So we hit the debt limit...

[grumbler]

You have more faith in the Dems than I do. I suspect Congress would be talking about "holding the line" on spending...at the 25% of GDP level. Or maybe even talking about "incremental" increases, say to just the 26% of GDP level...you know, purely temporary, I am sure.

I have no more faith in the Democrats than I do the Republicans.  It is true that the Democrats wouldn't be talking about reducing spending this year, but then pretty much every economist I have read thinks that spending cuts this year would be a bad idea.

The Tea Party seems to feel that the first way to try to slow a cart is to shoot the horse in the head, for fear the brakes might not work.

[derspiess]

I heard him mention "infrastructure" a few times-- I thought that was supposed to be taken care of last year.

Yeah, isn't infrastructure in a country like US supposed to be a one year project?

Not necessarily.  But I'm having trouble seeing any results from last year's "investments" in infrastructure & I doubt we'll see any next year if we do the same.

[grumbler]

Yeah, but lots of "temporary" expansions of the size & cost of government have become permanent. 

Yeah, but lots of them don't.

But very often out of control spending helps them get re-elected.

But even more often, it doesn't.  I haven't heard a single person claim the virtues of "out of control spending" while on the stump... or off it.

In fact, I cannot remember hearing that term outside of tribal narratives.

[grumbler]

Not necessarily.  But I'm having trouble seeing any results from last year's "investments" in infrastructure & I doubt we'll see any next year if we do the same.

Well, then we need to stop investing!  Any investment that doesn't give you untroubled visions of results within a few months should be scrapped.  Long-term investments are for losers.

[Razgovory]

I heard him mention "infrastructure" a few times-- I thought that was supposed to be taken care of last year.

Yeah, isn't infrastructure in a country like US supposed to be a one year project?

Not necessarily.  But I'm having trouble seeing any results from last year's "investments" in infrastructure & I doubt we'll see any next year if we do the same.

A large part of money ended up going directly to the States which they used to plug holes in their budgets.

[Berkut]

You have more faith in the Dems than I do. I suspect Congress would be talking about "holding the line" on spending...at the 25% of GDP level. Or maybe even talking about "incremental" increases, say to just the 26% of GDP level...you know, purely temporary, I am sure.

I have no more faith in the Democrats than I do the Republicans.  It is true that the Democrats wouldn't be talking about reducing spending this year, but then pretty much every economist I have read thinks that spending cuts this year would be a bad idea.

The Tea Party seems to feel that the first way to try to slow a cart is to shoot the horse in the head, for fear the brakes might not work.

I agree about the TP, but don't trust the Dems to not extend their "temporary" increase into something permanent absent someone like the TP to stop them. Like I said, I would be very interested in what role the Blue Dogs would take if the TP was not around.

To borrow your analogy, my suspicion is that the Dems would ackowledge that there was a break, maybe even pretend to think about planning to pull it some day in the future, all the while they grease up the cart wheels, feed the horse some Red Bull, and see just how fast they can get this cart moving "to save the economy" of course if there wasn't someone sitting there threatening to shoot the horse in the head.

Note that I am not trying to give the TP credit for a well executed bluff - they really would actually shoot the horse in the head.

[derspiess]

The Tea Party seems to feel that the first way to try to slow a cart is to shoot the horse in the head, for fear the brakes might not work.

Whereas the Democrats & a lot of establishment Republicans seem willing to believe that speeding up will somehow slow the cart.  IIRC the deficit is projected to grow by $7 trillion over 10 years despite these "cuts".

[derspiess]

I heard him mention "infrastructure" a few times-- I thought that was supposed to be taken care of last year.

Yeah, isn't infrastructure in a country like US supposed to be a one year project?

Not necessarily.  But I'm having trouble seeing any results from last year's "investments" in infrastructure & I doubt we'll see any next year if we do the same.

A large part of money ended up going directly to the States which they used to plug holes in their budgets.

Temporarily preserving bloated state budgets = infrastructure investment then, I guess.

[HisMajestyBOB]

I heard him mention "infrastructure" a few times-- I thought that was supposed to be taken care of last year.

Yeah, isn't infrastructure in a country like US supposed to be a one year project?

Not necessarily.  But I'm having trouble seeing any results from last year's "investments" in infrastructure & I doubt we'll see any next year if we do the same.

Maybe because the bridges you drive across weren't ones that needed repaired? Or maybe because the maintenance done was things that you wouldn't notice?

But hey, because you didn't see any improvements, clearly we should stop spending on infrastructure. Even though the number of structurally deficient bridges has been in slow decline, so some of the money must be going to repair them. Or maybe they heal on their own.

Hey, I've never personally noticed any impact from our spending on the military. Clearly it's all been ineffective and we should stop spending on the military immediately.

[grumbler]

The Tea Party seems to feel that the first way to try to slow a cart is to shoot the horse in the head, for fear the brakes might not work.

Whereas the Democrats & a lot of establishment Republicans seem willing to believe that speeding up will somehow slow the cart.  IIRC the deficit is projected to grow by $7 trillion over 10 years despite these "cuts".

A lot of democrats and a lot of establishment Republicans do believe that the best thing is to get the cart to the destination as fast as possible, this is true.  I don't agree with them.  I think the problem with US job growth isn't that taxes are too high or too low, or that the government is spending too much or too little, but rather that business owners and consumers have no confidence that the decision-makers in government are going to become more rational.  In times of uncertainty, it is folly to use cash hiring or buying when you may need that cash just to stay solvent.

Republican promises to wreck the country if necessary to avoid making some lobbyist cry are no more attractive to me than Democratic promises that, if we just borrow a few more trillion from our kids, everything will be great and we can easily pay back the money with the prosperity we buy.  I think that the only thing that will restore confidence is, paradoxically, to restore some of the pain.  Allowing all the temporary tax cuts to expire, and cutting spending deeply in both domestic and defense will, I think, be the fastest road to recovery.  I think people don't trust sweet-tasting medicine, and I think that, in this case, they are right not to.

[DGuller]

I think the more fundamental problem with the economy is that recessions caused by financial disasters don't go away quickly.  Just like an economy overheated from speculative bubbles can go on for many years before busting, economy with an over-leveredged financial sector can suffer setback after setback just as it seems like things are getting better.

[Berkut]

Republican promises to wreck the country if necessary to avoid making some lobbyist cry are no more attractive to me than Democratic promises that, if we just borrow a few more trillion from our kids, everything will be great and we can easily pay back the money with the prosperity we buy.  I think that the only thing that will restore confidence is, paradoxically, to restore some of the pain.  Allowing all the temporary tax cuts to expire, and cutting spending deeply in both domestic and defense will, I think, be the fastest road to recovery.  I think people don't trust sweet-tasting medicine, and I think that, in this case, they are right not to.

I agree completely, which is why I think the TP is a rather necessary evil right now. Absent them, the "solution" we would be hearing is "Everything will be great if we just borrow/print up a few more trillion dollars!" or "There is plenty of money in America, if only we tax those corporate jet owners!" or some combination of the two.

[grumbler]

I agree completely, which is why I think the TP is a rather necessary evil right now. Absent them, the "solution" we would be hearing is "Everything will be great if we just borrow/print up a few more trillion dollars!" or "There is plenty of money in America, if only we tax those corporate jet owners!" or some combination of the two.

Lacking both of your tribal narratives, I don't see the Tea Party as anything but destructive.  Petulance as a debating tactic only alienates and polarizes; it never illuminates.

You could be right, though; what we are arguing is as hypothetical as hypothetical gets.

[Berkut]

Not really. We can simply look back at what the Dems did *before* the TP became powerful. It is hypothetical, to be sure (after all, the TP came to power as a result of those actions in large part), but it is hardly that far out to speculate on.

[Neil]

Even if the Tea Party people had never been elected, wouldn't the Democrats try and whore themselves out once the polling numbers showed that Americans were turning against the deficit?