The Fed Shutdown Poll and Megathread

[DGuller]

Scary stuff. Ryan explained to a reporter that even doing his plan, cutting trillions, would take 28 years to balance the budget. How did we get so messed up??   

The very easy answer is enacting unfunded tax cuts, and refusing to consider any tax increases even in the face of the most severe deficits.  The much harder answer is figuring out how a large percentage of the public was socially engineered to forget that tax increases are ever an option.

I think more so the very easy, but difficult to swallow answers, are more like we need some reforms to take place in Defense, Social Security, Medicare, along with the more low hanging budget "fruit". Reforms to save those programs just as much as rein in the deficit. I don't think we can tax our way out of this.

Nevertheless, a large explanation for the persistent deficits over the last 10 years is that we had a big tax cut 10 years ago.  It astounds me that no one thinks to look back and see what would happen if we would undo it.  That goes for Democrats too, that tax increase on those only making $250k+ is bullshit as well to a slightly lesser degree.

[grumbler]

I think more so the very easy, but difficult to swallow answers, are more like we need some reforms to take place in Defense, Social Security, Medicare, along with the more low hanging budget "fruit". Reforms to save those programs just as much as rein in the deficit. I don't think we can tax our way out of this.

I don't think that Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are budget issues at all.  They need to be fixed whether it benefits the budget or not.

I think a long-range plan for the US budget is needed, and that is where to strike the balance between funding increases and spending decreases.  Recovery is really only going to start when people have the confidence that economic expansion won't be punished via new political blunders with the economy.  A balanced budget doesn't have to come in the next few years, but a realistic plan for a balanced budget is necessary before the election season arrives at the end of this year.

[grumbler]

Nevertheless, a large explanation for the persistent deficits over the last 10 years is that we had a big tax cut 10 years ago.  It astounds me that no one thinks to look back and see what would happen if we would undo it.  That goes for Democrats too, that tax increase on those only making $250k+ is bullshit as well to a slightly lesser degree.

Agreed, and would further say that a large explanation for the persistent deficits over the last 10 years is that we started big spending increases 10 years ago.  It astounds me that no one thinks to look back and see what would happen if we would undo it.

[Barrister]

I think more so the very easy, but difficult to swallow answers, are more like we need some reforms to take place in Defense, Social Security, Medicare, along with the more low hanging budget "fruit". Reforms to save those programs just as much as rein in the deficit. I don't think we can tax our way out of this.

I don't think that Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are budget issues at all.  They need to be fixed whether it benefits the budget or not.

How do you figure they are not budget issues?  As I understand it both are only "broken" in that they are not financially sustainable in the long run.  The programs themselves work fine (or at least adequately) as long as you ignore how you are paying for them.

[KRonn]

We've been similar things as Ryans says from a lot of people in the know, who aren't political ideologues in the issue. From politicians to those in the Federal Reserve and Treasury, to others in the financial fields. Ryan saying we won't get out of this for 28 years is certainly changeable, depending  on the economy, GDP growth, etc. But he isn't saying what others aren't warning about, that the government has a very serious deficit problem that needs to be addressed.

The statistic of "28 years" is meaningless, because it is based on a bunch of unstated assumptions.  People who through out cherry-picked numbers like that without qualifying them are, in effect, lying.

I'd argue that the government borrowing $1.6 trillion so it can spend $3.6 trillion is a more immediate indicator of the problem.  Or, the fact that total US debt will increase by 10% in this year alone.  Numbers like that;  supportable and meaningful.

Yes, agreed on all counts. The 28 years thing was just something that caught my attention, as an indicator of the issue. It was just a comment he made to a CNN reporter's question.

[Berkut]

Nevertheless, a large explanation for the persistent deficits over the last 10 years is that we had a big tax cut 10 years ago.  It astounds me that no one thinks to look back and see what would happen if we would undo it.  That goes for Democrats too, that tax increase on those only making $250k+ is bullshit as well to a slightly lesser degree.

Agreed, and would further say that a large explanation for the persistent deficits over the last 10 years is that we started big spending increases 10 years ago.  It astounds me that no one thinks to look back and see what would happen if we would undo it.

Bingo.

I am actually not theoretically opposed to increasing taxes, if that is what is necessary.

But the idea that we should increase taxes *instead of* controlling spending is what I have a problem with - the idea that the recession is a vehicle for increasing the size and role of the federal government by huge amounts is ideology, and nothing more.

[Caliga]

But that's what "worked" during the Depression, Berk!

[grumbler]

How do you figure they are not budget issues?  As I understand it both are only "broken" in that they are not financially sustainable in the long run.  The programs themselves work fine (or at least adequately) as long as you ignore how you are paying for them.

  They are supposed to be self-sustaining and pay for themselves out of their own revenue streams.  No matter what happened to the budget, they would still need to be fixed to avoid creating a burden on the budget that was not intended.  OTOH, they can be fixed whether their is a general budget fix or not.

[grumbler]

But the idea that we should increase taxes *instead of* controlling spending is what I have a problem with - the idea that the recession is a vehicle for increasing the size and role of the federal government by huge amounts is ideology, and nothing more.

I oppose using the recession as an excuse to indefinitely continue programs that everyone, even the recipients, know are unnecessary and not a federal mandate in any case; things like NPR and the 82 programs that monitor teacher quality and the many commissions on homelessness.  If one wants to justify a one-time shot of money into one or more of those programs because it will have a demonstrable effect in easing the recession (more than leaving the money to be spent or saved by the taxpayer), then one should be able to try that.  Putting spending cuts off the table because "OMG there is a recession!" is as stupid and counterproductive as the pre-recession excuse for deficit spending that ran "OMG we are at war!"

[grumbler]

But that's what "worked" during the Depression, Berk!

The Japanese are a bit busy to apply the ol' "what worked during the Depression;" maybe the Chinese will lend us a hand?

[MadImmortalMan]

It's over ten years.

[Admiral Yi]

Nevertheless, a large explanation for the persistent deficits over the last 10 years is that we had a big tax cut 10 years ago.  It astounds me that no one thinks to look back and see what would happen if we would undo it.  That goes for Democrats too, that tax increase on those only making $250k+ is bullshit as well to a slightly lesser degree.

That interactive NYT web site Veep linked to a while back had the annual amount you would get from rescinding each tranche of the Bush tax cuts.

[Admiral Yi]

The ranking Democratic member of the House budget committee was just on PBS responding to Ryan's proposal.  When asked what the Democratic budget plan for 2012 is he said raise taxes on millionaires and serious cuts in spending.

[CountDeMoney]

Mike Pence R-Indiana was on MSNBC this morning, said that the "defunding" of Planned Parenthood ("the biggest abortion provider in the United States with federal money") in the GOP's budget proposal is non-negotiable, and they will stop the government on that very issue.

I just upped my monthly donation.

[garbon]

Mike Pence R-Indiana was on MSNBC this morning, said that the "defunding" of Planned Parenthood ("the biggest abortion provider in the United States with federal money") in the GOP's budget proposal is non-negotiable, and they will stop the government on that very issue.

I just upped my monthly donation.

This thing has to be snuffed out