Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

You've misunderstood the point Cantor was making then. Here's a quote, which I'm guessing is similar to what he's said in whatever interview you saw.


He's saying that if the Republicans can't find the stones to deal with earmarks, how will they ever have the guts required to make cuts to big ticket items.

If you can find a quote that says something different, I'd love to see it.

That isnt what I am referring to, that isnt what he was saying. If it was, then I would be very happy. Stuff like that is the rhetoric we need.

It is possible I misheard what he said or am crediting him with someone else's quote, I will have to see if I can find the interviews. It was a while back. It should be noted I like Cantor so I am not attacking him in any way just think that right about the time he was promoting his book he was overplaying the earmarks card a bit. (as is relevant to what Scooby and you were discussing) I dont mind, they need to go...but that barely even counts as step one, and we all know they wont get close to that anyways.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Now, I have my opinions on which methods would be better, but I just want to be clear about what we're talking about here. What is certain is that the attention given to earmarks is woefully exaggerated relative to their actual importance.

It is. But you're backtracking mightily now from the statement you made on the last page that people are claiming earmarks will fix the deficit. They aren't.

Also, I thought this was funny from the Slate article:

Earmarks are tools for compromise. Anytime you need 218 people—a majority in the House—to agree on something, you need to make compromises. Sometimes you can make trades with pieces of the legislation at hand. Other times you need to promise things that fall outside its purview. That's where earmarks come in. One lawmaker might oppose the employer mandate in the health care bill, but others will support the bill only if it includes the employer mandate. Negotiators therefore have to offer unrelated perks, like money for military research or a new football stadium. It's ugly, but that's how politics works.

Really? That's an argument in favor of earmarks? Seems like it should be a strong argument against them to me.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

I thought the title "money never sleeps"? was apt. Looks like Ireland and lot of other countries basically did the same thing with their housing market/mortgage backed securities etc... boom using leverage with MBS/CDO/CDS and the bailout.

The "Irish Miracle" turns out to be just another pyramid scheme.

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

When will both sides realize we need to cut spending?

Liberals need to be willing to cut social services, conservatives need to cut defense spending. Spend less!

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

When will both sides realize we need to cut spending?

Liberals need to be willing to cut social services, conservatives need to cut defense spending. Spend less!

There is a case to be made for spending our way out like in ww2. But then again our country didn't have mountain of debt.

One thing I don't get is how all these countries are accumulating so much debt with low-non-existent military spending. So they spend all their money on social welfare(medical, education, ss) while we spend ours on military?

Deficit to GDP went from 3% in 1941 to 20's% in the war... and 2007-2010 it's gone from 1% to 10%.

Greece kaput after hitting 10% borrowing cost. 140% debt2GDP and 15% deficit2GDP

They showed that in 2009, the country’s debt was 126.8pc of gross domestic product (GDP), higher than Italy’s, previously the worst in the EU at 116pc. Greece’s debt is set to jump to 144pc of GDP this year.

Greece’s deficit last year at 15.4pc of GDP was also worse than Ireland’s, at 14.4pc, the latest eurozone country to come under pressure to seek a bail-out.

Ireland kaput after hitting 9% borrowing cost. 109% debt2GDP and 32% deficit2GDP

reland's budget deficit could rise to 24% of GDP (gross domestic product) in 2010 or about €40bn, following a ruling by Eurosta
It would have added 33% to the 2010 debt/GDP ratio bringing it to 109%.

Japan, Italy both with mountain of debt 180% and 120% of debt2GDP. But much lower deficit 7% and 3% deficit2GDP and lower borrowing costs 1.5% 4%.

Japan’s primary fiscal deficit will probably narrow to 7.1 percent of gross domestic product in the year ending March 2011, according to estimates released by the Cabinet Office.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

When will both sides realize we need to cut spending?

Liberals need to be willing to cut social services, conservatives need to cut defense spending. Spend less!

Because the deficit is due to the sluggish economy, not massively increased spending. In fact, spending has not been increasing all that much.

If you want to get the debt under control, then spending cuts are necessary in the long term. In the here and now, the single most important thing is to get the economy humming again, and cutting spending won't help that.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/even-more-on-the-origins-of-the-deficit/

You'll note that government spending at all levels has been increasing at almost the exact same rate as it was 2001-2007, and it's been the shrinking GDP growth (and thus, shrinking tax revenue) that brings on the deficits.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

I think Japan debt is partly related to their bank bailout like Ireland and the 20 year deficit spending spree (instead of social spending) ... 4% to 12% deficit2GDP every year. So ours went to 10% this year and we have no job creation... so I would rather we double our spending to 20% or none and stop following the Japan model.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Because the deficit is due to the sluggish economy, not massively increased spending. In fact, spending has not been increasing all that much.

If you want to get the debt under control, then spending cuts are necessary in the long term. In the here and now, the single most important thing is to get the economy humming again, and cutting spending won't help that.

I think spending has increased. but it's mostly going to the banks (AIG, fannie, freddie etc..)
plus all the hidden liability we've accumulated guarateeing/buying banks toxic assets.
Basically we need the stimulus to create massive job or full employment like in ww2. Not the trickle down economic or slow Japanese torture public works program building roads.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article8012.html

The days when the Japanese could issue long term bonds yielding 1% and have it all bought by Japanese citizens is over.In 2010, the Japanese government will issue an additional 53 trillion in government debt. At the same time tax revenues will drop from 46 trillion to 37 trillion.Do you see the bug approaching the windshield?

The Japanese government has spent two decades squandering the wealth of its citizens. The New York Times detailed the trillions wasted in a story last year:

Japan's rural areas have been paved over and filled in with roads, dams and other big infrastructure projects, the legacy of trillions of dollars spent to lift the economy from a severe downturn caused by the bursting of a real estate bubble in the late 1980s. During those nearly two decades, Japan accumulated the largest public debt in the developed world while failing to generate a convincing recovery. Between 1991 and 1995, Japan spent some $2.1 trillion on public works, in an economy roughly half as large as that of the United States, according to the Cabinet Office.

 

[joecct]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Because the deficit is due to the sluggish economy, not massively increased spending. In fact, spending has not been increasing all that much.

If you want to get the debt under control, then spending cuts are necessary in the long term. In the here and now, the single most important thing is to get the economy humming again, and cutting spending won't help that.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/even-more-on-the-origins-of-the-deficit/

You'll note that government spending at all levels has been increasing at almost the exact same rate as it was 2001-2007, and it's been the shrinking GDP growth (and thus, shrinking tax revenue) that brings on the deficits.

But, and here is the central question, is how do you get the economy humming? There are two opposing philosphies - the government provides the oomph, or it relies on the private sector. Therein lies a very nice debate. Me? I prefer less gov't intervention and more private sector.

Now you economists can help me here, but it seems for every manufacturing job sent oversees means USD's taken out of circulation of the US economy. I would think that the Uncle Sam's policy would be to keep greenbacks here, not in China, Mexico, SE Asia, or whereever. Even if the item costs more, wouldn't it be better to keep jobs in this country? (Locking barn door after horses have left)

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

But, and here is the central question, is how do you get the economy humming? There are two opposing philosphies - the government provides the oomph, or it relies on the private sector. Therein lies a very nice debate. Me? I prefer less gov't intervention and more private sector.

Regardless of preferences, I can say with certainty that cutting government spending right now will only hurt the economy's recovery, not help it.

That's what I was getting at. Want to cut the deficit? Then the economy needs to get started first. You can (and probably should) cut spending once things get going, but you don't want to put the cart before the horse. Cutting government spending right now would be a mistake.

 

[huskyfan]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

cut taxes. cut taxes. cut taxes. its not rocket science.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Regardless of preferences, I can say with certainty that cutting government spending right now will only hurt the economy's recovery, not help it.

That's what I was getting at. Want to cut the deficit? Then the economy needs to get started first. You can (and probably should) cut spending once things get going, but you don't want to put the cart before the horse. Cutting government spending right now would be a mistake.

cutting government spending isn't the answer... increasing it isn't the answer... the answer is to announce that you will back off business harming policies such as Cap and Trade and the rest and then business will start dedicating resources towards building and spending. As long as you won't do it things won't improve.

Tax cuts tend to help because the government is not an efficient allocator of resources... and reducing spending reduces the COMPOUNDED amount we will need to pay later. Inflation should only be pursued if we believe we can make America that percentage more efficient... at this point in time i don't believe we can. Reduce spending and work towards eliminating uncertainty in the markets and in the business world. Increasing spending hurts the long term... keeping the situation cloudy hurts the current term... and believing that you need to steal from others because they won't spend it is not even ignorant... its just hatred.

edit: the thing is "more government" "less government"... most business matters and in-turn economic matters are "what can I do tomorrow? what can I do next week? what can I do next month? what can I do next year?" The more the answer is "I don't know" the less you act upon... the more you keep to yourself. Bottom line, everybody here is in the business of improving their lot... and if the optimal strategy is "hold" then things aren't going to improve. We need to give people reasons to dedicate resources aside from somebody with a gun telling them to do so. Government intervention basically means that the rules are opaque... not so much that government won't have rules or that they will be complicated but rather you cannot plan ahead.

This is more about what you need to do to move to the future. We all know what happened... morons gambled on incredibly wrong conventional wisdoms with large sums of cash borrowed at rather high multipliers... this took out some of the pillars of the economy and hurt the systems that move and allocate money in the US which in turn hurt businesses which caused a cascade effect. The problem is that there are two things that you do.... 1) fix the situation so that you don't run into a problem of that nature again... 2) allow for the system to heal itself. We STILL HAVEN'T done #1... and we elected a government which doesn't believe in #2. We elected a government, in Barack Obama, that fundamentally believes that it can create a system both optimal and righteous. This is the fundamental conceit of statist government. It can do better than all because of its ethereal intelligence... I know many of you believe it. As a result it wants to involve itself in all... which means that these people strive for new rules for all manners of things in the future... which brings uncertainty in how to allocate resources for the purpose of making money and improving their own lot..... and we wonder why the economy hasn't improved at such a grand level.

The thing is, everybody wants to be smart and do the great thing... the answer is as it was and nobody will listen... the answer is get out of the way. If you want to stabilize the economy then let the businesses rebuild the system. Sure, we do need to improve things... but you don't do it at the stage when things need to heal because otherwise you're just going prevent recovery. When you've got a government who wants to change everything you do and think you aren't going to have a future that is certain... and when that happens, people don't know where to put their resources... because they don't want to lose. Instead we've got pretentious people who think they have the solution messing around pulling at levers.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Joe Barton makes me embarrassed to be a human being. Colbert's segment on him and some other idiot republican made me facepalm to the point I had to change the channel I was so embarrassed.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Because the deficit is due to the sluggish economy, not massively increased spending. In fact, spending has not been increasing all that much.

If you want to get the debt under control, then spending cuts are necessary in the long term. In the here and now, the single most important thing is to get the economy humming again, and cutting spending won't help that.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/even-more-on-the-origins-of-the-deficit/

You'll note that government spending at all levels has been increasing at almost the exact same rate as it was 2001-2007, and it's been the shrinking GDP growth (and thus, shrinking tax revenue) that brings on the deficits.

Nonsense. That chart says that the GDP has increased by 44% since 2000, while spending has increased by 79%, nearly double the rate. How can that not terrify you? Congress can't control the economy (no matter what people like Krugman are peddling), but they CAN control the spending.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

What Patman said and I'll raise you Elizabeth Warren. Read her opinion of what is 'wrong'. People are inherently dumb and can't make good decisions, any enterprise that makes money as a result of 'dumb' decisions should be further regulated.

The underlying issue: people can't think for themselves; The problem: all situations in which a company makes money mean somebody made a dumb decision; The solution: more government.

To her, every late fee paid is because the company took advantage of the customer because the customer is too dumb to realize that they need to mail it in early enough and the only solution is the government stopping this egregious practice. Nevermind if 98% of the people are paying on-time, those 2% are cause for government regulation. So, costs for those who pay on-time will increase as they eliminate fees for those who pay late.

She has an army of academics identifying the instances where customers don't make the optimal decision and then she declares that every time money is made in those sub-optimal situations, a crime against consumers has been committed.

Think that will have companies holding onto their wallets a little tighter?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='360' height='353'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.colbertnation.com'>The Colbert Report</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/366030/november-17-2010/chair-apparent'>Chair Apparent</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.colbertnation.com/'>www.colbertnation.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:366030' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/'>Colbert Report Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>2010 Election</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.colbertnation.com/video/tag/March%20to%20Keep%20Fear%20Alive'>March to Keep Fear Alive</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>


He barely, barely stays in character and struggles not flat out calling these people idiots.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Nonsense. That chart says that the GDP has increased by 44% since 2000, while spending has increased by 79%, nearly double the rate. How can that not terrify you? Congress can't control the economy (no matter what people like Krugman are peddling), but they CAN control the spending.

I post the chart to explain what the problem is, not to say there isn't a problem.

Your little factoid might be true, but it also obscures the reason for that big gap - namely, the collapsing economy. The previous gap was manageable. The current one is not without massive economic growth.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

I post the chart to explain what the problem is, not to say there isn't a problem.

Your little factoid might be true, but it also obscures the reason for that big gap - namely, the collapsing economy. The previous gap was manageable. The current one is not without massive economic growth.

Well, screw it, then. The economy collapsed, so I guess Congress is off the hook. Spend away!

6% spending growth is ridiculous. The economy will never grow that fast, and compounding is a remoreseless master. Decisions are not made in a vacuum. So the economy collapsed. You know what? Life sucks - deal with it. The government shouldn't try to get in the business of papering that over that with quick-fix solutions (stimulus, auto bailouts, TARP, extended unemployment benefits, etc) to try to maintain everyone's standard of living. Everyone needs to tighten their belts - including those who rely on the government for entitlements, employment, or contracts. I work for a company that does a ton of defense work, so for me personally, it would be great if spending continued at present levels - right up until the point that the debt and inevitable inflation killed the whole economy.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Well, screw it, then. The economy collapsed, so I guess Congress is off the hook. Spend away!

6% spending growth is ridiculous. The economy will never grow that fast, and compounding is a remoreseless master. Decisions are not made in a vacuum. So the economy collapsed. You know what? Life sucks - deal with it. The government shouldn't try to get in the business of papering that over that with quick-fix solutions (stimulus, auto bailouts, TARP, extended unemployment benefits, etc) to try to maintain everyone's standard of living. Everyone needs to tighten their belts - including those who rely on the government for entitlements, employment, or contracts. I work for a company that does a ton of defense work, so for me personally, it would be great if spending continued at present levels - right up until the point that the debt and inevitable inflation killed the whole economy.

Govt intervention over the last couple years was pivotal. I'd hate to have seen a couple key banks file, causing a run on deposit that could easily have whiped out the financial sector. And hated Obama motors looks like its on the road to an amazing recovery...when it could have been the result of millions of unemployed soaking up welfare. So now that the govt adjusted to help the country survive...can it adjust back by cutting spending? And frankly in a post cold war, where international travel, trade and relations are at an all time high...your military sector is easily the most wasteful and fruitless spending at the federal level.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

What Patman said and I'll raise you Elizabeth Warren. Read her opinion of what is 'wrong'. People are inherently dumb and can't make good decisions, any enterprise that makes money as a result of 'dumb' decisions should be further regulated.

The underlying issue: people can't think for themselves; The problem: all situations in which a company makes money mean somebody made a dumb decision; The solution: more government.

To her, every late fee paid is because the company took advantage of the customer because the customer is too dumb to realize that they need to mail it in early enough and the only solution is the government stopping this egregious practice. Nevermind if 98% of the people are paying on-time, those 2% are cause for government regulation. So, costs for those who pay on-time will increase as they eliminate fees for those who pay late.

She has an army of academics identifying the instances where customers don't make the optimal decision and then she declares that every time money is made in those sub-optimal situations, a crime against consumers has been committed.

Think that will have companies holding onto their wallets a little tighter?

The problem in America right now is the companies who really make the money right now don't produce anything of value. That really is what Elizabeth Wareen is saying.