What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

The government hs both a spending AND a revenue problem, tax recepits are 5% off of the historic averages and the Bush tax cuts account for between 1/3 and 1/4 of the overall deficit (the rest is mostly the result of the economic downturn decreasing revenues and the government's response to the downturn). Governement revenues have to go back up to average historic levels (as a % of the overall economy) or people had better be prepared to accept the resulting societal fallout.
Entitlement reform will need to occur within the next few years, but it does not have to be adressed imediately to resolve the deficit and debt limit problems that we currently face. We need to focus on our current problem, because if we can't resolve these problems now, the long term entitlement problem will resolve itself (and not in a good way for anyone)
But it's primarily a spending problem. Neither party has shown any ability to live within a budget. We're at the point where if the CBO were to project a 10% revenue increase, Congress and/or the President would spend 15-20% more money and we'd still go further in the hole. And we can't keep kicking entitlement reform (and defense cuts) down the road. The more we put that off, the bigger the problem becomes.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

But it's primarily a spending problem. Neither party has shown any ability to live within a budget. We're at the point where if the CBO were to project a 10% revenue increase, Congress and/or the President would spend 15-20% more money and we'd still go further in the hole. And we can't keep kicking entitlement reform (and defense cuts) down the road. The more we put that off, the bigger the problem becomes.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I agree that we are not that far apart.
In an ideal world, the whole fiscal situation would be delt with as a whole. Sadly, we don't live in an ideal world and I feel that the only way to deal with the problem is peicemeal and focus only on one problem at a time. I feel that worrying about the future deficit projections obscures the current deficit problem that needs to be resolved first.
I think the current negotiations highlight that you need to do stuff as a package deal. I'm not sure if you cut the current budget, but leave entitlements alone, that you have the political will down the road to deal with entitlement reform. You balance the budget, and the politicians are a lot less likely to substantively deal with entitlements. Of course this discussion is theoretical, as the budget being balanced in the next few years is as likely as a hippopatamus walking through my office door in the next five minutes. But in theory, you should take it all on now, while the pressure is on due to the massive annual and cumulative budget deficits.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

We are currently spending 25% of GDP. We historically take in <19% of GDP. You can raise taxes all you want, but until you get the 25% down to 19% you're never going to solve the problem.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

We are currently spending 25% of GDP. We historically take in <19% of GDP. You can raise taxes all you want, but until you get the 25% down to 19% you're never going to solve the problem.

You're like a parrot. You get a talking point and just keep repeating it, even after it has been debunked. No one is arguing that spending doesn't need to be cut. People aren't arguing (yet) for an increase in taxes. The argument is that the GOP doesn't want to let tax cuts WHICH WERE SUPPOSED TO EXPIRE expire.

Now go eat a cracker.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

You're like a parrot. You get a talking point and just keep repeating it, even after it has been debunked. No one is arguing that spending doesn't need to be cut. People aren't arguing (yet) for an increase in taxes. The argument is that the GOP doesn't want to let tax cuts WHICH WERE SUPPOSED TO EXPIRE expire.

Now go eat a cracker.

How has that been debunked? I keep bringing it up because it is a fact that has to be dealt with. Until people understand the reality of the situation there is no way to effictively deal with it.

How will letting the tax cuts expire be good for the economy? If the amount of revenue the gov't collects is approx the same because of a slower economy I don't see how that is good for defecit reduction.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Now go eat a cracker.

rman2014l.jpg


Here's another fun observation of human behavior: when faced with evidence that refutes our beliefs, we double down and believe more strongly.

In 2006, Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler at The University of Michigan and Georgia State University created fake newspaper articles about polarizing political issues. The articles were written in a way which would confirm a widespread misconception about certain ideas in American politics. As soon as a person read a fake article, researchers then handed over a true article which corrected the first. For instance, one article suggested the United States found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The next said the U.S. never found them, which was the truth. Those opposed to the war or who had strong liberal leanings tended to disagree with the original article and accept the second. Those who supported the war and leaned more toward the conservative camp tended to agree with the first article and strongly disagree with the second. These reactions shouldn’t surprise you. What should give you pause though is how conservatives felt about the correction. After reading that there were no WMDs, they reported being even more certain than before there actually were WMDs and their original beliefs were correct.

They repeated the experiment with other wedge issues like stem cell research and tax reform, and once again, they found corrections tended to increase the strength of the participants’ misconceptions if those corrections contradicted their ideologies. People on opposing sides of the political spectrum read the same articles and then the same corrections, and when new evidence was interpreted as threatening to their beliefs, they doubled down. The corrections backfired.
 
Last edited:
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I think the current negotiations highlight that you need to do stuff as a package deal. I'm not sure if you cut the current budget, but leave entitlements alone, that you have the political will down the road to deal with entitlement reform. You balance the budget, and the politicians are a lot less likely to substantively deal with entitlements. Of course this discussion is theoretical, as the budget being balanced in the next few years is as likely as a hippopatamus walking through my office door in the next five minutes. But in theory, you should take it all on now, while the pressure is on due to the massive annual and cumulative budget deficits.

I agree with you in theory, in practice I think that if you try and tackle everything at once the problem becomes so big and so difficult that the problem begins to look nearly insurmountable. By breaking it down into smaller goals, I think that we have a better chance of actually solving all the problems.

I don't think that it matters because I doubt that the idiots in congress have the political will or intelligence to actually develop practical solutions regardless of the approach that they follow.

I'm more than willing to slash spending to 20% (from 25%) but only if we increase taxes revenues to raise that 20% (from 15%). Yeah, compromise! (I know, it'll never actually happen, stupid politics)
 
Last edited:
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I agree with you in theory, in practice I think that if you try and tackle everything at once the problem becomes so big and so difficult that the problem begins to look nearly insurmountable. By breaking it down into smaller goals, I think that we have a better chance of actually solving all the problems.

I don't think that it matters because I doubt that the idiots in congress have the political will or intelligence to actually develop practical solutions regardless of the approach that they follow.

I'm more than willing to slash spending to 20% (from 25%) but only if we increase taxes revenues to raise that 20% (from 15%). Yeah, compromise! (I know, it'll never actually happen, stupid politics)
It looks insurmountable, regardless of breaking it into pieces or doing it all at once! Yes, this is all theoretical, as our leaders don't have the gumption to do more than the least they can get away with, and the populace is largely ok with that as long as they avoid much pain for the time being.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

It looks insurmountable, regardless of breaking it into pieces or doing it all at once! Yes, this is all theoretical, as our leaders don't have the gumption to do more than the least they can get away with, and the populace is largely ok with that as long as they avoid much pain for the time being.

Leaders who lead are rare indeed, and raising taxes and cutting spending are not only unpopular but voters have been programmed to believe they are even economically hurtful ("I'm not being greedy when I refuse a tax hike, I'm only protecting the country's interests.").

The solution that we've all hit on here is a straight-up trade: the Dems give on spending and the Republicans give on tax rates, particularly in the upper registers. Then both parties can go back to their bases and fulminate against the other ("Leslie Liberal raised your taxes!" "Newt Knuckledragger cut your Medicare benefits!") and it will be a wash.

Until the very moment of that compromise, you'd expect both parties to be utterly intransigent:



That would actually be OK, but brinkmanship with default might actually precipitate the disaster before we even reach the deadline.

My operating assumption has long been that the debt ceiling will be raised. The potential cost of a failure to do so is just too large for either party to tolerate. And despite the recent ructions, I still think that an increase in the ceiling is likely. But I think it's fair to say that the odds of some kind of "default", while quite low, have risen a bit.

This could potentially be a problem. Markets try to prepare for trouble. If there's a chance of bad times ahead, market participants will take precautions, just in case. They may move money to safer assets, increase cash holdings, curtail marginal investments, put off hiring, and so on. Do you see the problem? These sensible measures are themselves bad for the economy. Now, the probability of an actual default isn't very high. But the cost of default is catastrophic. So even if the odds of default shift from very small to slightly less small—from say 2% to 5%—that shift represents a substantial increase in the potential economic downside looking forward. And that, in turn, could lead to greater precautionary measures from banks, businesses, and households.

Because failure to raise the debt ceiling would be so nasty, that very possibility could cause serious economic damage even if the odds of an actual default never approach 50%. This, once again, is why Congress should tread extremely cautiously. Its only responsible course of action is to pass an increase in the debt ceiling without any further delay, and certainly without any further dramatics.

What if every moment you stayed in the "chickie run," the cliff eroded closer to you?
 
Last edited:
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

In the Obama thread:
Of course, that happened in an economy fueled by the dot-com bubble (at its peak no less) with extraordinarily low unemployment. Even restoring the Clinton tax rates, I don't think we get anywhere near 20% of GDP on revenue now or in the foreseeable future. Rates would have to go higher than that or the tax base would have to be expanded significantly, so in practical terms, we probably shouldn't base any solution to the debt/deficit problems on getting to 20% revenue (just like it would be sheer lunacy to adopt Pawlenty's assumption of 5% economic growth under his plan).
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Of course, that happened in an economy fueled by the dot-com bubble (at its peak no less) with extraordinarily low unemployment. Even restoring the Clinton tax rates, I don't think we get anywhere near 20% of GDP on revenue now or in the foreseeable future. Rates would have to go higher than that or the tax base would have to be expanded significantly, so in practical terms, we probably shouldn't base any solution to the debt/deficit problems on getting to 20% revenue (just like it would be sheer lunacy to adopt Pawlenty's assumption of 5% economic growth under his plan).

The point is, his talking point (which was originally that revenue is *always* 19% of GDP, now it is always <19%) is wrong. But I bet he says it again anyway.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

(just like it would be sheer lunacy to adopt Pawlenty's assumption of 5% economic growth under his plan).

This site has data going back to 1948. It looks like the normal rate of GDP growth in the modern US economy runs at about 2%.

People who want to go back to the "good old days" of the unregulated economy before the Fed and modern monetary policy should go to this chart and set the front end to 1914.
 
Last edited:
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

How has that been debunked? I keep bringing it up because it is a fact that has to be dealt with. Until people understand the reality of the situation there is no way to effictively deal with it.

How will letting the tax cuts expire be good for the economy? If the amount of revenue the gov't collects is approx the same because of a slower economy I don't see how that is good for defecit reduction.

Hannity, is that you?
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

This site has data going back to 1948. It looks like the normal rate of GDP growth in the modern US economy runs at about 2%.

People who want to go back to the "good old days" of the unregulated economy before the Fed and modern monetary policy should go to this chart and set the front end to 1914.
A couple of comments:

The second chart is disingenuous since current CPI doesn't include food and energy which you yourself have noted before. It doesn't matter that CPI is an official government number. It is still misleading and bogus as far as "consumers" are concerned, but it allows the government to make things sound better than they are.

The definition of the word inflation itself has changed over the years. Prior to 1990 or so, inflation was generally defined as the increase in the basic money supply. After that it has come to be defined as the increase in price of goods, which is really the effect of an increase in the money supply. By the historic definition, we now have major inflation. It's the Fed's policy of keeping interest rates artificially low that is staving off really big time price increases. They're only going to be able to do that for so long before the floodgates open.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

With just over five weeks until the looming August deadline when the U.S. will begin to default on its debts, the White House kicked up its participation this week, inserting the president into the fragile negotiations.

Before congressional talks fell apart last week, there were a few things that Democratic and Republican leaders agreed on. One was the need to rein in about $150 billion in spending for big-ticket items like defense and ongoing economic stimulus. Another was to reduce hurdles to job creation and economic growth.

But the talks, guided by Vice President Joe Biden, fizzled when senior Republicans walked out Thursday night over the threat of increased taxes for successful corporations and wealthy individuals. “What we object to is changing the tax code,” Republican Sen. Jon Kyl said on Fox News Sunday, diagnosing the talks' demise. “We don't need new taxes right now. We need to reduce spending."

No one is suggesting new taxes, just letting the tax cuts expire which was supposed to happen anyway.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

A couple of comments:

The second chart is disingenuous since current CPI doesn't include food and energy which you yourself have noted before.

Um, I have? I don't think so, because I don't think I knew that. I think you are right that inflation is much more complicated than just the CPI, though, and I'd like to read up more on it. Lacking anything better (and being wary of "explanations" which are jeremiads), I'm going to start here.

I'd like to see an apples-to-apples comparison, if they changed the way the metric was defined in 1991. I have no doubt the government tries to dress up its numbers, which is one reason I prefer to think of U6 rather than U3 as the actual unemployment rate.
 
Last edited:
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

No one is suggesting new taxes, just letting the tax cuts expire which was supposed to happen anyway.

And getting rid of corporate welfare. But, the Republicans consider letting tax cuts expire that they knew we couldn't afford a tax hike and the elimination of corporate welfare a tax hike.

Pass the bong.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

The second chart is disingenuous since current CPI doesn't include food and energy which you yourself have noted before. It doesn't matter that CPI is an official government number. It is still misleading and bogus as far as "consumers" are concerned, but it allows the government to make things sound better than they are.

The reason food and energy are not considered in the CPI is because their prices spike and crater (though gov't subsidies have all but eliminated the latter) regularly for reasons other than inflation. For instance, corn prices are likely to spike this summer due to flooding in the upper midwest and drought in texas wiping out lots of the crop. Such a price spike is caused by supply issues and has nothing to do with the purchasing power of the dollar, aka inflation.

In theory, "true" inflation, as defined by economists, should be universal across all goods and services, as a dollar's buying power should be universally strong or weak - a dollar won't be strong in technology and weak in textiles, for example. Either there are too many dollars chasing too few goods in the entire economy, resulting in inflation, or there aren't. Consequently, a measurement of inflation need not track every single possible good and service out there, but only enough to quantify the overall price trend without being tainted by a short term spike. If a known sector is inherently subject to such spikes (such as food and energy), it's only rational to eliminate those sectors from the measurement, as the noise will overpower the underlying trend.

That's not to say consumers won't feel the pain when energy and food prices spike, but when things like gasoline rise and fall 15-20% in the span of a few months, as is currently happening, you aren't going to get an accurate measurement of inflation. There's too much else going on affecting the numbers, and all that will happen by including them in an inflationary measurement is a less accurate measurement.

The definition of the word inflation itself has changed over the years. Prior to 1990 or so, inflation was generally defined as the increase in the basic money supply. After that it has come to be defined as the increase in price of goods, which is really the effect of an increase in the money supply. By the historic definition, we now have major inflation.

Not quite. Inflation is the change in the money supply relative to the change in GDP (MV=PQ). The quantity theory of money dates back to Copernicus, and the modern form of the theory dates back to the turn of the 20th century. The theory's always revolved around the effect of the money supply on prices, not just the money supply itself.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top