Can we just shut the government down already?
-
gut
LMAO....We were really going gang-busters before all this. Actually cutting spending and reducing the deficit are longer-term PRO GROWTH policies. You can't grasp that. When you pull growth forward with stimulus and deficit spending you're actually siphoning the fuel from future growthBoatShoes;1519161 wrote: 3. Cutting government spending and raising taxes as was done in the fiscal cliff is what is the anti-growth policy. Using the Debt Ceiling as a political football is an anti-growth policy. -
IggyPride00
Welcome to the "Kentucky Kickback".
McConnell gave his state a $2 billion dollar earmark."Language in a draft of the McConnell-Reid deal (see page 13, section 123) provided to WFPL News shows a provision that increases funding for the massive Olmsted Dam Lock in Louisville from $775 million to nearly $2. 9 billion.
The dam is considered an important project for the state and region in regards to water traffic along the Ohio River."
-
BoatShoes
Healthcare costs of European continues and really none of all that you typed out is necessary even if you're a deficit scold.gut;1519174 wrote:There are a number of things that can and WILL be done, eventually. I suspect most of America would not be supporting some of these policies if they had to pay for it. The reality is the tax base and revenue sources are far below that of Europe. Take FICA - approx. 50% higher in Europe (@22%). Europe also has a 19% VAT. And when you look at FICA, the contribution to SS is 5X that of Medicare, but Medicare outlays are actually greater than SS - which implies we are only paying about 20% of our Medicare premiums (which is a strong justification to cut SS benefits since people have not nearly paid for their Medicare benefits)
1) Increases to FICA gradually over time
2) SS will not be cut, but the rate of increases will ultimately be slowed to effectively cut the future real value of the benefits. It really must go hand-in-hand with increasing FICA...but increasing the benefits at slower than the rate of inflation is more hidden and will probably go mostly unnoticed by the electorate.
3) I believe we will see a VAT within 5-10 years. It might start out at only @ 5% rate, and maybe only 40-50% of gdp (i.e. exclude food, energy and healthcare). But ultimately to grow revenues you need to add new sources. This is going to be necessary to service the debt.
There is a lot of fat in the budget, and much has been added in just the last 4-5 years (they basically incorporated what was to be one-time stimulus/TARP/bailout into the baseline permanent spending). It's only a little over a decade since we had a balanced budget. Even prior to the massive one-timers, Bush deficits over 7 years averaged about $240B. And that's with $1T+ on wars and his tax cuts.
Failure to address the deficits is just going to commit more and more future revenues to the complete waste of debt service. With all the other priorities and liabilities, where will $1T come from 10 years from now just to pay interest on our debt? This is all starting to look and play very much like the final stages of a ponzi scheme. -
BoatShoes
The opposite is true. When you allow output to be lost forever as in the trillions of dollars worth of wealth that we've failed to produce...that is what fuels future growth.gut;1519181 wrote: !@#$%^&*....We were really going gang-busters before all this. Actually cutting spending and reducing the deficit are longer-term PRO GROWTH policies. You can't grasp that. When you pull growth forward with stimulus and deficit spending you're actually siphoning the fuel from future growth -
BoatShoes
Why can the Fed not do it indefinitely. What is the actual reason?? Eventual succumbing to incompetence?? Eventually deciding to harm the economy??? Rates on the 10UST have risen in the face of incompetence by our elected officials...things that don't have to happen...the concrete result of poor policy choices. Even if the FED were to allow the 10UST rise it's still not even the big deal that you think it is...just marking up Savings Accounts at the FED that are assets to the foreigners who send us their real output and the domestic private sector.gut;1519180 wrote:More ignorance. Rates WILL rise because the fed will not and cannot continue the extraordinary measures indefinitely. No one know the length and depth ultimately of global deflationary pressures, but unless you want/believe the US economy is permanently in the shitter rates will return to a normative 4.5% or so. Rates on the 10UST, incidentally, have been as low as 1.5% and recently breached 3% so, ummm, rates have risen.
You're again confusing the debate between rates and inflation. And while core CPI has been stable, everyone with a brain sees the inflation materializing in asset prices.
We've had global deflation pressures since about 2000 or so, but rates have been 2-2.5pts higher than they have been recently. We're going to blow out public debt by another $5-$10T over the next decade....so we are talking $250B more in interest on existing debt, and another $250B or so on the new debt. $500B more just in debt service, conservatively.
Even if we can continue to monetize the debt without consequence, likely not enough to absorb much of the new debt we will be creating. -
BoatShoes
excluding intra-govt debt is a pretty big caveat eh...especially when those assets are held in trust for our citizens, eh??? and that 5.7 trillion held by foreigners is the best deal in the world...we got real goods and services made for cheap in exchange for digital numbers at our own Central Bank while they're surrounded by our aircraft carriers. Explain how that is a bad thing???gut;1519175 wrote:Can you ever be right? Just even once?
Excluding intragovt debt and that held by the Fed, approx $10T of US debt is held by the "public"
Of that $10T, $5.7T is held by FOREIGN govt and investors. The amount actually held by US citizens thru mutual funds, pensions funds and personal holdings is probably closer to $2T. The remaining $2T or so is held mostly by banks, corporations, insurance companies and GSE's.
I don't know why I even continue to argue with you. You are almost ALWAYS wrong when it comes to economics. -
ptown_trojans_1
Shutdown looks to be over. Over 85 R's vote for the plan, pretty much splitting the caucus.
So, again, what was accomplished? -
ptown_trojans_1
I follow ya, but I highly doubt a VAT will occur.I don't see the broad political will for it. That may occur, but I don't see the power players really pushing for it. But, agree that SS rates won't climb and really can't climb.gut;1519174 wrote:There are a number of things that can and WILL be done, eventually. I suspect most of America would not be supporting some of these policies if they had to pay for it. The reality is the tax base and revenue sources are far below that of Europe. Take FICA - approx. 50% higher in Europe (@22%). Europe also has a 19% VAT. And when you look at FICA, the contribution to SS is 5X that of Medicare, but Medicare outlays are actually greater than SS - which implies we are only paying about 20% of our Medicare premiums (which is a strong justification to cut SS benefits since people have not nearly paid for their Medicare benefits)
1) Increases to FICA gradually over time
2) SS will not be cut, but the rate of increases will ultimately be slowed to effectively cut the future real value of the benefits. It really must go hand-in-hand with increasing FICA...but increasing the benefits at slower than the rate of inflation is more hidden and will probably go mostly unnoticed by the electorate.
3) I believe we will see a VAT within 5-10 years. It might start out at only @ 5% rate, and maybe only 40-50% of gdp (i.e. exclude food, energy and healthcare). But ultimately to grow revenues you need to add new sources. This is going to be necessary to service the debt.
There is a lot of fat in the budget, and much has been added in just the last 4-5 years (they basically incorporated what was to be one-time stimulus/TARP/bailout into the baseline permanent spending). It's only a little over a decade since we had a balanced budget. Even prior to the massive one-timers, Bush deficits over 7 years averaged about $240B. And that's with $1T+ on wars and his tax cuts.
Failure to address the deficits is just going to commit more and more future revenues to the complete waste of debt service. With all the other priorities and liabilities, where will $1T come from 10 years from now just to pay interest on our debt? This is all starting to look and play very much like the final stages of a ponzi scheme.
Also, I agree there is a ton of fat to be cut, but needs a strategic approach to it, not the crazy across the board cuts.
I really hope the next few months, along with immigration, can focus on the details.
One nice thing is for the first time in a while, there is a budget past the holidays. -
IggyPride00
The massive yearly social security surplus went a long way towards making Clinton/Bush deficits look better than they really were when you stripped it out. Bush's deficits also didn't include any war costs, as Karl Rove specifically did them as emergency legislation and not something that was budgeted for (even though he knew the money would be spent) to make the deficit look smaller. It was nothing more than an accounting trick.Bush deficits over 7 years averaged about $240B. And that's with $1T+ on wars and his tax cuts.
Now that the boomers are retiring and it is gone, we are getting a much more accurate picture of what the real yearly deficit really is since their is no more SS surplus artificially holding down the deficit number and war costs are in the budget. -
Glory Days
Straight from Latina.com hahaIggyPride00;1519133 wrote:Martin Bashir comparing Ted Cruz to David Koresh.
http://www.latina.com/lifestyle/news/ted-cruz-father-compares-obama-fidel-castro#axzz2hxI2HQMS
Sen. Ted Cruz's father Rafael Cruz took the stage at a Freedom Works Free the People event this summer and gave a speech in which he compared President Obama to Fidel Castro numerous times. -
ZWICK 4 PREZ
It's kinda like when a 3 year old tells his dad "I'm not going and you can't make me"..sits on the floor for a few minutes..then dad picks him up, beats his ass, and throws him into the car.
That's kinda what happened. -
fish82
I for one am thrilled that we can get back to pissing away money we don't have on shit we don't need.
Balance is restored to the universe. : thumbup: -
QuakerOatsBoatShoes;1519200 wrote:The opposite is true. When you allow output to be lost forever as in the trillions of dollars worth of wealth that we've failed to produce...that is what fuels future growth.
Supposed 'output' from government redistribution, and government printing of money is NOT wealth creation; in fact, it is the exact opposite.
Hope that helps. -
QuakerOatsIggyPride00;1519196 wrote:Welcome to the "Kentucky Kickback".
McConnell gave his state a $2 billion dollar earmark.
D.C. logrolling at its finest, sponsored by Dirty Harry Reid.
He has surpassed Pelosi and Schumer as the most despicable members of congress. -
I Wear Pants
-
like_that
Oh boy! Let's celebrate! This us vs them mentality obviously has been great for this country the last 15 years /sarcasm.I Wear Pants;1519416 wrote: -
WebFire
No shit. They didn't get anything because the Crats would rather default than give in on anything. Both sides suck.like_that;1519423 wrote:Oh boy! Let's celebrate! This us vs them mentality obviously has been great for this country the last 15 years /sarcasm. -
jmog
Proof that no matter what the media wanted to tell the sheeple, the shutdown and near miss on the debt ceiling was the democrats doing (mostly, not all).I Wear Pants;1519416 wrote:
Refusal to budge on ANYTHING and negotiate on ANYTHING, and then have the gall to ask for MORE (re-establishing pre-sequestor baseline budgets) is just proof which side was the "just say no" crowd. -
O-Trap
Eh, the fact that the GOP folded on every iota of it says to me that their posturing on the whole thing was more pandering than a genuine desire based on conviction.jmog;1519467 wrote:Proof that no matter what the media wanted to tell the sheeple, the shutdown and near miss on the debt ceiling was the democrats doing (mostly, not all).
Refusal to budge on ANYTHING and negotiate on ANYTHING, and then have the gall to ask for MORE (re-establishing pre-sequestor baseline budgets) is just proof which side was the "just say no" crowd.
The circumstances being what they are, I'm pretty convinced that the GOP representatives are mostly a group concerned with appearance, but without any real substance.
Same goes on the other side of the aisle, but that's for different reasons. -
queencitybuckeyeI don't remember them asking to deny anyone in government coverage, I remember them wanting to do the exact opposite of that.
-
gut
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.htmlIggyPride00;1519225 wrote:The massive yearly social security surplus went a long way towards making Clinton/Bush deficits look better than they really were when you stripped it out. Bush's deficits also didn't include any war costs, as Karl Rove specifically did them as emergency legislation and not something that was budgeted for (even though he knew the money would be spent) to make the deficit look smaller. It was nothing more than an accounting trick.
Now that the boomers are retiring and it is gone, we are getting a much more accurate picture of what the real yearly deficit really is since their is no more SS surplus artificially holding down the deficit number and war costs are in the budget.
The surplus averaged about $90B during Clinton's term. It was @ $170B during Bush's term. Dropped to an average of about $75B in Obama's first 4 years. But wait - there actually was a deficit...wait for it...due to the payroll tax holiday which cost @ $265B between 2011 and 2012.
I guess those total deficit numbers I got were budget and not actual. But to keep it simple, just look at the increases in debt $5T under Bush vs. @$7T under Obama...that's $625B per year vs. $1.4T. Any decreases in SS are more than offset by winding down the wars. We're spending $800B more per year than under Bush and Obamakare hasn't even hit yet! -
I Wear Pants
How is it proof that it was their doing?jmog;1519467 wrote:Proof that no matter what the media wanted to tell the sheeple, the shutdown and near miss on the debt ceiling was the democrats doing (mostly, not all).
Refusal to budge on ANYTHING and negotiate on ANYTHING, and then have the gall to ask for MORE (re-establishing pre-sequestor baseline budgets) is just proof which side was the "just say no" crowd.
queencitybuckeye;1519483 wrote:I don't remember them asking to deny anyone in government coverage, I remember them wanting to do the exact opposite of that.
By "deny coverage" I assume whoever made the thing was referring to removing any subsidies for Congress and their staffers.
Either way I just thought it was funny.
On a more serious note for the people who were saying that default wasn't possible/wouldn't hurt us...if it isn't possible to default on the debt, then it isn't a bargaining chip. So here were the choices:
1) either default wasn't really going to be a big deal, in which case, its not a bargaining chip,
OR
2) default is a HUGE deal, and the Tea Party looks like it hates Obamacare more than it loves America.
Either way, there is no incentive for Obama to compromise.
And that is why people keep saying, "there was no way this was ever going to work." -
gut
I agree, but I don't see how there will be any avoiding in within 10 years. They'll try all sorts of things with the current tax code and fail to make any dent as the deficits continue to grow. They can fiddle with the marginal rates all they want, but we have a pretty good history to know they will only average about 18.2% of GDP.ptown_trojans_1;1519215 wrote:I follow ya, but I highly doubt a VAT will occur.I don't see the broad political will for it.
At some point, they're going to have to take a radically different approach...so FICA will start creeping up, and I think a VAT will be the most popular choice as it is perceived as more "fair".
Americans will hate it. But maybe you're right and instead they will do nothing while we slowly destroy the dollar and/or our economy. -
gut
It's not a caveat. You really don't understand how any of this works, do you?BoatShoes;1519211 wrote:excluding intra-govt debt is a pretty big caveat eh... -
QuakerOatsDEBT JUMPS $328 BILLION -- IN ONE DAY!
They couldn't wait to get their hands back on the checkbook.