over her shoulder. Just yesterday here on JT was an article

China has transferred two destroyers and nine other ex-navy vessels to its maritime surveillance fleet, reports said Monday, as it moves to beef up its position in bitter territorial rows with Japan and other neighbors.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/china-adds-destroyers-to-marine-surveillance-fleet

North Korea just fired a long range ballistic missile last month and reports are saying may be gearing up for another Nuke test in the next two months.

This is just in our neck of the woods.

Japan spends only 1 percent of her GDP on National defense as she doesn't have to take away money from other social programs. Your advocating a 20 percent slash of the U.S defense budget. That will impact Japan severely. Se will have to raise defense spending as the U.S cuts back. She will become poorer.

You do not seem to grasp that even though the U.S spends the largest amount that spending has tangible benefits that are actually returned by keeping the free worlds trade safe and secure and has continued to raise overall living standards through our security alliances for years now. It has also allowed the U.S to trade and grow her domestic economy with our largest trading partners in Asia and Europe.

You think 11 Battle groups is excessive, 90 percent of world's entire trade is through the sea lanes, whose going to cover this global free trade highway......France?

Obama says fiscal cliff deal makes tax system fairer

No, it most certainly did not. People are still subject to corporate double taxation and capital gains remain undecided. Want a fairer system? Get rid of the corporate tax rate, get rid of capital gains, implement a fair or flat tax, then tax all income at an earned income rate. That's what fair looks like and it would probably generate a lot more in revenues while providing economic stability in the long term but thats not what we're going to get.

at the same time, adversaries might well use the chance to cut back on their own expenditures as well.

It has never happened that way and likely won't, see Prisoners Dilemma. If anything US defense cuts are likely to spur spending in other nations with a horse in the game. Iran could seek greater control over local maritime routs, China can enforce its authority over the sea they claim, and other powers can ramp up their more vexing activities with less impunity.

Keeping other nations safe and trade routes clear is in the US's economic best interest. If oil routs in the Middle East became even more hazardous or if freighters started being detained in the Pacific it would have massive implications on economic activity.

Russia's defense expenditures plummeted after the fall of the Soviet Union, and so did the share of defense expenditures of its adversaries aimed at it.

There's a difference between a solvent nation reducing its military spending and a full blown collapse.

China faces an aging population dwarfing that of the US and at any rate will remain unable for the foreseeable future to project its power far outside its borders beyond anything but ICBMs.

While true in the long term they are perfectly capable of doing incredible harm to regional trade in the short term. Governments do one of two things when they hit economic stumbling blocks, they buckle down and reform or they use nationalism to whip their population into a frenzy to distract from the problem. I'm 50/50 on what China will do.

Much of NASA's work has become defense-related over the decades, yet their budget falls under the Department of Commerce

Correction: NASA is an agency that does not fall under any Cabinet-level department. The director reports to the White House. Nevertheless, much of their work has become defense-related, and the funding for that work does not fall under the Defense Department.

Have never been funded through DoD budgets, That is the whole reason for an entirely seperate funded agency for Veterans.

Really? And here I was under the impression that the Military Health System -- which has included CHAMPUS and TRICARE, overlapping functions with VA services -- was part of the DoD. (It's for Coast Guard personnel too.)

The Coast Guard has never been a part of the DoD and were also not counted in the 60's DoD budgets.

During peacetime the USCG falls under the administration of the United States Department of Homeland Security. During wartime, the USCG may, at the direction of the President, report to the Secretary of the Navy; its resources, however, are integrated into U.S. military operations (see 14 U.S.C. §§ 3–4). Coast Guard personnel fought in Vietnam.

The Federal agency (known as the AEC), which was created in 1946 to manage the development, use, and control of atomic (nuclear) energy for military and civilian applications. The AEC was subsequently abolished by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and succeeded by the Energy Research and Development Administration (now part of the U.S. Department of Energy) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. For related information,

Ah, so when the House's Armed Services Committee starts marking up vastly increased budgets for tactical nuclear weapons since 2000, you think that additional spending should not be counted under the total defense budget. Right.

My point is that there's an awful lot of vastly increased spending that is directly related to defense that doesn't get counted as such by some, and makes it possible for them to make inane and false statements of "comparison" to former budgets.

And here I was under the impression that the Military Health System -- which has included CHAMPUS and TRICARE, overlapping functions with VA services -- was part of the DoD

What was formerly called CHAMPUS and is now TRICARE are only applicable to Active duty military and military retirees and has always been a part of the DoD budget. They do not overlap with the V.A.

The V.A states up front.....CHAMPVA is a health benefits program in which the Department of Veterans Affairs.

To be eligible for CHAMPVA, the beneficiary cannot be eligible for TRICARE.

http://www.va.gov/hac/forbeneficiaries/champva/faqs.asp

During peacetime the USCG falls under the administration of the United States Department of Homeland Security.

Doesn't change the fact that the USCG is still funded as part of The Department of Transportation and has to make its case through that agency to Congress and not through the DoD.

Ah, so when the House's Armed Services Committee starts marking up vastly increased budgets for tactical nuclear weapons since 2000,

Doesn't change the fact that whatever increases are being marked up is not going to the DoD as part of the DoD but to the Department of Energy coffers.

you think that additional spending should not be counted under the total defense budget. Right.

I think nothing of the sort. The budgets of various agencies was set up through years of tangled bureaucratic growth turf wars and Congressional comittees. Each Agency husbanding as much as they can to themselves as they go in front of Congress and plead their case for more money. You wish to massage the numbers to show that even the official DoD budget is not a true reflection of the entire cost of the Military.

You would be correct, lots of overlap but that does not change the money allocated that is directly funded to DoD to manage and provide accountability for as the exclusive domain of the DoD. The DoD does not have authority over the V.A or the Coast Guard or the Department of Energy. You cannot hold the DoD responsible for budgets it doesn't manage, can't prioritize, may not even desire to fullfill mission requirements or even think is needed to claim the DoD budget is out of control and has been jacking up overall total defense costs.

We can only judge how the DoD manages its assigned budget and the boundaries of that budget only through the years. We can only judge how the Secretary at the DOT manages its Coast Guard allocation budget and if it is wasteful or not (pretty sure we can get some savings there also in thorough audit). Bottom line is we can't judge that within the scope of the DoD budget because it is not in the scope of the DoD budget to begin with. I will grant one can reasonably say it should be part of the numbers when looking at national defense totals, but one can also make the case that anything dealing with National security should also be included.Now we are talking TSA, CIA, FBI, NSA the entire intelligence side of the Government along with the US Border patrol and a whole lot of other agencies I've haven't thought of yet. Easy to go left wing political hack on the DoD if one chooses to.

My personal opinion, judging on how Robert Gates as SECDEF and given the budget that he and only he could actually make a difference with, proved himself to be pretty competent with the public purse. He saw the writing on the wall well before the current over spending debt crises and managed to put through some pretty austere trimming to the DoD budget during his tenure and much to his credit. Other agencies have not and are still feeding like pigs on the taxpayer trough.

This is why democracy is a failed system.

It's why Socialism (in this case via people voting themselves other peoples money) is a failed system.

The fiscal cliff deal makes the system less fair because it increases the national debt over the next 10 years by nearly $4 trillion. Tax rate increases on the wealthy does not pay for that let alone the $16.4 trillion in debt already accrued (the largest percentage of which under Obama). This reduces the amount of money that can be used to pay for things that the government needs to do. Interest payments alone will consume ever greater more billions of dollars and is simply money being thrown away.

Democracy isn't the problem, Socialism is the problem. Unfortunately, Obama is a dyed in the wool Socialist.

The House should amend the Senate's bill - change tax cuts to under $1 million and cut all entitlements by 3x the amount of the tax increases - send bill back to Senate. Then sit back and watch the Democrats and the media go insane at the very idea of being fiscally responsible.

" So why is it exactly that Republicans put their party on the line to protect these people when there was no threat to begin with?"

First of all, please note that I'm not aligned with either Repuglicrats or Demoglicans.

But to answer your question, it's what their constituents have called for them to do.

On the topic of vetos, GWB applied zero in his first term, and the following is BHO's record:

Obama has vetoed only two bills since becoming President; a stopgap appropriations bill on December 30, 2009, and a housing foreclosure bill on October 7, 2010.

It'll be interesting to watch the Wall St reaction through the coming days. Considering the debt ceiling looms in the near future and the lack of spending cuts, plus Obamneycare costs coming into play, the bull has been slaughtered.

Laguna,

" your statement implies that markets are nervous over American debt. They are not, as continued record-low interest rates on long-term debt attest"

And how exactly, or by whom, pray tell are said interest rates set?

If you set your own credit card interest rate near zero, wouldn't you be prosecuted for fraud?

As far as the Obamneycare costs are estimated, the numbers vary with which camp the economists are in bed with.

CBO estimates that the Obama plan will increase federal costs by almost $1 trillion. This is why taxes will be increased under the plan, not reduced. But Harvard economics professor Martin Feldstein writes, "the actual costs will be much higher" because "the CBO's method of estimating the cost of such a program doesn't recognize the incentives it creates for households and firms to change their behavior." Independent private estimates project increased federal costs of $3.5 trillion to $4.1 trillion under the Obama plan.

President Obama said that his health overhaul plan includes no Medicare cuts, telling seniors: "[D]on't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut." He continued, "The only thing this plan would eliminate is the ... unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies--subsidies that do everything to pad their profits but don't improve the care of seniors."

What Obama is talking about here is $177 billion in cuts for Medicare Advantage--the private insurance options that almost one-fourth of seniors have chosen for their coverage under Medicare. Republicans enacted this choice for seniors, and close to 10 million retirees have chosen one of these private insurance options because they get better benefits from it than from standard Medicare.

At a minimum, Obama's cuts will force these plans to cut back on their benefits for seniors. Or the Medicare Advantage plans may just go out of business altogether, dumping all the seniors who have made that choice because they think they are getting a better deal from those plans. Does Obama's quote above regarding this component of his health plan honestly explain to you what is involved? Or does it seem calculated to deceive you?

Obama's health overhaul plan also includes cuts in "hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud" in Medicare. What Obama is talking about here is over $300 billion in additional Medicare cuts, for a total of $500 billion, for payments to doctors and hospitals. In response, doctors and hospitals will cut back on the services and care they provide to seniors. This is the beginning of the health care rationing in Obama's plan. Calling these just cuts in "waste and fraud" is again a calculated deception.

Obama promises seniors in his speech "not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan." But what Obama doesn't tell us is that only Medicare payroll taxes are devoted to the Medicare trust fund. In addition, Medicare is heavily financed by general revenues, and Medicare cuts could provide general revenue savings that do not involve taking money out of the Medicare trust fund. Such general revenue savings wouldn't be put into the trust fund in the first place. Again, does Obama's discussion of this sound like calculated deception?

President Obama expects credit for these Medicare cuts when promising "I will not sign a plan that adds ... one dime to the deficit, now or in the future" and "The plan will not add to our deficit." But even with these Medicare cuts, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has officially scored the plan as adding hundreds of billions to the deficit.

I already am aware that my premiums will go up by $63 per month. That's 63 dollars I could have used elsewhere as I don't have much of a budget left after all is said and done. I refuse government assistance because there is no reason I should have to have to need it if things were run properly.

F.D.C. can go rot with all of thier little games. it's rearranging haystacks on the Titanic at this point

the US auctions off all of its debt - it is the free market which determines what interest rate will be paid. Perhaps you lack sufficient faith in the free market.

Actually over 1/3 of it is held by departments of the federal government with the FED holding another 1.6 trillion. In recent years the FED has actually been the major buyer of most federal debt so the idea that the free market has any major impact on the interest rate of US bonds is not wholly correct. While a reduction in credit rating has jacked up the cost of borrowing slightly it didn't increase anywhere near as much as in other countries where this happens. This is partly because the FED buys the bonds anyway and the fact remains that there is no rational reason to believe that the US government would ever long term default despite its woeful fiscal policies of late.

"How about missiles? Can I get missiles?"

Turkey names sites for NATO Patriot missiles near Syria

"We made our application to NATO and they gave us six batteries and they will be deployed in Gaziantep, Kahramanmaras and Adana," Erdogan told broadcaster NTV in a live interview.

NATO approved Turkey's request for the air defense system earlier this month, in a move meant to calm Ankara's fears of being hit by Syrian missiles, possibly with chemical weapons.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/21/us-syria-crisis-patriots-idUSBRE8BK14O20121221

The announcement of today's deployment is exactly why the United States has continued to invest in the modernization of this tried-and-true system. When our allies' security is on the line, we can quickly turn to battle-tested systems.

http://defense.aol.com/2013/01/03/turkey-syria-and-missile-defense-in-praise-of-the-patriot/

....y'all get the idea.

Here we go again, the Democrat terrorist groups are out in full force once again, this time with a vengeance.

That little nugget will hurt every low and middle income wage-earner. This is a failure for the Democrats, but they fail to notice. The tax increases they just inked will not only fail to increase revenue, but will have the negative consequences as have been forewarned. The wealthy will hire more tax lawyers to minimize their exposure,

This will go nowhere fast. But typical Dems think that they have the last word, but I would be a fool let Obama get his greedy mitts on my hard earned cash. And I was prepared for this day and the highly affluent are thinking the same and they will either relocate or for many businesses pass this increase onto the tax payer and like Herve said, Lawyers will be out in full force, no doubt about it and this is just the beginning and the spending goes on, heaven help us all.

@smith

The Dems don't want to buck an inch on spending cuts, nada and they want to to tax the bejeesus out of businesses and you call that fair??? Buddy, be prepared to see a lot of layoffs coming to a town near you. Obama can now firmly pat himself on the back for being the first first President that single-handedly destroyed the private sector. This is total madness on the Dems part. Trimming the defense is not a bad idea, but completely gutting it, is a total catastrophe! Thanks again to the hijack party we call democrats. Seems like 2013 has just gotten off to crappy socialist start.

Ah - the link above is to Pentagon spending in constant dollars. We're spending more now than we were at the peak of the Vietnam War. Feel safer?

Your being misleading with the data. We are spending less of our GDP on defense then we were during the Vietnam era. The amount in constant dollars is more only because our economy has grown about two thirds larger than it was during the Vietnam era.

Peak spending for defense in your chart was 7.4 percent GDP during the Vietnam era if it was the same in today's economy the defense budget would be huge in constant dollars (from your source, you did not include the link)

.Because our economy is much larger than it was in 1962, we were able to spend comparatively more on defense than we did in 1965, $245 billion more, in constant dollars, even though the figure represents a smaller percentage of total GDP.

In current dollars, we spent $693.6 billion on defense in FY 2010. If we did return to a 7.4 percent level of GDP, defense outlays would have been $1.07 trillion in current dollars.

http://www.ntu.org/governmentbytes/defense/has-defense-spending-declined.html

You source also pointed out this very disturbing fact before we start hacking away at defense:

NTU Foundation tallied up the cost of new proposals in the President’s speech and found that for every dollar in domestic spending that would be cut, defense spending would be cut by $128. And only lip-service was paid to confronting the fastest growing part of the budget: entitlements.

Hey, I'm just John Q. Dumbtaxpayer, and I feel like Mr. Haney (from the old Green Acres program) is selling me on a "new, deee-lux, defense system."

"Yessiree, for just 25 cents on the dollar you can have your own, fully-operational national defense system."

"How about missiles? Can I get missiles?"

"Why shore you can! You get thousands of 'em!"

"Oh boy, can't wait to imagine all those nuclear-capable missiles."

"Well, hold on there just a minute. You sure do get the missiles. But the nuclear warheads are going to cost you five cents more."

"Hmmm, OK, I guess I can go for that. Wow, how far can the missiles go?"

"When fully fueled they can go to Timbuktu and back... Fuel, by the way, will cost you two cents extry. And, for an extra penny, you'll get the holes dug that you need to hide them in."

"Holes??"

"Shore. You ain't a gonna just leave 'em out in the open are ye? Plus, you are gonna need genuine, deluxe satellites and radar installations to track them, right?"

"I'm afraid my 'defense budget' is getting stretched pretty thin right now."

"Don't worry; we'll take the satellites out of your entertainment budget."

"Entertainment?!"

"Shooore! (opening up the back of his truck) "It sounds like you're ready for your own genuine, DEEluxe satellite television system. Just need the satellites to make it all work."

....y'all get the idea.

This is why democracy is a failed system.