The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

[duper]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Under the law, a corporation is a person. Therefore, the law cannot distinguish between $1 from any member of this board and $1 from College Hockey, Inc.

If you don't like it, you have to overturn a 200 year old Supreme Court case.

Not exactly true, at least not in practice. If it were strictly true, a corporation could be considered an American citizen, and therefore would be allowed to register to vote. So again, I think that only registered voters should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns. Of course, if this law were enacted, a bunch of corporations would file a classaction lawsuit, which would almost certainly end up in the Supreme Court, giving them a chance to modify the interpretation of the 200 year old ruling.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Bernie Marcus, co-founder of Home Depot, has his take on why the recovery isn't going so well:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=578920&src=HPLNews

So the guys a long term Republican. He gave money to Norm Coleman, who had nothing to do with his home of Georgia.

There are plenty of Democrats who think the GOP field is a disaster.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Glad you don't disagree with my note that states have to be more fiscally responsible than the feds. Kepler is struggling with that one.

Minnesota would like to have a word with you...

(note: TPaw cratered this state's economy like the Dubya Clone he is)

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Minnesota would like to have a word with you...

(note: TPaw cratered this state's economy like the Dubya Clone he is)

Wait, I thought states have no impact on their economies, or so I was told!

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Kepler's point was that it was much easier to balance a budget when you have both a much smaller amounts to balance with and fewer items to fund. Plus their are many things that the states don't have to worry about funding because the federal government funds those things. If that federal funding were not as consistent the states would have a much harder time balancing their budget.

But, they would, because by law they have to. The feds don't. It's an extremely basic difference. The feds more or less balanced the budget for the vast majority of U.S. history. The fact that they haven't in recent decades isn't because it's just too complicated for them, it's because they want to spend more money than they take in.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

But, they would, because by law they have to. The feds don't. It's an extremely basic difference. The feds more or less balanced the budget for the vast majority of U.S. history. The fact that they haven't in recent decades isn't because it's just too complicated for them, it's because they want to spend more money than they take in.

And Handyman just proved you wrong. Minnesota has to balance its budget and yet TPAW failed to do so the entire time he was in office.


Oh, that's right. You think accounting gimmicks are the same as balancing. My bad.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Wait, I thought states have no impact on their economies, or so I was told!

Depends who you ask...but TPaw proves that states can be, and are, just as fiscally irresponsible as the feds are. And now Dayton is pounding in the last nails!

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

But, they would, because by law they have to. The feds don't. It's an extremely basic difference. The feds more or less balanced the budget for the vast majority of U.S. history. The fact that they haven't in recent decades isn't because it's just too complicated for them, it's because they want to spend more money than they take in.

It's not complicated at all. Deficits are the result of higher spending based on democratically popular programs. Unfortunately, politicians of both parties sold the public for years on the idea that you can spend more without collecting more in taxes. The very basic difference you point out is that the states force the public to pony up or do without. (BTW: Don't be so sure the public won't choose to pony up. A clean balanced budget amendment could force tax increases just as easily as it could force spending cuts.) The very basic difference I pointed out is the states have the federal government as a backup source of funding for programs which they otherwise would have to provide themselves, so they shouldn't dislocate their arms patting themselves on the back: they are working with a net while the federal government is not.

The 20th Century trend was for both power and responsibilities to move from the states to the federal government. The states can cry all they want about the former, but without admitting they are free riders because of the latter the argument is just a complaint, not a legitimate criticism.

I've said before that I am all for power and responsibilities to start moving back from the federal government to the states. If I'm right, the red states will become (even worse) failed states and the blue states' quality of life will skyrocket, and then you guys can compete with the Mexicans to clean our pools. I am perfectly cool with the south being Southern Europe to our Northern Europe. I would be even cooler about it if we could split our monetary policies, too.

 

[Almington]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

But, they would, because by law they have to. The feds don't. It's an extremely basic difference. The feds more or less balanced the budget for the vast majority of U.S. history. The fact that they haven't in recent decades isn't because it's just too complicated for them, it's because they want to spend more money than they take in.

Correct, the feds don't balance the budget because they don't want to but many of the states are required to (if they truly balance the budget or just have some accounting gimmick is a different question)

It's not complicated at all. Deficits are the result of higher spending based on democratically popular programs. Unfortunately, politicians of both parties sold the public for years on the idea that you can spend more without collecting more in taxes. The very basic difference you point out is that the states force the public to pony up or do without. (BTW: Don't be so sure the public won't choose to pony up. A clean balanced budget amendment could force tax increases just as easily as it could force spending cuts.) The very basic difference I pointed out is the states have the federal government as a backup source of funding for programs which they otherwise would have to provide themselves, so they shouldn't dislocate their arms patting themselves on the back: they are working with a net while the federal government is not.

Correct, it's easier for the states to balance the budget because the money they receive from the federal government is more consistent than tax revenue.

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Wait, I thought states have no impact on their economies, or so I was told!

Balanced budget rules mean they cannot control the impact they have - not that they have no impact at all. I flat out stated that the states limited fiscal policy, combined with a lack of monetary policy, means they suffer greater booms and busts than the country as a whole.

States tend to spend more in good times (since tax collections are higher), thereby increasing the boom times. When the cycle turns negative, however, the governments likewise have to cut back (because tax collections are lower and they have to balance the budget), thereby deepening the bust. Many states have rainy day funds, though they're often loathe to actually use them as such. Usually it justs sit around until it gets so high that the governor refunds some of the money in the form one-off tax breaks.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Many states have rainy day funds, though they're often loathe to actually use them as such. Usually it justs sit around until it gets so high that the governor refunds some of the money in the form one-off tax breaks.

I think many states are actually forced by statute or state constitution to refund the money if that fund gets too large.

The things that states fund also tend to have much shorter timeframes than the sort of ongoing obligations the federal government has -- as any project manager will tell you, the risk of overrun is directly proportional to the length and scope of a project. And the type of "mandatory" spending the states have is a far different animal than that of the feds. Although as a rule a smaller percentage of state funding is officially classified as "discretionary," when you get right down to it states don't have to worry about the catastrophic effect of default on sovereign debt, and in that sense virtually all state spending is discretionary.

All these things give the states much greater flexibility. And as has been pointed out, it still doesn't stop them from hiding deficits with creative accounting.

One thing in Bob's favor, OTOH: state unemployment rates are far more volatile than national rates because of size and also specialization. That would tend to make revenue estimates much more dicey for the states, and that would make delivering a balanced budget harder for them. Also: a state can go into a recession for much longer than the federal government. Look at the crash of the Rust Belt -- that has all the makings of a perennial downturn. People will eventually leave, which lowers the burden, but the people who leave tend to be the ones who are ambitious, go to college, get skills, and then take their tax base with them, so overall that hurts those states far more.

 

[Tundra]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

So is the tea party like anti-federalist?

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_history.html

Madison wrote of the Massachusetts anti-Federalists, "There was not a single character capable of uniting their wills or directing their measures. . . . They had no plan whatever." The anti-Federalists attacked wildly on several fronts: the lack of a bill of rights, discrimination against southern states in navigation legislation, direct taxation, the loss of state sovereignty. Many charged that the Constitution represented the work of aristocratic politicians bent on protecting their own class interests. At the Massachusetts convention one delegate declared, "These lawyers, and men of learning and moneyed men, that . . . make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill . . . they will swallow up all us little folks like the great Leviathan; yes, just as the whale swallowed up Jonah!" Some newspaper articles, presumably written by anti-Federalists, resorted to fanciful predictions of the horrors that might emerge under the new Constitution pagans and deists could control the government; the use of Inquisition-like torture could be instituted as punishment for federal crimes; even the pope could be elected president.

 

[Tundra]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

States tend to spend more in good times (since tax collections are higher), thereby increasing the boom times. When the cycle turns negative, however, the governments likewise have to cut back (because tax collections are lower and they have to balance the budget), thereby deepening the bust. Many states have rainy day funds, though they're often loathe to actually use them as such. Usually it justs sit around until it gets so high that the governor refunds some of the money in the form one-off tax breaks.

True on spending, I wish these morons would save more in the good times (high oil prices). Because every time there is a budget deficit you get people wanting to start a new tax or tap the permanent fund after they deplete the state savings fund. I believe it's $11billion saved and $40billion in the permanent fund (where we get our permanent fund dividend check yearly).

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Also, Wall Street will never have another president as utterly compliant with their every whim, either by weakness or design, as Obama. They'd hate to see him go.

Meanwhile...

Heh. Glad he's changed his tune. Bernake in 2007:

"…given the fundamental factors in place that should support the demand for housing, we believe the effect of the troubles in the subprime sector on the broader housing market will likely be limited, and we do not expect significant spillovers from the subprime market to the rest of the economy or to the financial system."

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

If I'm right, the red states will become (even worse) failed states and the blue states' quality of life will skyrocket, and then you guys can compete with the Mexicans to clean our pools.

They'll be too busy staffing the booming agriculture and energy sectors to give two ****s about your pools. I suspect they'll also continue to successfully land manufacturing facilities due to favorable tax treatment (look at where Toyota has been placing their assembly plants for an indication of how this sort of thing pans out).

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

They'll be too busy staffing the booming agriculture and energy sectors to give two ****s about your pools.

Frankly its just the oil industry. And if alternatives take off, that could lead to a hammering equal to that felt by Detroit. I guess that's plenty reason to believe that global warming doesn't exist.

Its about technology and business innovation. If they're hanging their hat on agriculture...they'll never go anywhere.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

If you think food prices are going to drop anytime soon, you might be the only one who believes that.

And we've been working off and on with alternatives for decades. Unless miraculous progress is made with them, oil will remain king for all of our lifetimes. Plus when it comes to domestic electricity production, coal and natural gas will continue to provide the bulk of that.

As for technology, at least a part of that industry is fed by raw materials such as rare earth metals (these are also necessary for things like solar cells and batteries in hybrids/electric cars). Nebraska is sitting atop a massive deposit of them (which is important because up until now, the bulk of this stuff is found in and supplied by China who has limited the exportation of it).

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Frankly its just the oil industry. And if alternatives take off, that could lead to a hammering equal to that felt by Detroit. I guess that's plenty reason to believe that global warming doesn't exist.

Its about technology and business innovation. If they're hanging their hat on agriculture...they'll never go anywhere.

When you speak of alternatives, I hope you aren't just talking about gasoline... I'm not sure if you're aware of this but oil is used for more than just gas.

In fact, to even suggest that the oil industry would be hammered because some alternative takes off is ridiculous. The sheer variety of chemicals and products produced by petroleum is more than you could ever imagine.

 

[Plante26]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Right and that's why we need to get out in front of the problem:
Repeal the constitution, disband the federal government, and let the states fend for themselves.

In 50 years, we can see who was right.

First thing I'd do is put together a band of marauding Midwesterners and sack California.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Frankly its just the oil industry. And if alternatives take off, that could lead to a hammering equal to that felt by Detroit. I guess that's plenty reason to believe that global warming doesn't exist.

Its about technology and business innovation. If they're hanging their hat on agriculture...they'll never go anywhere.

No offense, but if you think we can just replace oil, you simply don't know all that much about it. If we suddenly stopped consuming oil, we would have to invent it. Literally. There is no substitute that even comes close to oil in so many regards. We have yet to invent anything that comes close to oil. The tag phrase ' technology and business innovation' these days is limited to financial products, information, social media and other worthless crap. We won't invent our way out of our thirst for oil...