Obama got Pwned. Again.

[leftysergeant]

You could make up the shortfall in SS and medicare with dozens of income generating schemes. We could also end up just like Greece with every increasing entitlements and ever shrinking ability to pay for them.

What I suggest is a lot more likely to succede than is the fascist plan that ther right wing has been pushing ever since Friedman invented it.

 

[Neally]

What I suggest is a lot more likely to succede than is the fascist plan that ther right wing has been pushing ever since Friedman invented it.

The left wing has controlled Greece for many years. How well did those economics turn out?

 

[Ziggurat]

And how much in tax increases?

Zero. It's got zero tax increases, and zero spending cuts.

But you thought it had spending cuts, and focused all your anger on republicans. But why should they give democrats tax increases if the democrats don't give them spending cuts?

I never said they were villains. You really have the wrong idea about me.

Perhaps because your rhetoric about wealth is starting to resemble leftysergeant's.

We had deregulation. We got the money flowing. The bankers figured out how to maximize returns with little risk because if their gambling didn't pay off Uncle Sam would bail them out. And it did.

Exactly. The guarantee was implicit in the structure of Fannie and Freddie. The government got too involved. And keeps on getting more involved. This was regulatory capture, plain and simple. The solution to regulatory capture is not more regulations.

And even in regards to the ways that government wasn't active enough, it was people like Barney Frank who blocked Bush's efforts to control Fannie and Freddie.

It's very simple. If there is a market (demand) business will meet it. Govt doesn't crowd out anything.

Whenever any entity enters a market, it affects the rest of the market. To assert that government doesn't crowd out anything is to assert that it magically has no affect on the rest of the market.

Nonsense. That propaganda was debunked decades ago in Europe. People want IPhones, computers, cars, TV's and to go on vacations. The safety net doesn't supply that. You want that you got to work.

Um... yeah. You missed my point, because you assumed I'm making a claim that I'm not making. Granted, I wasn't terribly explicit, but I'm not claiming that people are choosing not to work because of welfare. But what is happening is that plenty of people can't work because their labor isn't valuable enough and the economy isn't doing well enough. So they are dependent on government, and they become constituents for the expansion of government entitlement. And that expansion of government entitlement further dampens the economy, helping to keep them out of work. At no point do they need to choose to not work in order for this dynamic to play out. Nor is it the only such dynamic. The epidemic of single-parent poor households is also due in large part to government policies which are intended to be compassionate but still lead to more misery.

Let's be careful about what it is we are talking about. Medicaid and Social Security are funded plans. If we don't have the money to pay them it's because we spent it. Hardly the fault of the beneficiary. Don't balance the cost of malfeasance on the backs of the poor.

The funding model was never sustainable. Social security beneficiaries have been receiving more in benefits than they paid into the system. That was always bound to change. We're already at the switchover from taking in more social security taxes than we spend to spending more than we get. And yes, we don't have the money because we spent it. But that's rather the whole point. WE SPENT IT. As I've been saying from the start, the primary problem is spending. And as for not balancing the costs on the backs of innocents, well, what we're currently on course to do is balance the costs of the baby boomer's self-entitlement on the backs of the YOUNG. More of whom will be impoverished because of such recklessness. And if nothing is done to try to control that spending, then we'll keep spending more than we have until it's not possible anymore, and then the system will be FORCED to cut costs even deeper. You think the poor are currently at risk of getting shafted? Just wait until we face a Greece-style crisis. Then the poor will be well and truly ******.

 

[RandFan]

...zero spending cuts.

I'm not going to continue if you continue with this obfuscation. I'm not intersted in games. Let's assume your premise for just a moment. Did the dems cut the rate of growth? Yes or no? If so woud that reduce the projected deficit over the next ten years? Yes or no?

Now, one moret time, how much in increased taxes did the Republicans agree to in order to reduce the deficit?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not going to continue if you continue with this obfuscation. I'm not intersted in games.

You're only interested in your own anger, and having it validated.

Let's assume your premise for just a moment.

Let's not assume it. Let's examine it. Is my premise correct or not? If so, then we don't have to assume anything. And if not, then there's no point in assuming what's true.

Did the dems cut the rate of growth?

Compared to the CBO baseline, yes. Considering that the CBO baseline included unsustainable growth in government spending, that's neither impressive nor sufficient.

If so woud that reduce the projected deficit over the next ten years? Yes or no?

As far as I can tell, this "reduction" is simply more of the same kind of game: a reduction in the deficit compared to the CBO baseline figures, but not an actual deficit reduction. In fact, most of that "reduction" in spending (which isn't actually a reduction) hasn't happened at all, but is merely supposed to happen at some point in the future, if Congress actually gets around to it.

Now, one moret time, how much in increased taxes did the Republicans agree to in order to reduce the deficit?

I stand corrected. You are interested in playing games, since I already provided a direct answer to this question.

 

[RandFan]

Let's not assume it.

It's the granting of one premise to analyze another. I didn't say I wouldn't adress it later. So, slow down sparky. If you will back off the snark I will also. I can see that we need to slow way down. We will get there.

Compared to the CBO baseline, yes. Considering that the CBO baseline included unsustainable growth in government spending, that's neither impressive nor sufficient.

Please to site the source?

I've read the July report and while long term would appear to be unsustainable if tax revenue stays flat there is nothing I can see to suggest that tax revenue couldn't signifiantly off set that. It should be noted that our total debt is 60% of GDP. GDP is 20T. How could increased tax revenue not significantly cover debt and increased spending?

...that's neither impressive nor sufficient.

It's SOMETHING! BTW, I'm not against further cuts. But come on, Republicans have to show some good faith. How do you negotiate by refusing to give anything and instead threaten to blow up the economy? How is that responsible (the reason for my anger)?

It does state th

 

[mhaze]

....No, it doesn't. It's got growth which is less than the CBO "baseline". That isn't a cut......

This may not be clear, so I am going to elaborate a bit.

All the discussion is from the CBO "baseline", which increases about 8% per year for the next decade. That's about $300B for 2012 alone. The "deal" does not cut into this 300B INCREASE hardly at all.

Yet, if we were to just hold the line at 2011 spending levels for the next 10 years, the CBO would judge that as about a 9.5T cut - more than twice what the S&P said we needed in order to avoid the downgrade.

The "spenders" don't even want to hold spending at 2009, 2010 and 2011 levels - they want more, and More, and MORE.

That is the problem. Idle talk about taxing more will not help this. Reinstating the bush tax levels will not help this.

It's a spending problem.

 

[RandFan]

This may not be clear, so I am going to elaborate a bit.

All the discussion is from the CBO "baseline", which increases about 8% per year for the next decade. That's about $300B for 2012 alone. The "deal" does not cut into this 300B INCREASE hardly at all.

Could you do more than make claims?

That is the problem. Idle talk about taxing more will not help this. Reinstating the bush tax levels will not help this.

Why is it that people just spout rhetoric? Could you post the revenue increase if we reinstated taxes to the Clinton rates? What tax rate would suffice (I'm not asking for idle speculation but real numbers)?

David Stockman, Reagans bufget director, asserts we CAN'T cut spending only to solve this problem. He in effect is saying that it is you who is engaging in iddle talk about spending cuts.

David Stockman: We Need To Raise Taxes. Like Reagan Did.

A conservative and someone who rails against govt spending he is hardly one for idle talk. He has given hard numbers and not rank speculation. He was the architect of the Regan economic boom. Why should I trust your "talk" and not his numbers?

It's a spending problem.

Please demonstrate that with something other than assertion.

 

[MattusMaximus]

No, actually, it won't do it. We would need to cut a lot more than that.

Including Obamacare.

Fair enough. But to keep things balanced, how much in defense spending would you be willing to cut? Or how many billions in subsidies to oil companies would you be willing to cut? Just curious.

The fact that defense spending took a big hit in this debt ceiling deal is one thing which makes me think it is at least marginally acceptable. I also found it ironic that so many deficit hawks in Congress balked when it came time to trim some defense spending. I think that's called hypocrisy.

That said, we still need to restructure the tax code, as was done under Reagan. We can generate at least a trillion dollars in revenue simply by closing loopholes which allow people like Warren Buffet to pay fewer taxes than his secretary.

So what's wrong with restructuring the tax code and closing these loopholes?

 

[leftysergeant]

Fair enough. But to keep things balanced, how much in defense spending would you be willing to cut? Or how many billions in subsidies to oil companies would you be willing to cut? Just curious.
So what's wrong with restructuring the tax code and closing these loopholes?

That's not what Grover and the Koch bothers are paying them to do.

 

[leftysergeant]

Social security beneficiaries have been receiving more in benefits than they paid into the system. That was always bound to change. We're already at the switchover from taking in more social security taxes than we spend to spending more than we get. And yes, we don't have the money because we spent it. But that's rather the whole point. WE SPENT IT. As I've been saying from the start, the primary problem is spending. And as for not balancing the costs on the backs of innocents, well, what we're currently on course to do is balance the costs of the baby boomer's self-entitlement on the backs of the YOUNG. More of whom will be impoverished because of such recklessness. And if nothing is done to try to control that spending, then we'll keep spending more than we have until it's not possible anymore, and then the system will be FORCED to cut costs even deeper. You think the poor are currently at risk of getting shafted? Just wait until we face a Greece-style crisis. Then the poor will be well and truly ******.

We would have no problem if they just removed the salary cap and created some living wage jobs, instead of shifting all the income higher up the food chain.

 

[Ziggurat]

Fair enough. But to keep things balanced, how much in defense spending would you be willing to cut?

I haven't looked in detail at what defense spending can be cut. I assume something can be, but I'm not familiar enough with the details of defense spending to quote a figure.

Or how many billions in subsidies to oil companies would you be willing to cut?

That issue has been magnified way out of proportion. Most of the "subsidies" are tax deductions. And most of those tax deductions which are referred to are basically high percentage deductions for certain "capital" investments. I put that in quotes because in reality, those investments are largely unrecoverable, making them more like ordinary expenses (which all business can deduct at 100%) than capital investments from other industries. So it's not much of a subsidy to begin with, really. As to how much to cut, well, how much domestic oil production do you want? If you don't want any, go ahead and eliminate that completely. If you want to increase domestic oil production, you might even consider expanding those deductions. So you tell me what you want to do.

That said, we still need to restructure the tax code

I agree.

We can generate at least a trillion dollars in revenue simply by closing loopholes which allow people like Warren Buffet to pay fewer taxes than his secretary.

First off, Buffet doesn't pay fewer taxes than his secretary. What he does, and all he claimed, is that he pays a lower marginal rate than his secretary. And it's not a loophole, it's the difference between ordinary income rates and qualifying dividend tax rates. For good or ill, that's the explicitly intended purpose.

So what's wrong with restructuring the tax code and closing these loopholes?

It deprives congress of power and the opportunity to exploit special interests. Other than that, nothing really.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I haven't looked in detail at what defense spending can be cut. I assume something can be, but I'm not familiar enough with the details of defense spending to quote a figure.

Looks like the Pentagon is getting hit for $350 billion over the next ten years, with an addition $500 billion hit if Congress doesn't get its **** together in the next few months. Linky.

I agree. ...

... It deprives congress of power and the opportunity to exploit special interests. Other than that, nothing really.

Nice to see that we agree on some things, Zig

Now if only Congress would get its collective act together and get serious about restructuring the tax code. They need to do it all in one huge whack, too, for the explicit purpose of avoiding the whole thing being picked apart by the special interest groups. Otherwise, there's no way it will work. I hope they have the balls to do it.

 

[RandFan]

Now if only Congress would get its collective act together and get serious about restructuring the tax code. They need to do it all in one huge whack, too, for the explicit purpose of avoiding the whole thing being picked apart by the special interest groups. Otherwise, there's no way it will work. I hope they have the balls to do it.

Agreed.

Hopefully they will follow the advice of David Stockman, Reagan's budget director and the architect of Regan's economic and jobs boom.

(source Wall Street Journal)

Cut spending AND raise taxes.

 

[leftysergeant]

Now if only Congress would get its collective act together and get serious about restructuring the tax code. They need to do it all in one huge whack, too, for the explicit purpose of avoiding the whole thing being picked apart by the special interest groups. Otherwise, there's no way it will work. I hope they have the balls to do it.

Aint happening any time soon. We need to take back the House first, including turning out the blue dogs and replacing them with some grown-up progressives.

The Republicons totally lack the nads to do it. Grover has theirs in a safe deposit box at an unknown location.

 

[RandFan]

Economic growth was solid from 2002-early 2008 with most quarters averaging 2% annualized growth or better.

Not quite. Sources GDP DJIA

How does a total average .75% = Solid economic growth?

 

[Ziggurat]

Not quite. Sources GDP DJIA

How does a total average .75% = Solid economic growth?

Well for starters, you used a different time interval than he did. Which means that isn't the right number for the time interval he specified.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Aint happening any time soon. We need to take back the House first, including turning out the blue dogs and replacing them with some grown-up progressives.

The Republicons totally lack the nads to do it. Grover has theirs in a safe deposit box at an unknown location.

Didn't Grover Norquist recently state that he thinks the Bush tax cuts need to be allowed to expire? It seems that even he is waking up to the reality of our currently precarious fiscal situation.

 

[RandFan]

Well for starters, you used a different time interval than he did. Which means that isn't the right number for the time interval he specified.

Well DUH! Cherry picking is a great way to skew the data in your favor. I included the data for ALL the years the taxes were lowered. Picking on the good data is rather dishonest. But I should have made that clear.

 

[BeAChooser]

No, it doesn't. It's got growth which is less than the CBO "baseline". That isn't a cut.

Now Ziggurat, don't you know that reducing the growth of something has always been called a cut by democrats?