Fiscal cliff....

[glorfindel]

Here's a chart about spending that I'll put up here just to have handy. It's from

http://nationalpriorities.org/en/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

and hopefully isn't too partisan or biased one way or the other. Now on to other things....

---

My overall impressions of the graph of spending vs revenue that Gen. Veers posted is that

a) spending and revenue both trend up, up, up. This makes sense if the economy is expanding

b) spending, for most of the time covered in the graph, is greater than revenue. That's a problem, and I think Veers and I can agree on that.

c) economic recessions really cause revenues to tank. Veers points this out, too.

In general I don't think we disagree much about the facts. That's helpful, because debating the facts isn't nearly as fun as debating what we should do about these facts.

I will say, though, that it looks to me that the graph shows the slope of the spending line since approx. 2010 is less than the slope of the revenue line. If I got out a ruler and extrapolated these lines, I suspect they'd cross in about ten years assuming no changes to their slopes. Maybe this is an artifact of the graph.

---

But put that aside. Let's assume that if current trends continue, spending will outstrip revenue. What to do?

As I posted earlier on this thread, I think we should be deficit spending until the unemployment problem is substantially improved:

"We should be deficit spending until the unemployment rate decreases substantially. The focus on the deficit in the short-term is misguided."

This means that I'm not in favor of raising taxes on anyone in the short-term, and especially not on the people who are most likely to actually spend the money they'd save -- namely, the middle-class and the poor. This whole obsession with fixing the deficit problem NOW, when unemployment is so high, strikes me as absurd. Right now, we should be deficit spending on things that will spur the economy and generate more revenue as a result not of increased tax rates, but as a result of economic recovery from the recession.

As for the long-term, I agree with Gen. Veers that the rich alone cannot be expected to pay for all of government spending. But I never suggested that they should, and I haven't heard anyone else suggest this either. Our debate is about marginal tax rates of the rich relative to the poor, isn't it?

And no one has suggested that we "confiscate all the wealth of people making over $250K." Let's not get sloppy about what we're arguing about here. No one has suggested that. Raising the marginal tax rates of the higher income brackets and increasing the capital gains tax rate is not "confiscating all the wealth" of anyone.

I'm sure we disagree fundamentally about a lot of things, but let's not cloud the water with unnecessary hyperbole about confiscating all of anyone's wealth. We are both opposed to that, full stop.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[glorfindel]

Don't you realize that the government just wastes our money?

They take it from us, and what do they do?

Spend it right back.......on us!


Let me keep my money.

Much of what is spent is not spent "on us." That's the problem.

I didn't work this hard, go to school this long, take care of this many sick people, insured or not to be told I'm the source of the problem, that I haven't paid my fair share.

I suspect that you probably have paid your fair share, and more. I wonder, though, whether folks like Lloyd Blankfein have paid their fair share. I suspect not.

Any extra money given to the government will be wasted. Any extra money given to the government will not be used wisely to balance the budget or encourage self sufficiency amongst our citizens. It will be wasted, or more specifically just dolled out to buy votes back to win the next election cycle.

Don't be fooled.

I'm not prepared to say you're wrong, but I wonder whether so much of this throwing up in the air of hands and saying "any money going to the government is waste" is an easy way out. You don't think the government does anything good at all? If you do think it does some good, you've got to be prepared to say what that is, and how to pay for it. I haven't read all your posts; you may have already done this. But I'm wary of the ol' "the government wastes my money" plaintive cry, because so often it's merely a plaintive cry devoid of specifics. And solutions.

 

[Birdstrike]

Much of what is spent is not spent "on us." That's the problem.



I suspect that you probably have paid your fair share, and more. I wonder, though, whether folks like Lloyd Blankfein have paid their fair share. I suspect not.




I'm not prepared to say you're wrong, but I wonder whether so much of this throwing up in the air of hands and saying "any money going to the government is waste" is an easy way out. You don't think the government does anything good at all? If you do think it does some good, you've got to be prepared to say what that is, and how to pay for it. I haven't read all your posts; you may have already done this. But I'm wary of the ol' "the government wastes my money" plaintive cry, because so often it's merely a plaintive cry devoid of specifics. And solutions.

I cast my vote in November. It's time for them to put their big-boy pants on and figure it out. That's what we pay them to do. I am not going to say the government doesn't do any good. But I am comfortable saying that $3.79 trillion dollars is plenty enough money for them to "do good" without asking us for more.

$3.79 trillion is plenty enough for them to get it done.

Each voting age adult needs to decide how much of your paycheck you are comfortable giving these guys, because never, ever in your or my lifetime will it ever be enough for them. They aren't stupid; if you'll give it, they'll take it.

In 2016, 2020, 2024 and on, they'll be recycling the same "issues" that they have since Roman times and before. The issues have always been the same: poverty, crime, illness (healthcare), defending ourselves, "pursuit of happiness," freedom.....it never has stopped and never will. Just about every issue we have today can be lumped into one of the above. Don't get caught up in the hype.

The solution is always the same:

"Give us more money."

You decide how much is enough.

No matter what you decide, I'm confident that in every remaining election cycle in your and my lifetime, the problems will remain the same and they'll still be asking for more money.

 

[GeneralVeers]

So we're agreed that raising taxes to Clinton era, won't get us anywhere close?

Since I've proved that revenue increases will be vastly insufficient to meet the expenditures going forward, what is the answer? BTW most estimates are that we will have $1 trillion or more surpluses every year in perpetuity if things stay the same.

I will grant you the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and let's presume that you actually get the revenue you want:

Federal deficit for 2012: $1.1 trillion
Expiration of the Bush tax cuts: $80 billion

That leaves a deficit of $1.02 trillion

Now let's cut Defense 50%. The 2012 budget was $707 billion.

That leaves a deficit of ~ $650 billion

I'm at a loss of how you get any further without massive tax increases on the middle class, or massive cuts to entitlements. This all assumes that the tax increases in January don't push the economy off the cliff, which would probably expand the deficit to $1.7 trillion again.

It's a spending problem. If we spent the same as we did in 2007, we would be perfectly fine with current revenues. Is society really so much different five years later that we NEED to spend so much more?

 

[EctopicFetus]

So we're agreed that raising taxes to Clinton era, won't get us anywhere close?

Since I've proved that revenue increases will be vastly insufficient to meet the expenditures going forward, what is the answer? BTW most estimates are that we will have $1 trillion or more surpluses every year in perpetuity if things stay the same.

I will grant you the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and let's presume that you actually get the revenue you want:

Federal deficit for 2012: $1.1 trillion
Expiration of the Bush tax cuts: $80 billion

That leaves a deficit of $1.02 trillion

Now let's cut Defense 50%. The 2012 budget was $707 billion.

That leaves a deficit of ~ $650 billion

I'm at a loss of how you get any further without massive tax increases on the middle class, or massive cuts to entitlements. This all assumes that the tax increases in January don't push the economy off the cliff, which would probably expand the deficit to $1.7 trillion again.

It's a spending problem. If we spent the same as we did in 2007, we would be perfectly fine with current revenues. Is society really so much different five years later that we NEED to spend so much more?

+1.. well said.. we need to fix medicare/medicaid. Stop handing money out to big pharma, oh and cut fed govt employees through attrition. Thats a huge cost. Total cost of avg govt employee is

Oh and fed employees are overpaid compared to private sector per the CBO. 36% or so more for people will HS degrees. Overall 16% more for all fed employees. That doesnt sound like civil service.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42921

 

[GeneralVeers]

Here comes the cliff.....

Market down for 5 days straight and this just the beginning. I converted my 401K to bonds from mutual funds at the early part of this month.

Unless something is done we're in for a huge stock market drop on Monday.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Perhaps. I did something more radical which may prove a mess. I bought a etf which shorts the market at a multiple. I might get burnt but thats ok. I feel there is no hope for a real deal.

Our debt ceiling is here as well and soon enough our bond rating will drop driving up the price of borrowing and then we will be in real trouble.

 

[Birdstrike]

You guys must be joking. We went through this in the '90's. They shut the government down for a few days (non-essential services) then they came to a deal, raised the debt ceiling and retroactively reversed everything. The same thing will happen again.

Read the Treasury department's own internal memo to its staff:

"...even if a deal is not reached by the deadline, 'day-to-day operations,' are not expected 'to change dramatically on or immediately after January 2, should sequestration occur. This means that we will not be executing any immediate personnel actions, such as furloughs, on that date'...."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...taff-not-worry-about-fiscal-cliff_692013.html

It's all hype. Nothing major is going to happen. Sure, the market will drop short term, because some people will panic, then when they "miraculously" sign a deal and "save the country from disaster!" it'll go back up. It's all show.

In the '90's when this happened, Clinton ended up looking like the hero and Gingrich and the Repubs ended up looking like obstructionist fools. This will happen again: Obama will be reported as the hero and Boehner and Congress will be reported to have "lost".

Why?

Obama is much more popular than Congress, as the President, regardless of party always is:


Obama job approval=53%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html


Congressional job approval=18%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html





Don't believe the hype.

 

[glorfindel]

It's all hype. Nothing major is going to happen. Sure, the market will drop short term, because some people will panic, then when they "miraculously" sign a deal and "save the country from disaster!" it'll go back up. It's all show.

Agree.

Will add that Pete Peterson is going to get his pound of safety-net flesh in the end. So long as they don't raise the eligibility age for Medicare I'm sanguine about most of it.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Raising the age of medicare isnt much of a saving but should be done to anyone under 50.. raise the eligibility to 67 or higher.

Need more money to come in and keeping the old folks working and not taking is one way to do it.

 

[glorfindel]

Raising the age of medicare isnt much of a saving but should be done to anyone under 50.. raise the eligibility to 67 or higher.

I was under the impression that the Medicare eligibility age is 65. How is the under-50 crowd relevant?

If we raise the eligibility age of Medicare, we saddle private insurance pools with relatively older, sicker, more expensive people, and burden the Medicare pool by removing the relatively younger, healthier, and less expensive people.

That doesn't save money, it just shift costs around.

 

[EctopicFetus]

I was under the impression that the Medicare eligibility age is 65. How is the under-50 crowd relevant?

If we raise the eligibility age of Medicare, we saddle private insurance pools with relatively older, sicker, more expensive people, and burden the Medicare pool by removing the relatively younger, healthier, and less expensive people.

That doesn't save money, it just shift costs around.

Let me be clear what I meant is raise it to age 67 for anyone who is 50 and under as of January 1, 2014.

In other words people who are planning for this in the next 3 years need not worry. Move the age gradually.

If we raise the age medicare will have zero costs for people age 65-67 making the whole thing cheaper on tax payers. It would shift costs to people in the private spectrum. It would also give thee old folks more access to docs since a fair percentage of docs dont take medicare/medicaid and that number is likely to go up.

So perhaps per capita it would be more expensive the CBO says it would save 148B over 10 yrs. Not a small chunk of change.

Shifting money around is what the government is all about.. unless they just keep printing more of it.

 

[pinipig523]

So I was reading the Senate package that passed today pending House votes....

What does it mean when itemized deductions are capped at 250K or 300K (couple)? Does that mean that if you make over that number, you cannot deduct (itemize) say your property tax or your house mortgage interest?

 

[GalenAgas]

Atleast Obama is now loosening up on his position to tax those above $250K to $400K. Also, no AMT.

Somewhat reasonable. Let's hope something like this gets approved.

I really don't want to jump off the cliff.

Thoughts?

Do EM physicians hit the 250K mark routinely?

 

[duckie99]

Just a simple question:

Is it really worth any of our energy talking about this? The politicians will do what they do regardless...

 

[EctopicFetus]

So I was reading the Senate package that passed today pending House votes....

What does it mean when itemized deductions are capped at 250K or 300K (couple)? Does that mean that if you make over that number, you cannot deduct (itemize) say your property tax or your house mortgage interest?

Here ya go

However, not all taxpayers earning less than $450,000 come away unscathed by the deal as the agreement returns to the Clinton era limits on personal exemptions and itemized deductions for couples earning more than $250,000 $300,000 and single filers earning in excess of $200,000 $250,000,

 

[Croooz]

Just a simple question:

Is it really worth any of our energy talking about this? The politicians will do what they do regardless...

Depends on how old you are and how much you've paid in taxes. There comes a point where Caesar's greed gets ridiculous and that goes for the little Caesars (County & State) and THE Caesar (Fed). Once you get passed the point where you just feel lucky to have been offered a job, the point where you feel comfortable doing what you went to school to do, then all this takes on a greater meaning. It's the reason older people have more political discussions and know more about what's going on. We old geezer's finally realize that what these idiots we elect do directly affects our paychecks and $150k before taxes really ain't much. Here in Maryland $150k amounts to $8,850/month. So just for the "privilege" of working in MD you will pay $43k+ in taxes. And they're talking about TAKING more. Haven't paid loans or 401k or anything else at this point and I'm already down $43k. We once started a revolution because of this. Now? We're told by politicians and the majority of people that we make X times more than the average person so why are we complaining...we have to do more than just complain.

 

[glorfindel]

Is it really worth any of our energy talking about this? The politicians will do what they do regardless...

We should talk about it so they know we're not chumps.

 

[Old_Mil]

Why massive spending cuts, not tax increases, are the key to solving this. Notice that this compares tax increases to annual deficits, not the debt. So the hole gets deeper. If you take all our obligations as a whole (including all pension promises, etc) we are on the hook for 80% of world GDP. Taxation will never even begin to get us there. There isn't enough money in America even at a 100% tax rate on everyone to fix it.

 

[glorfindel]

Why massive spending cuts, not tax increases, are the key to solving this.

Impressive graph.

What I don't understand is that a lot of people, resonably, start out by saying that spending cuts are necessary to solve our deficit/debt problems, but then they make the wholly unsupported and illogical leap to saying that they won't countenance any tax increases at all.

Why is that, I wonder? Maybe it's because we live in a country where we as taxpaying citizens get much less in return for our taxes paid than most other places. We work hard, go to med school (as an example), and we mostly have to foot the bill ourselves. We start our careers in medicine or most other careers already in a student-debt hole.

Many other modern nations do more to fund the educations of students who've worked hard to qualify for it. These students don't graduate with so much debt, and as a result, they're... more free!

Ok, so if we agree spending cuts are necessary, where would you cut? I'll start:

1) health care costs have to come down. That means we need more efficiency and less waste. My proposal is a) single-payer government-run health care financing b) malpractice tort reform.

2) SS reforms. I support means-testing of SS. If you're old and rich, you don't get SS payments. Sorry.

3) Massive military spending cuts. That just seems obvious to me. Our nation will still be secure if we cut annual military spending by 50%.

As folks say, hard choices need to be made. I'm curious about where y'all would cut spending.

 

[glorfindel]

To all those making between 200K and 500K, congratulations, you got the best deal of any income group.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-congrats-you-got-the-best-fiscal-cliff-deal/

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Ok, so if we agree spending cuts are necessary, where would you cut? I'll start:

1) health care costs have to come down. That means we need more efficiency and less waste. My proposal is a) single-payer government-run health care financing b) malpractice tort reform.

2) SS reforms. I support means-testing of SS. If you're old and rich, you don't get SS payments. Sorry.

3) Massive military spending cuts. That just seems obvious to me. Our nation will still be secure if we cut annual military spending by 50%.

As folks say, hard choices need to be made. I'm curious about where y'all would cut spending.

1) Single payer won't do that, unless you include some of the fairly impressive rationing (especially in the end of life) that you see in other places.

2) Make the cut-off very high and I MIGHT be OK with this. However, if I pay into this fund for 30+ years then get nothing... well, I'm going to be pretty ticked off.

3) 50% seems a bit much, but I'm sure the military could do with less.

 

[pinipig523]

Seems like we got a pretty good deal (tax wise) and the doc-fix was included for the year. The only thing is that it doesn't really address the impending deficit with spending cuts.

 

[pinipig523]

Interesting to see how the fiscal cliff panned out with the multiple deals....

 

[Birdstrike]

Like I said, the "fiscal cliff" was,


1-all hype,

2-would be resolved by continued uncontrolled spending and,

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...fiscal-cliff-maryland-20130101,0,556467.story

3-Obama will appear victorious

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/01/white-house-declares-a-victory-153090.html

4-and the Republicans will appears as the losers

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._deal_a_complete_surrender_on_everything.html


All 4 came to pass.

How could I so easily predict this?

Clinton rolled Gingrich and the Repubs in a nearly indentical way in the '90s.

 

[pinipig523]

Like I said, the "fiscal cliff" was,


1-all hype,

2-would be resolved by continued uncontrolled spending and,

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...fiscal-cliff-maryland-20130101,0,556467.story

3-Obama will appear victorious

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/01/white-house-declares-a-victory-153090.html

4-and the Republicans will appears as the losers

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._deal_a_complete_surrender_on_everything.html


All 4 came to pass.

How could I so easily predict this?

Clinton rolled Gingrich and the Repubs in a nearly indentical way in the '90s.

I really don't think the WH was victorious with regards to taxation.

 

[deleted109597]

I really don't think the WH was victorious with regards to taxation.

As someone paying those taxes, I don't consider them losing very much. Sure, they only got 1/3 or so of what they wanted.

A better way of looking at it is that for every $1 in tax cuts, there's only $41 in tax increases. That's not losing.

 

[Birdstrike]

As someone paying those taxes, I don't consider them losing very much. Sure, they only got 1/3 or so of what they wanted.

A better way of looking at it is that for every $1 in tax cuts, there's only $41 in tax increases. That's not losing.

No, in fact, it's an epic win for O.


Obama Took Republicans to the Cleaners - Ed Schultz, MSNBC

Obama Riding High, Wins Cliff Showdown - Howard Kurtz, The Daily Beast

One Positive of Deal: No Spending Cuts at All - Paul Krugman, NY Times

Republicans Adrift - Richard Cohen, Washington Post


All can be linked to from here:

http://realclearpolitics.com/

 

[xenakis]

So I was reading the Senate package that passed today pending House votes....

What does it mean when itemized deductions are capped at 250K or 300K (couple)? Does that mean that if you make over that number, you cannot deduct (itemize) say your property tax or your house mortgage interest?

I didnt read the package, but I would have guessed that it limits the amount of deductions that you could make if you made over $250k. Not that you couldnt deduct anything, but it would limit to a certain extent.

For instance, I own some rental properties and ran a side business years ago. Each year I can deduct (itemizing on schedule d or f - i cant remember) some of the income that I earn from my gross income to limit my taxible income. At the end of my deducations, my gross taxible income is less. If business expenses were very high, my taxable income would be low even if I made alot of money.

I think the package is just saying that you cant make as extreme deductions as you normally are entitled to. They wont let you deduct $3k on all of those scrubs that you ligitimally/foolishly bought for work

 

[Old_Mil]

1) health care costs have to come down. That means we need more efficiency and less waste. My proposal is a) single-payer government-run health care financing b) malpractice tort reform.

Efficiency will only go so far, but institute tort reform and suddenly you're going to slash and burn billions from medical costs in this country because every physician won't be practicing with the specter of a lawyer peering over his shoulder.

2) SS reforms. I support means-testing of SS. If you're old and rich, you don't get SS payments. Sorry.

Unfortunately, this is theft. This may have to happen, but only after many other cuts are made. For instance, medicaid. Medicaid needs to be eviscerated. If you work in the ED, you are quite familiar with the entitled mindset that has these folks running to the ED in disproportionate numbers with everyone else in society. As Ben Franklin said, the poor need to be made uncomfortable in their poverty.

3) Massive military spending cuts. That just seems obvious to me. Our nation will still be secure if we cut annual military spending by 50%.

No argument there. It's time to stop exporting democracy, stop playing world police, and stop paying to protect countries like South Korea whose manufacturerers we are competing with on the open market.

 

[GeneralVeers]

All the Republicans who voted for this fraud should be thrown out of office next time around. The fiscal cliff would have been preferable, because at least it made SOME CUTS in spending as well as tax increases on the middle class, the ones who actually use the programs.

Instead we got no serious commitment from either party to cut any spending of any kind, and more support for the "tax the rich" nonsense.

Ron Paul had it right (as usual) when he stated that no Republican should vote for the bill unless it balanced the budget.

 

[glorfindel]

All the Republicans who voted for this fraud should be thrown out of office next time around.

Don't worry -- the debt ceiling negotiations are right around the corner, and the liberal commentariat on the internet is convinced that Obama will sell them out at that time.

They're still a little shell-shocked that he didn't sell them out over the fiscal cliff.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Don't worry -- the debt ceiling negotiations are right around the corner, and the liberal commentariat on the internet is convinced that Obama will sell them out at that time.

They're still a little shell-shocked that he didn't sell them out over the fiscal cliff.

Huh? What do you mean by "sell them out"? He got everything he wanted: More government spending, higher taxes on the rich. Sounds like they completely lost.

Oh, and they're going to lose on the debt ceiling as well, because Republicans are spineless and won't stand up for principle.

I say let's hit the debt ceiling and shut down the government.

 

[glorfindel]

Interesting to see how the fiscal cliff panned out with the multiple deals....

Pinipig's graph says it all. Liberals were worried that Obama was going to sell them out, because his offers included large spending cuts in Medicare/Medicaid and discretionary spending.

The liberals are shell-shocked because Obama didn't sell them out -- the final deal was all on the tax side, nothing on spending. I suspect the blame for this, if you're a conservative, has to be on the House Republicans who turned down Boehner's Plan B. I wonder what you think.

If you read liberals like Paul Krugman, he's basically saying, "yeah, Obama didn't shaft us this time, but he's itching to cut spending, and he's going to sell us out in March during the debt ceiling negotiations."

Overall, I think the conservatives are still winning handily. The welfare state is on the ropes and Obama isn't really committed to saving it (much less strengthening it).

 

[Birdstrike]

. The welfare state is on the ropes

Huh?

The welfare state in the US is thriving like it never has before, with no end in site.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Huh?

The welfare state in the US is thriving like it never has before, with no end in site.

Agreed. We spend more on Welfare that at any other time in U.S. history, and it's going to go up! In fact it's predicted to go up every year for eternity.

The Welfare State includes any program where most people get out more than they put in:

- Medicaid
- Food stamps
- Medicare
- Social Security
- WIC programs
- Disability
- Unemployment

 

[glorfindel]

The Welfare State includes any program where most people get out more than they put in...

Yeah, that's the definition of a safety net. It's the hallmark of an advanced, civilized society that we can afford to do this for people.

I think we all get more out of our safety net programs than we think we do. Cut the safety net like you're proposing and we'll eventually end up like Brazil. Huge favelas full of tar-paper huts and crushing poverty, every middle-class neighborhood surrounded by walls, every upper-class family required to hire their own guards to protect themselves.

This might not be something you'd reject, but if you believe that we can cut the welfare state like you suggest and that the result will be the same country that we live in now, except that you pay less tax -- well, I don't think that's gonna happen.

Time will tell.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Yeah, that's the definition of a safety net. It's the hallmark of an advanced, civilized society that we can afford to do this for people.

No it's not. A safety net is there to make sure that people don't fall through the cracks and die, freeze to death, or starve. It's not a lifelong entitlement system where you live off the government and other people (hence a Welfare state). Social security was initially an anti-poverty program and was supposed to SUPPLEMENT the retirement income of seniors. Now it has become the retirement plan for many. No wonder it is failing.

I think we all get more out of our safety net programs than we think we do. Cut the safety net like you're proposing and we'll eventually end up like Brazil. Huge favelas full of tar-paper huts and crushing poverty, every middle-class neighborhood surrounded by walls, every upper-class family required to hire their own guards to protect themselves.

I'm not advocating getting rid of all of the "safety net". I do want to eliminate the ability of people to live off the government. Don't want to work at all? Then you should die in the streets.

This might not be something you'd reject, but if you believe that we can cut the welfare state like you suggest and that the result will be the same country that we live in now, except that you pay less tax -- well, I don't think that's gonna happen.

Time will tell.

I don't want the same country we live in now. The country we live in now is a mess, and going downhill very quickly. We're simply living off the credit card, but underneath is a decayed structure about to collapse. Once it does, then we'll see how much you like the Welfare state.

 

[glorfindel]

The country we live in now is a mess, and going downhill very quickly. We're simply living off the credit card, but underneath is a decayed structure about to collapse.

On THAT point, I agree with you completely.