QuoteObama to open fiscal talks with $1.6 trillion plan to raise taxes on wealthy
By Zachary A. Goldfarb and Lori Montgomery, Updated: Tuesday, November 13, 8:52 PM
President Obama is taking a hard line with congressional Republicans heading into negotiations over the year-end fiscal cliff, making no opening concessions and calling for far more in new taxes than Republicans have so far been willing to consider.
Obama plans to open talks using his most recent budget proposal, which sought to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy by $1.6 trillion over the next decade, White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday. That's double the sum that House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) offered Obama during secret debt negotiations in 2011.
Obama has been pressing to let the George W. Bush-era tax cuts expire at the end of the year for the wealthiest 2 percent of the nation's households, a tax hike adamantly opposed by Republicans. But Carney suggested that even the revenue generated by letting those tax cuts end would not be enough to tame the national debt and reenergize the economy.
Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Timothy J. Geithner and other senior Democrats on Tuesday said Obama would not be willing to maintain the Bush tax rates in exchange for a cap on deductions for households earning more than $250,000 a year, a leading Republican alternative.
"I don't see how you do this without higher rates. I don't think there's any feasible, realistic way to do it," Geithner said at a conference in Washington. "When you take a cold hard look at the amount of resources you can raise from that top 2 percent of Americans through limiting deductions, you will find yourself disappointed relative to the magnitude of the revenue increases that we need."
Republicans took Obama's opening bid in stride.
Kevin Smith, a spokesman for Boehner, said in a statement: "The Speaker proposed a way both parties can work together to avert the fiscal cliff without increased tax rates, through a combination of entitlement reforms and revenue via tax reform. Republicans believe this is consistent with the president's call for a 'balanced' approach, and the Speaker looks forward to talking with the president about such a path."
Though Republicans have declined to offer a specific figure, Boehner has suggested that negotiations resume on the terms discussed in 2011, when Boehner offered to raise $800 billion in new revenue over the next decade.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) offered public support for Boehner's position Tuesday and warned Obama not to overplay his hand.
"We're calling on him to lead, to take the initiative, propose a plan that's actually designed to succeed," McConnell said in a speech on the Senate floor. "And if he does, I'm confident he'll find he has more Republican friends over here than he thought."
Democrats said Obama is likely to take a tough stance Friday, when Boehner and other congressional leaders are due to gather at the White House for their first face-to-face discussions about how to avoid the fiscal cliff — the dramatic tax hikes and government spending cuts scheduled for the new year. Fresh off an election in which they kept the White House and picked up seats in the House and Senate, Democrats said there is no reason to compromise now on a central plank of the president's platform.
"It was an intrinsic part of his campaign, and the public supports it. So what more do you want?" said Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), the senior Democrat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. "There was a clear message, so I think the Republicans should listen."
The public is skeptical that a deal can be reached. By 51 percent to 38 percent, more Americans predict Obama and Republicans will not reach an agreement by the end of the year, according to a new Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll. The survey found widespread anxiety over the consequences of failure.
According to the poll, more than six in 10 Americans believe that missing the fiscal-cliff deadline would have an overall negative impact on the U.S. economy. Without a deal, taxes will jump for nine in 10 Americans, with the steepest hikes for top income brackets.
But Republicans in Congress may face more public pressure to make concessions. Should negotiations break down to avoid the $500 billion of automatic tax hikes and spending cuts, 53 percent are inclined to blame Republicans in Congress while 29 percent single out Obama.
Carney said Tuesday that Obama would reprise his plan from earlier this year to raise $1.6 trillion in taxes by raising tax rates, imposing a new special tax on millionaires and scaling back deductions and loopholes.
"We know what a truly balanced approach to our fiscal challenges looks like," Carney said. "The president has put forward a very specific plan that will be what he brings to the table when he sits down with congressional leaders."
Obama's 2013 budget sought to reduce borrowing over the next 10 years by about $4 trillion, counting $1.1 trillion in agency cuts already in force. In addition to raising taxes, Obama proposed to slice $340 billion from health-care programs and to count about $1 trillion in savings from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
His budget request did not include reductions to health and retirement benefits, but Obama did consider such changes in his 2011 talks with Boehner, including raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 and applying a stingier measure of inflation to Social Security.
Senior Democrats, meanwhile, threw cold water on a competing proposal to scale back deductions that disproportionately benefit upper-income taxpayers while keeping the top tax rates at their present level.
On Tuesday, former Clinton administration Treasury secretary Robert Rubin wrote in the New York Times that closing loopholes and deductions would not be an acceptable solution to the nation's fiscal challenges. And Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who is set to become chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said she "has not seen how the math works to let you come up with the additional revenue."
In a meeting Tuesday, Obama offered no specific assurances to liberal leaders about what a final deal might look like and what entitlement programs might face cuts. But Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association and a participant in the session, said Obama did not have to make such assurances.
"He hasn't wavered through the whole campaign," Van Roekel said. "He's been consistent on [his] message, and don't think he'll change it now."
Van Roekel described Obama and Vice President Biden as friendly, upbeat and attentive as the group leaders expressed support for the president's firm campaign-trail promises to roll back the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy. Obama mostly listened, Van Roekel said, occasionally asking questions.
"Everybody in that room had worked very hard for the reelection of President Obama, so there was a good feeling in the room from the very moment we walked in until the time we left," Van Roekel said.
Well the wealthy always make for a nice target. Why just look what Cali did. Voted to increase taxes for wealthy but like hell if they were going to vote yes on the prop to increase taxes for everyone.
I'm tossing stocks overboard in anticipation of nothing being done.
Austerity now!
Going after the rich is risky, they can take their money and smuggle it elsewhere. Best to stick with reliable strategy of destroying the middle classes.
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2012, 08:56:24 AM
Austerity now!
Going after the rich is risky, they can take their money and smuggle it elsewhere. Best to stick with reliable strategy of destroying the middle classes.
Summon the Sans-culottes to the streets! Build the barricades!
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2012, 08:56:24 AM
Austerity now!
Going after the rich is risky, they can take their money and smuggle it elsewhere. Best to stick with reliable strategy of destroying the middle classes.
:rolleyes:
This megathread didn't get very far. Anyway, great to see that after Obama speaks with Boehner today, he's flying to Michigan to convince autoworkers that taxes should be raised on the wealthy.
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2012, 09:46:32 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2012, 08:56:24 AM
Austerity now!
Going after the rich is risky, they can take their money and smuggle it elsewhere. Best to stick with reliable strategy of destroying the middle classes.
:rolleyes:
What?
Quote from: garbon on December 10, 2012, 09:25:21 AM
This megathread didn't get very far. Anyway, great to see that after Obama speaks with Boehner today, he's flying to Michigan to convince autoworkers that taxes should be raised on the wealthy.
That will be a tough sell to that audience.
Quote from: garbon on December 10, 2012, 09:25:21 AM
This megathread didn't get very far. Anyway, great to see that after Obama speaks with Boehner today, he's flying to Michigan to convince autoworkers that taxes should be raised on the wealthy.
No, he's flying to Michigan at the invitation of Daimler, who is going to announce today their $100M+ investment to expand their heavy truck production division in North America.
But nice try, fucking asshole.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 10, 2012, 09:42:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 10, 2012, 09:25:21 AM
This megathread didn't get very far. Anyway, great to see that after Obama speaks with Boehner today, he's flying to Michigan to convince autoworkers that taxes should be raised on the wealthy.
No, he's flying to Michigan at the invitation of Daimler, who is going to announce today their $100M+ investment to expand their heavy truck production division in North America.
But nice try, fucking asshole.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-heading-to-Michigan-to-push-taxes-on-rich-4104175.php
QuoteObama heading to Michigan to push taxes on rich
President Barack Obama is pressing for public support Monday to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, a day after he and House Speaker John Boehner met one-on-one for the first time to discuss ways to avert the "fiscal cliff."
Neither side provided details of the weekend meeting at the White House. But with just three weeks until a flurry of tax hikes and spending cuts start taking effect, the mere fact that the meeting happened was seen as progress.
Negotiations continue to center on whether to raise tax rates for the top two percent of income earners. Obama, in a campaign-style speech to auto workers in Michigan on Monday, is expected to stress that he won't sign a deal that doesn't include higher tax rates for the wealthiest Americans.
While Republicans have long opposed that approach, some GOP lawmakers are suggesting the party relent on taxes in order to win concessions from the president on entitlement reforms.
And business leaders, tired of Washington's partisan bickering creating uncertainty in the marketplace, are emphasizing the need to hammer out a deal before year's end.
"The millions of people that work for us, their lives are in flux. And this is incredibly critical we get this done now," said Jeffrey Immelt, GE's chief executive and head of the presidential advisory council on competitiveness.
Immelt, in remarks aired Monday on "CBS This Morning," added: "Everyone knows we need revenue," because spending cuts alone won't solve the problem.
GOP mavericks are putting increased pressure on their party's leaders to rethink how they approach negotiations with Obama in the wake of a bruising national election that left Democrats in charge of the White House and Senate.
"There is a growing group of folks looking at this and realizing that we don't have a lot of cards as it relates to the tax issue before year end," Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., told "Fox News Sunday."
If Republicans agree to Obama's plan to increase rates on the top 2 percent of Americans, Corker added, "the focus then shifts to entitlements, and maybe it puts us in a place where we actually can do something that really saves the nation."
Conservative stalwart Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma had already floated a similar idea. Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., has said Obama and Boehner could at least agree not to raise tax rates on the majority of Americans and negotiate the rates of top earners later.
"It's not waving a white flag to recognize political reality," Cole said on CNN's "State of the Union."
But such ideas face an uphill battle. Many House Republicans say they wouldn't vote for tax rate hikes under any circumstances. And GOP leadership could lose leverage in the negotiations if it raises the rate on upper-income earners without getting anything substantial in return like entitlement reform.
Democratic leaders have suggested they are unwilling to tackle entitlement spending in the three weeks left before the fiscal cliff is triggered.
"I just don't think we can do it in a matter of days here before the end of the year," Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said of Medicare reform specifically, in an interview Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"We need to address that in a thoughtful way through the committee structure after the first of the year," Durbin added.
The "fiscal cliff" refers to rate increases that would affect every worker who pays federal taxes, as well as spending cuts that would begin to bite defense and domestic programs alike. Economists say the combination carries the risk of a new recession, at a time the economy is still struggling to recover fully from the worst slowdown in decades.
The president's message in Michigan will be that the economy is rebounding and Congress should not risk that progress to save tax cuts for the rich. The president will use the Daimler Detroit Diesel plant where he'll speak to illustrate his point, noting that the company plans to spend an additional $100 million to boost production in the U.S.
Obama's plan would raise $1.6 trillion in revenue over 10 years, partly by letting decade-old tax cuts on the country's highest earners expire at the end of the year. He would continue those Bush-era tax cuts for everyone except individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000. The highest rates on top-paid Americans would rise from 33 percent and 35 percent to 36 percent and 39.6 percent, respectively.
Boehner has offered $800 billion in new revenues to be raised by reducing or eliminating unspecified tax breaks on upper-income earners. The Republican plan also would cut spending by $1.4 trillion, including by trimming annual increases in Social Security payments and raising the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/obama-fiscal-cliff-michigan_n_2269917.html
QuoteObama To Press Fiscal Cliff Case In Michigan
President Barack Obama heads for familiar campaign ground Monday, an auto plant in Michigan, to press his case for tax hikes on the wealthy.
:mellow:
Also odd that you'd get so defensive given that Obama has already said previously that he was going to spend more time among the people convincing him of his policies.
He's not flying there specifically to give the speech to fuck over Yi's and your rich friends. His comments will be an aside to the main reason for the visit. And why shouldn't he, anyway? The public is part of the debate; the GOP is seeing to that.
Besides, don't you have something more productive to do with your anti-union bullshit this morning? Toss stuff out the window at sanitation workers, key a teacher's car or something? You know, Think Globally, Act Locally?
I'm not the one writing newspaper articles. Media seems to see this as Obama moving against the wealthy so don't accuse me of creating my own slant. Besides my sentiments are more anti-Obama - on the level, couldn't he spend his time more productively?
Obama seems to be positioning himself so that we don't get an agreement, everyone's taxes increase, and the GOP takes the blame.
Which would be fine with me. :)
Quote from: garbon on December 10, 2012, 10:21:17 AM
I'm not the one writing newspaper articles. Media seems to see this as Obama moving against the wealthy so don't accuse me of creating my own slant. Besides my sentiments are more anti-Obama - on the level, couldn't he spend his time more productively?
At this point your whining has gone on at such length and volume that it's become a reliable indicator that Obama is doing the right thing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2012, 02:14:16 PM
Obama seems to be positioning himself so that we don't get an agreement, everyone's taxes increase, and the GOP takes the blame.
Which would be fine with me. :)
You don't mind a general tax increase and a public turning against the GOP, or is there more to it?
Quote from: Jacob on December 10, 2012, 02:27:59 PM
You don't mind a general tax increase and a public turning against the GOP, or is there more to it?
I fully support a general tax increase. The public turning against the GOP
because of this issue is not a goal of mine, but given their position, not something I would lose a ton of sleep over.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2012, 02:30:17 PMI fully support a general tax increase. The public turning against the GOP because of this issue is not a goal of mine, but given their position, not something I would lose a ton of sleep over.
Okay, that makes sense.
Quote from: Jacob on December 10, 2012, 02:25:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 10, 2012, 10:21:17 AM
I'm not the one writing newspaper articles. Media seems to see this as Obama moving against the wealthy so don't accuse me of creating my own slant. Besides my sentiments are more anti-Obama - on the level, couldn't he spend his time more productively?
At this point your whining has gone on at such length and volume that it's become a reliable indicator that Obama is doing the right thing.
Sure, you are free to draw your own conclusions. :)
Quote from: garbon on December 10, 2012, 02:47:36 PMSure, you are free to draw your own conclusions. :)
:hug:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2012, 02:14:16 PM
Obama seems to be positioning himself so that we don't get an agreement, everyone's taxes increase, and the GOP takes the blame.
Which would be fine with me. :)
I'm beginning to agree with you here. :o I'm not sure if the "fiscal cliff" would be so bad. And besides, you can always adjust spending and taxes afterwords. It's not like Clinton level taxes were so onerous as to crush the economy, and with the wars all winding down we can cut a lot of military spending which is what I understand a major portion of the spending cuts. I don't think it's going to be Austerity like Greece, I mean taxes are going to jump up that much nor is spending going to be cut to the bone.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 10, 2012, 05:02:57 PM
I'm beginning to agree with you here. :o I'm not sure if the "fiscal cliff" would be so bad. And besides, you can always adjust spending and taxes afterwords. It's not like Clinton level taxes were so onerous as to crush the economy, and with the wars all winding down we can cut a lot of military spending which is what I understand a major portion of the spending cuts. I don't think it's going to be Austerity like Greece, I mean taxes are going to jump up that much nor is spending going to be cut to the bone.
That's great Raz. :)
Once you get past Obama's political investment in holding down taxes on the Schumer class, it's not that big a deal. Like you said, people weren't rioting in the streets during the Clinton administration.
Yi and Raz agree?! :blink: We do indeed live in dark times.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 10, 2012, 05:02:57 PMI'm not sure if the "fiscal cliff" would be so bad.
Yes it would. You can't cut spending and increase taxes, overnight, by 5% of GDP and it 'not be so bad'.
If you want to do that gradually, fine. Doing it unexpectedly in one year would be a big deal. In terms of percent of GDP yearly fiscal consolidation, the nearest comparison actually is Greece.
QuoteAnd besides, you can always adjust spending and taxes afterwords.
No-one expects it to happen, no-one's planned for that. Everything I've read has been very sanguine about a deal eventually being reached. Part of the damage of the debt ceiling was that it showed the markets how dysfunctional Washington was, because again no-one expected it to get that close. Your system's credibility would already be gone. What business would invest rather than build up cash reserves when you've got a political system that almost chooses to default or fail to make a deal everyone's been expecting for months probably returning the US to recession - out of choice.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 10, 2012, 10:07:37 AM
He's not flying there specifically to give the speech to fuck over Yi's and your rich friends. His comments will be an aside to the main reason for the visit. And why shouldn't he, anyway? The public is part of the debate; the GOP is seeing to that.
There's nothing wrong with him trying to whip up support for his policies. There is something wrong with suggesting that his trip to Michigan wasn't for that purpose but came about simply because Daimler invited him--it's disingenuous.
For a month-old "megathread", this one has really few posts. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 11, 2012, 09:57:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 10, 2012, 05:02:57 PMI'm not sure if the "fiscal cliff" would be so bad.
Yes it would. You can't cut spending and increase taxes, overnight, by 5% of GDP and it 'not be so bad'.
If you want to do that gradually, fine. Doing it unexpectedly in one year would be a big deal. In terms of percent of GDP yearly fiscal consolidation, the nearest comparison actually is Greece.
QuoteAnd besides, you can always adjust spending and taxes afterwords.
No-one expects it to happen, no-one's planned for that. Everything I've read has been very sanguine about a deal eventually being reached. Part of the damage of the debt ceiling was that it showed the markets how dysfunctional Washington was, because again no-one expected it to get that close. Your system's credibility would already be gone. What business would invest rather than build up cash reserves when you've got a political system that almost chooses to default or fail to make a deal everyone's been expecting for months probably returning the US to recession - out of choice.
Which one is the 5% the cutting spending or the raising taxes? We already did the almost default thing. That's water under the bridge at this point. If are going to be frightened over that, then they are already frightened.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2012, 02:14:16 PM
Obama seems to be positioning himself so that we don't get an agreement, everyone's taxes increase, and the GOP takes the blame.
Which would be fine with me. :)
Ya think. When did you get clued to that. When he won reelection?
Quote from: dps on December 11, 2012, 10:13:10 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 10, 2012, 10:07:37 AM
He's not flying there specifically to give the speech to fuck over Yi's and your rich friends. His comments will be an aside to the main reason for the visit. And why shouldn't he, anyway? The public is part of the debate; the GOP is seeing to that.
There's nothing wrong with him trying to whip up support for his policies. There is something wrong with suggesting that his trip to Michigan wasn't for that purpose but came about simply because Daimler invited him--it's disingenuous.
Not disingenuous; merely a coincidence.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 11, 2012, 09:57:44 AM
Yes it would. You can't cut spending and increase taxes, overnight, by 5% of GDP and it 'not be so bad'.
As a nation we would be consuming 95% of what we were the day before. That can very much be not so bad.
QuoteNo-one expects it to happen, no-one's planned for that. Everything I've read has been very sanguine about a deal eventually being reached. Part of the damage of the debt ceiling was that it showed the markets how dysfunctional Washington was, because again no-one expected it to get that close. Your system's credibility would already be gone. What business would invest rather than build up cash reserves when you've got a political system that almost chooses to default or fail to make a deal everyone's been expecting for months probably returning the US to recession - out of choice.
I can't believe you're actually making the argument that the US government's credibility is at stake. :huh:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 11, 2012, 12:36:21 PM
Quote from: dps on December 11, 2012, 10:13:10 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 10, 2012, 10:07:37 AM
He's not flying there specifically to give the speech to fuck over Yi's and your rich friends. His comments will be an aside to the main reason for the visit. And why shouldn't he, anyway? The public is part of the debate; the GOP is seeing to that.
There's nothing wrong with him trying to whip up support for his policies. There is something wrong with suggesting that his trip to Michigan wasn't for that purpose but came about simply because Daimler invited him--it's disingenuous.
Not disingenuous; merely a coincidence.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2012, 12:44:57 PM
As a nation we would be consuming 95% of what we were the day before. That can very much be not so bad.
The problem is that we're not going to be 95% as productive as before, so unemployment will go up, so will the related chain events. It is a bit bothersome that our economy is almost always defined in how it changes, and not where it is, but that's what people perceive.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2012, 11:36:36 AM
Which one is the 5% the cutting spending or the raising taxes?
That's the combined total. Even the stuff that's most likely to occur totals 1.9% of GDP. That's a big chunk - in one year - for a weak economy to take.
QuoteWe already did the almost default thing. That's water under the bridge at this point. If are going to be frightened over that, then they are already frightened.
And the effect was the biggest fall in the stock market since 2009, the GAO estimates the cost to the US government of that fight was $1.5 billion and long-term to the economy was $19 billion. It's an expensive bit of political grandstanding.
QuoteAs a nation we would be consuming 95% of what we were the day before. That can very much be not so bad.
Except it's already having an effect. 61% of companies have said the fiscal cliff uncertainty is affecting their hiring plans and durable goods orders are stagnating this year because they don't know how much disposable income their consumers will have. If you combine that size of tax increases and spending cuts with ongoing private sector deleveraging, in a context of weak global demand then the fiscal multiplier effect could be even larger than the latest IMF estimates. The Economist a while back quoted a couple of CEOs of global firms saying they'd expect a worldwide recession - which last happened in 2008-9 and before that hadn't happened since the recession. It would be a disgrace because it was so easily avoidable.
QuoteI can't believe you're actually making the argument that the US government's credibility is at stake.
One of the jobs of a government - one of the most important - is to provide a stable, secure and predictable environment for economic growth. Without it companies and individuals aren't able to plan. The problem with the debt ceiling wasn't that the US would default - I don't think anyone believed that even at the worst points - but that the system had become so dysfunctional that default was even a possibility. As the CFR put it on the debt ceiling a shutdown's bad for individuals but it's nothing to the symbolic message of political failure that the debt ceiling debacle sent to the markets (which would've been worse without the deal). I think it's similar here, everything I've read about the markets and the fiscal cliff says that they expect a deal. If it fails then I think it's another slide to a situation where American businesses and investors have to be wary of and take steps against political risk. According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses 35% of respondents said that uncertainty over government actions was a critical concern and it was the fourth biggest problem for small businesses (behind healthcare costs, uncertainty over economic conditions - which is linked - and fuel costs).
I don't see how you can judge Washington as a rational actor any more if both parties can't agree to avoid an average household tax increase of $3 500 and indiscriminate spending cuts in a weak economy when it's in both of their interests to avoid it. If economic policy is no longer stable and predictable by the markets then that will have a significant effect on investment.
Pfft, what do you guys in England know about radical and rapid austerity, anyway? :rolleyes:
I think you can credibly argue the UK's austerity of about 1% a year is about right, though I'd disagree. Arguing that 5% this year - which is literally only comparable with Greece - wouldn't be so bad is madness. In addition British austerity has been clearly signposted throughout, it's predictable which is a virtue.
The delusion, especially among Democrats, that it'll be okay if they step over the fiscal cliff seems dangerous. The view they can just take one step over and then it'll be okay because they'll be able to fix it shortly afterwards, because Republicans will be voting for a tax cut not tax rises, strikes me as too political by half. Again it goes to credibility, there is a problem with a government that cuts spending and raises taxes as part of political sleight of hand.
Meh, doesn't matter anyway. GOP won't make a deal anyway; if they can't beat Obama in an election, destroying his second term is the next best thing. Prezzidizzle will be the one holding the bag, and that's OK by them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2012, 12:44:57 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 11, 2012, 09:57:44 AM
Yes it would. You can't cut spending and increase taxes, overnight, by 5% of GDP and it 'not be so bad'.
As a nation we would be consuming 95% of what we were the day before. That can very much be not so bad.
How?
Let's go back to the accounting identity: Y(GDP)=C+I+G+(X-M)
The proposal is to cut C+G by 5 percent.
The austerity may reduce imports so X-M may improve. But C+G is on the order of $14 trillion, whereas imports and exports are in the 2-3 trillion range, so there would have to be massive trade effects to offset the spending drop.
Which means the only thing that would prevent a massive recession would be a huge increase in private investment. So one would have to assume that businesses will suddenly start investing madly out of euphoria over the prospect of a balanced budget in 2020, notwithstanding the fact that their domestic market has shrunk overnight by 5 percent.
I am not convinced.
Note that I haven't even taken into account the possbility of negative multipliers over 1, as per the recent IMF study.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 11, 2012, 02:07:51 PMY(GDP)=C+I+G+(X-M)
Dear lord, I was just taken on a flashback into 1992 to my first macroeconomics class at school. :lol:
What you seem to be suggesting Joan, is that we can only reduce the deficit to the extent that it does not drive GDP growth into the red. That seems to me to result in a pretty long time frame before we're back on a sustainable path.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2012, 05:38:38 PM
What you seem to be suggesting Joan, is that we can only reduce the deficit to the extent that it does not drive GDP growth into the red. That seems to me to result in a pretty long time frame before we're back on a sustainable path.
Not necessarily. If the economy recovers to something nearer to full employment and credit growth recover, then fiscal multipliers could dip below one, and it could be possible to have net fiscal consolidation without negative GDP growth.
the alternative of tanking the economy leads to a catch the falling knife problem, because then you are just applying higher tax rates to a falling income base.
If the fiscal multiplier dips to 1, then we can cut 2% of our 8% deficit and reduce GDP growth to zero. That still leaves us a way to go.
If you wouldn't mind, please explain to me the linkage between unemployment, credit growth, and the fiscal multiplier.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2012, 06:46:23 PM
If you wouldn't mind, please explain to me the linkage between unemployment, credit growth, and the fiscal multiplier.
Under conditions of full employment, deficit financing isn't going boost growth (resources are already fully employed) so there is no multiplier. There may be a risk that cutting spending may knock the economy off the full employment path, but if economic conditions are good, then private credit growth (i.e. private deficit financing) can offset the loss of public deficit financing.
It seems now that you are proposing an even more impossible standard for deficit reduction than I had originally thought.
We can only reduce the deficit in conditions of full employment, when the deficit is having no positive effect on output and growth. I.e. when the multiplier is zero.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2012, 12:04:10 PM
It seems now that you are proposing an even more impossible standard for deficit reduction than I had originally thought.
We can only reduce the deficit in conditions of full employment, when the deficit is having no positive effect on output and growth. I.e. when the multiplier is zero.
Yeah. And from what I'm hearing we need to do another stimulus (creating an even more insurmountable debt) to get to that point!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2012, 12:04:10 PM
It seems now that you are proposing an even more impossible standard for deficit reduction than I had originally thought.
We can only reduce the deficit in conditions of full employment, when the deficit is having no positive effect on output and growth. I.e. when the multiplier is zero.
No I did not propose that.
Reread post 39.
I can't help but think that it appears that there are no "real" circumstances under which it can ever be appropriate to not spend more and more and more and more and more.
Considering that every economist I've seen has clearly stated that the debt crisis cannot be solved simply by raising taxes, this strikes me as something of a problem.
The Republicans have really epically failed at getting their message across. They've let the Dems successfully make the entire thing all about taxes on the wealthy, which is very unfortunate, since the problem cannot even be solved solely by higher taxes on the wealthy (or even on the middle class). It is something like, at best, 8% of the solution.
This has always been my problem with the Dems. No matter what the circumstances are, the answer is always to spend more money than last year. Things are going well, spend more. Things are going ok, spend more. Things are going badly? Holy shit, now we REALLY have to spend more!
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2012, 03:14:54 PM
This has always been my problem with the Dems. No matter what the circumstances are, the answer is always to spend more money than last year. Things are going well, spend more. Things are going ok, spend more. Things are going badly? Holy shit, now we REALLY have to spend more!
Paul Krugman just came. Well actually he would be furious because they did not spend enough money.
Deficit spending seems to be like a drug for governments. The withdrawal symptoms will be severe if we ever try to go clean.
Economists are almost always in favor of cutting spending when things are booming, but nobody listens because "things are going well, and we don't want to mess with what works". The problem is that cutting the deficit/debt is only ever discussed when the deficit/debt start skyrocketing. This happens when tax revenues go down and/or gov't spending goes up, which can be an indication of recession. If it is a recession that's the worst time to cut gov't spending.
So yeah, there's always people saying it's the wrong time to cut spending, but it's different people at different times.
I'd like it if target gov't spending would be reduced year to year whenever the economy is doing well, but freed up again when things went south.
Or if we kept it the same all the time, then the deficit would automatically go positive and negative as the economy fluctuates and effects revenues. Probably everyone on both sides would hate that plan though.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 12, 2012, 04:34:58 PM
Or if we kept it the same all the time, then the deficit would automatically go positive and negative as the economy fluctuates and effects revenues. Probably everyone on both sides would hate that plan though.
That would tend to make booms boomier and busts bustier (cue Caligula). Not a good thing.
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2012, 03:14:54 PM
I can't help but think that it appears that there are no "real" circumstances under which it can ever be appropriate to not spend more and more and more and more and more.
Considering that every economist I've seen has clearly stated that the debt crisis cannot be solved simply by raising taxes, this strikes me as something of a problem.
The Republicans have really epically failed at getting their message across. They've let the Dems successfully make the entire thing all about taxes on the wealthy, which is very unfortunate, since the problem cannot even be solved solely by higher taxes on the wealthy (or even on the middle class). It is something like, at best, 8% of the solution.
This has always been my problem with the Dems. No matter what the circumstances are, the answer is always to spend more money than last year. Things are going well, spend more. Things are going ok, spend more. Things are going badly? Holy shit, now we REALLY have to spend more!
What an odd post. The Dems have said consistently they are willing to cut spending. :huh:
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2012, 04:46:13 PM
What an odd post. The Dems have said consistently they are willing to cut spending. :huh:
Yeah, cuts that won't take effect until 5-10 years from now or longer. Pretty easy to throw shit like that on the table without any intention of actually making it become a reality. And they won't even talk about cutting entitlement spending.
Besides, Obama is pushing for a new round of stimulus spending.
Quote from: derspiess on December 12, 2012, 04:57:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2012, 04:46:13 PM
What an odd post. The Dems have said consistently they are willing to cut spending. :huh:
Yeah, cuts that won't take effect until 5-10 years from now or longer. Pretty easy to throw shit like that on the table without any intention of actually making it become a reality. And they won't even talk about cutting entitlement spending.
Besides, Obama is pushing for a new round of stimulus spending.
You know, I seem to recall Republican plans to cut the budget a few years ago using the same gimmick. Along with tax cuts that take effect right now.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2012, 05:11:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 12, 2012, 04:57:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2012, 04:46:13 PM
What an odd post. The Dems have said consistently they are willing to cut spending. :huh:
Yeah, cuts that won't take effect until 5-10 years from now or longer. Pretty easy to throw shit like that on the table without any intention of actually making it become a reality. And they won't even talk about cutting entitlement spending.
Besides, Obama is pushing for a new round of stimulus spending.
You know, I seem to recall Republican plans to cut the budget a few years ago using the same gimmick. Along with tax cuts that take effect right now.
I'm not sure about the relevance. Der didn't say in his post that the Repubs do it better than Dems.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2012, 05:11:40 PM
You know, I seem to recall Republican plans to cut the budget a few years ago using the same gimmick. Along with tax cuts that take effect right now.
Two wrongs don't make a right. :mellow:
Quote from: merithyn on December 12, 2012, 05:19:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2012, 05:11:40 PM
You know, I seem to recall Republican plans to cut the budget a few years ago using the same gimmick. Along with tax cuts that take effect right now.
Two wrongs don't make a right. :mellow:
Do two Wongs make a Wright?
Quote from: garbon on December 12, 2012, 05:18:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2012, 05:11:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 12, 2012, 04:57:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2012, 04:46:13 PM
What an odd post. The Dems have said consistently they are willing to cut spending. :huh:
Yeah, cuts that won't take effect until 5-10 years from now or longer. Pretty easy to throw shit like that on the table without any intention of actually making it become a reality. And they won't even talk about cutting entitlement spending.
Besides, Obama is pushing for a new round of stimulus spending.
You know, I seem to recall Republican plans to cut the budget a few years ago using the same gimmick. Along with tax cuts that take effect right now.
I'm not sure about the relevance. Der didn't say in his post that the Repubs do it better than Dems.
No, but this was the implied in Berkut's post. If Speiss's post didn't imply a superiority in Republican plans compared to Democratic plans then what was the fucking point?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2012, 05:26:20 PM
No, but this was the implied in Berkut's post. If Speiss's post didn't imply a superiority in Republican plans compared to Democratic plans then what was the fucking point?
Watch your language.
Yeah, for fuck's sake. :mad:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 12, 2012, 12:21:36 PM
No I did not propose that.
Reread post 39.
You're right. But close to it. I believe someone posted some historical data here a long time ago (around the debate on Obamastimulus) that showed the fiscal multiplier in the US is around 2. So since we're not at full employment, the most we can do right now is decrease the deficit by 1% of GDP without going into recession. The remaining 7% of deficit will have to wait for the reoccurence of growth.
Two things -
One: I've seen it argued that the only things to cut that would significantly affect the deficit is 1 - Defence and 2 - Health Care. Yes, other things could be cut, but ultimately it would have fairly little impact overall on the deficit.
How accurate is this, would you think?
One version of the argument here (I assume it's a fairly Dem slanted article): http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/why-republicans-cant-propose-spending-cuts.html
Two: The Fed explicitly links interest rates to employment rate, in the so-called "Twister"; this should apparently act as a stimulus: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20666162
Is this good, bad, pointless?
Quote from: garbon on December 12, 2012, 05:18:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2012, 05:11:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 12, 2012, 04:57:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2012, 04:46:13 PM
What an odd post. The Dems have said consistently they are willing to cut spending. :huh:
Yeah, cuts that won't take effect until 5-10 years from now or longer. Pretty easy to throw shit like that on the table without any intention of actually making it become a reality. And they won't even talk about cutting entitlement spending.
Besides, Obama is pushing for a new round of stimulus spending.
You know, I seem to recall Republican plans to cut the budget a few years ago using the same gimmick. Along with tax cuts that take effect right now.
I'm not sure about the relevance. Der didn't say in his post that the Repubs do it better than Dems.
It is spelled Dur.
Quote from: Jacob on December 12, 2012, 06:47:27 PM
Two things -
One: I've seen it argued that the only things to cut that would significantly affect the deficit is 1 - Defence and 2 - Health Care. Yes, other things could be cut, but ultimately it would have fairly little impact overall on the deficit.
How accurate is this, would you think?
They left out Social Security. That, defense, Medicare/Medicaid, and interest on the debt account for something on the order of 80% of total spending. Some wag once described the US government as a pension plan with an army attached.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2012, 07:52:19 PMThey left out Social Security. That, defense, Medicare/Medicaid, and interest on the debt account for something on the order of 80% of total spending. Some wag once described the US government as a pension plan with an army attached.
Right... because Social Security comes out of general funds in the US. Right?
So 80% of the spending is Social Security, Defence, Medicare/Medicaid, and interest...
Can't cut on the interest payments, I assume. Where should any cuts be made? It would seem that most of them ought to be from the 80% of the budget, somehow.
Social Security has its own dedicated tax, as does Medicare/Medicaid.
Whether it "comes out of the general fund" or not is a bit of a semantic issue.
You know, it could just be simplest answer: US is trying to spend like a civilized country, and adequate social safety net is expected of a civilized country these days, but it just doesn't tax accordingly. It would always have deficits with a schizophrenic mandate like that, but it is just made all the more apparent during a recession that blows up spending and shrinks revenues automatically.
This table is illustrative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP Not a lot of countries below US on this list that you would really want to emulate.
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2012, 03:14:54 PM
Considering that every economist I've seen has clearly stated that the debt crisis cannot be solved simply by raising taxes, this strikes me as something of a problem.
But this is a straw man. No-one's proposing solving the debt crisis by simply raising taxes.
Looking at past examples of successful fiscal consolidation no-one's ever done it by spending cuts or raising taxes alone. The most extreme, which the UK government's following, is 1:4 revenue:spending ratio. That was done by Ireland in the 80s, a few Scandi states and Canada in the 90s I think. The more common route's been closer to 1:1 which is what Britain had in the 90s. Anyone who says you can do this without new revenues or less spending is talking nonsense.
QuoteThat would tend to make booms boomier and busts bustier (cue Caligula). Not a good thing.
Yep. That's the strategy that worked so well in Ireland and Spain :(
QuoteAnd they won't even talk about cutting entitlement spending.
Hasn't Obama said, more than once, he's open to raising the Medicare eligibility age?
QuoteOne: I've seen it argued that the only things to cut that would significantly affect the deficit is 1 - Defence and 2 - Health Care. Yes, other things could be cut, but ultimately it would have fairly little impact overall on the deficit.
How accurate is this, would you think?
You could eliminate the entire non-defence, non-interest, non-Social Security/Medicare budget and you wouldn't have significantly cut the deficit. This arguably is why the US may struggle to emulate Ireland, Scandinavia and Canada. There's less state to cut without that actually negatively affecting many people's lives and causing a large backlash. Especially because old people vote.
QuoteYou're right. But close to it. I believe someone posted some historical data here a long time ago (around the debate on Obamastimulus) that showed the fiscal multiplier in the US is around 2. So since we're not at full employment, the most we can do right now is decrease the deficit by 1% of GDP without going into recession. The remaining 7% of deficit will have to wait for the reoccurence of growth.
Well the most likely to occur fiscal cliff is still 2% of GDP - which is double what austerity-model Britain has done in any year. But yeah, a deficit that large is going to take many years to eliminate and it's going to take deeper cuts or far more taxes because the US has the highest structural deficit (which is a real problem) in the OECD.
But I think this is going to be the fiscal situation for most of the West for a decade or more. Government's are going to be very limited in the amount they can increase spending, raise taxes or go on foreign adventures. Chances are it's only going to get more difficult and more about priorities as the population ages.
Also I love that Berk used Clinton's riff on Republicans and taxes about the Democrats :)
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2012, 09:00:27 PM
You know, it could just be simplest answer: US is trying to spend like a civilized country, and adequate social safety net is expected of a civilized country these days, but it just doesn't tax accordingly. It would always have deficits with a schizophrenic mandate like that, but it is just made all the more apparent during a recession that blows up spending and shrinks revenues automatically.
This table is illustrative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP Not a lot of countries below US on this list that you would really want to emulate.
Yay Zimbabwe is #2! Right after Kiribati. :P
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2012, 09:00:27 PM
This table is illustrative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP Not a lot of countries below US on this list that you would really want to emulate.
Half of the Republican party wouldn't mind emulating the religious government Saudi Arabia. The other half of the party would be willing sign away their freedoms to a friendly looking gestapo so as long as their tax rates went down to 5.3%.
Quote from: Fate on December 12, 2012, 10:15:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2012, 09:00:27 PM
This table is illustrative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP Not a lot of countries below US on this list that you would really want to emulate.
Half of the Republican party wouldn't mind emulating the religious government Saudi Arabia. The other half of the party would be willing sign away their freedoms to a friendly looking gestapo so as long as their tax rates went down to 5.3%.
Somehow, I doubt that 50% of Republicans want a Wahhabist government.
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2012, 09:00:27 PM
You know, it could just be simplest answer: US is trying to spend like a civilized country, and adequate social safety net is expected of a civilized country these days, but it just doesn't tax accordingly. It would always have deficits with a schizophrenic mandate like that, but it is just made all the more apparent during a recession that blows up spending and shrinks revenues automatically.
This table is illustrative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP Not a lot of countries below US on this list that you would really want to emulate.
I don't disagree with the basic sentiment DG< but the problem is that only looking at taxes and revenues ignores that basic reality that we cannot close the gap by increasing taxes. It is too large.
I am in favor of tax increases. I am even more in favor of tax reform that will amount to an increase, for that matter.
But it is not the solution, certainly it is not the entire solution.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 12, 2012, 09:54:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2012, 03:14:54 PM
Considering that every economist I've seen has clearly stated that the debt crisis cannot be solved simply by raising taxes, this strikes me as something of a problem.
But this is a straw man. No-one's proposing solving the debt crisis by simply raising taxes.
But it isn't a strawman - if in fact the Dems are in favor of cutting spending, why haven't they done so?
They've been able to cut spending for the last 4+ years, and yet they have instead increased it every single year.
So it is great that they cite "plans" to cut spending, but it is not convincing since they don't actually do it - and in fact do the exact opposite, and in vast amounts, and apparently plan on more and more increased spending.
I think it was more the Republicans that got us into this mess of course, but I don't see the Dems paying more than lip service to getting us out of it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2012, 06:36:02 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 12, 2012, 12:21:36 PM
No I did not propose that.
Reread post 39.
You're right. But close to it.
Not so close.
The conditions "closer to full employment" and expanding credit are not that hard to satisfy. They have been applicable for about half the years in the US since the end of WW2.
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2012, 03:14:54 PM
This has always been my problem with the Dems. No matter what the circumstances are, the answer is always to spend more money than last year. Things are going well, spend more. Things are going ok, spend more. Things are going badly? Holy shit, now we REALLY have to spend more!
The problem with your problem is that the facts contradict it.
When Clinton was President, federal spending/GDP declined every year he was in office. And when the economy went into boom, the money was use to run a budget surplus and take the debt down.
And yes for a good portion of that time the GOP controlled Congress. But the President's budgets called for the deficit reduction.
BTW spending also fell during JFK's presidency and the first two years under LBJ.
Quote from: frunk on December 12, 2012, 04:08:58 PM
Economists are almost always in favor of cutting spending when things are booming, but nobody listens because "things are going well, and we don't want to mess with what works". The problem is that cutting the deficit/debt is only ever discussed when the deficit/debt start skyrocketing. This happens when tax revenues go down and/or gov't spending goes up, which can be an indication of recession. If it is a recession that's the worst time to cut gov't spending.
So yeah, there's always people saying it's the wrong time to cut spending, but it's different people at different times.
I'd like it if target gov't spending would be reduced year to year whenever the economy is doing well, but freed up again when things went south.
I am trying to recall how deficit and debt reduction became a motherhood issue in this country so that everyone got behind spending cuts and tax increases. I cant really recall what caused it but our situation was similar to what you are going through. Debt and spending appeared to be out of control. But I think a major difference is we had a real fear that we would no longer be able to fund our debt - ie nobody would want to buy it.
That may be the signifcant difference. Americans dont really see debt financing as a problem. There is just the vague notion that paying off the debt is being off loaded to future generations without ever questioning whether you would be able to convince people to actually take the risk of continuing to underwrite that debt.
Quote from: Berkut on December 13, 2012, 08:11:56 AM
But it isn't a strawman - if in fact the Dems are in favor of cutting spending, why haven't they done so?
They've been able to cut spending for the last 4+ years, and yet they have instead increased it every single year.
So it is great that they cite "plans" to cut spending, but it is not convincing since they don't actually do it - and in fact do the exact opposite, and in vast amounts, and apparently plan on more and more increased spending.
I think it was more the Republicans that got us into this mess of course, but I don't see the Dems paying more than lip service to getting us out of it.
The Dems had been until the recession. At that point, they - and most economists - believed that they needed to spend to make things better. So yes, for the last few years, that's what they've done. However, prior to the recession, it was the Dems who had cut spending and raised taxes while in office (Clinton) while the Republicans lowered taxes and increased spending while they were in office (Bush).
From my perspective, we're still reeling from Bush Jr. His policies put us in the spot we're in now, and while Obama hasn't pulled us out, he's not working with the same economic structure that Clinton was. We can't just change everything back and pray that it doesn't screw up the economy worse. It's going to take a very delicate balancing act, and I think that Obama - far more than Boehner - sees that. (At least, that's how it appears, though I expect that Boehner sees this far more than we're shown.)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2012, 10:29:33 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2012, 03:14:54 PM
This has always been my problem with the Dems. No matter what the circumstances are, the answer is always to spend more money than last year. Things are going well, spend more. Things are going ok, spend more. Things are going badly? Holy shit, now we REALLY have to spend more!
The problem with your problem is that the facts contradict it.
When Clinton was President, federal spending/GDP declined every year he was in office. And when the economy went into boom, the money was use to run a budget surplus and take the debt down.
And yes for a good portion of that time the GOP controlled Congress. But the President's budgets called for the deficit reduction.
BTW spending also fell during JFK's presidency and the first two years under LBJ.
Except that's not really true. The budget was "balanced" or even ran a surplus under Clinton because Social Security spending wasn't being counted. Which would have been OK if the Social Security system was running at a surplus, or even breaking even, but that wasn't the case.
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2012, 10:42:34 AM
Except that's not really true. The budget was "balanced" or even ran a surplus under Clinton because Social Security spending wasn't being counted. Which would have been OK if the Social Security system was running at a surplus, or even breaking even, but that wasn't the case.
The budget was still in far better shape then than it is now. You can't argue that.
Quote from: merithyn on December 13, 2012, 10:45:06 AM
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2012, 10:42:34 AM
Except that's not really true. The budget was "balanced" or even ran a surplus under Clinton because Social Security spending wasn't being counted. Which would have been OK if the Social Security system was running at a surplus, or even breaking even, but that wasn't the case.
The budget was still in far better shape then than it is now. You can't argue that.
We were up to our waists in quicksand then; now we're up to our armpits. Yeah, ok, sure, we were better off when we were up to our waists, but I don't see the point in pretending the Clinton administration had us striding on solid ground.
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2012, 10:42:34 AM
Except that's not really true. The budget was "balanced" or even ran a surplus under Clinton because Social Security spending wasn't being counted. Which would have been OK if the Social Security system was running at a surplus, or even breaking even, but that wasn't the case.
Utter nonsense. Take 1999 - whether you look purely "on-budget" or include the off budget items as well, the government was running a surplus.
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2012, 10:48:06 AM
We were up to our waists in quicksand then; now we're up to our armpits. Yeah, ok, sure, we were better off when we were up to our waists, but I don't see the point in pretending the Clinton administration had us striding on solid ground.
:huh:
But he did. Every economist then and now has said that the Clinton administration had us on the most solid ground that we'd been on in decades, and had we stuck with that general MO, we'd be doing far better than we are today. This is, to be frank, the first time that I've ever heard anyone say that the budget solution then was problematic.
See, Valmy? Told you people didn't believe it.
To put the US facts in full perspective.
There have been four periods in postwar US history where deficit spending increased notably despite strong economic conditions:
1) 1957-1959
2) 1965-1968
3) 1984-1986
4) 2003-2004
There are various reasons for why these happened, but note that 3 of the 4 occurred under GOP presidents who for various reasons chose to expand federal spending.
The other is LBJ. But note that while LBJ has (with some reason) become a kind of cautionary tale for indisciplined spending, the US public debt/GDP ratio actually declined *every year* he was President. And that is because deficit/GDP only exceeded 1 percent in 2 years and never went over 3 percent.
The idea of the American Democratic Party as a bunch of spendthrift wastrels is a myth without basis in historical fact.
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2012, 11:06:28 AM
See, Valmy? Told you people didn't believe it.
This isn't theology; it's not a question of belief. There are facts and those facts can be found in statistical accounts.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2012, 10:29:33 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2012, 03:14:54 PM
This has always been my problem with the Dems. No matter what the circumstances are, the answer is always to spend more money than last year. Things are going well, spend more. Things are going ok, spend more. Things are going badly? Holy shit, now we REALLY have to spend more!
The problem with your problem is that the facts contradict it.
When Clinton was President, federal spending/GDP declined every year he was in office. And when the economy went into boom, the money was use to run a budget surplus and take the debt down.
And yes for a good portion of that time the GOP controlled Congress. But the President's budgets called for the deficit reduction.
BTW spending also fell during JFK's presidency and the first two years under LBJ.
There is a reason I think Clinton was a pretty damn good President.
The Dems since then, and previous to him, don't seem to be following that model however.
Quote from: Berkut on December 13, 2012, 11:44:22 AM
There is a reason I think Clinton was a pretty damn good President.
The Dems since then, and previous to him, don't seem to be following that model however.
The only Democratic president we've had since him has been Obama, who's been handed a recession to keep in line while trying to fix what Bush Jr broke. That seems unfair to compare the two.
Prior to Clinton, I think only Jimmy Carter was a major cock-up economically speaking. Others may not have been as effective, but I don't see them as being inept.
Quote from: merithyn on December 13, 2012, 11:52:07 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 13, 2012, 11:44:22 AM
There is a reason I think Clinton was a pretty damn good President.
The Dems since then, and previous to him, don't seem to be following that model however.
The only Democratic president we've had since him has been Obama, who's been handed a recession to keep in line while trying to fix what Bush Jr broke. That seems unfair to compare the two.
Prior to Clinton, I think only Jimmy Carter was a major cock-up economically speaking. Others may not have been as effective, but I don't see them as being inept.
I think he is also casting a wider net and looking at other figures with leadership.
I don't see any evidence that Obama has been irresponsible with respect to fiscal policy.
There is a clear comparison here. The UK government responded to the crisis by doing exactly what the hawks here counsel - adopted an aggressive program of fiscal austerity, empahsizing cuts in government spending. In contrast, Obama pushed through a stimulus (although a fairly weak one).
The result is that while US deficits/GDP were 8.7% in 2011 and forecast for 8.5%, the UK is at 7.7% for 2011/12 -- and the latest statistical releases from the UK show government borrowing increasing.
Basically, the UK's virtuous austerity campaign has bought them nothing. The reason is simple: while the US economy has grown since ARRA (albeit fitfully), the austerity drive helped push the UK into stagnation, denting revenue collection and putting more demand on government services.
Of course, there are other factors at play: for example the US has benefitted from an energy (shale) boom while in the UK North Sea oil is slowly declining. But there are always other factors at play. The bigger point is that while the Fed's relative aggressiveness and ARRA gave the US some space to recover from a classic balance sheet recession, the Cameron/Osborne hairshirt policy left zero room for maneuver for the UK.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2012, 12:01:39 PM
Basically, the UK's virtuous austerity campaign has bought them nothing.
C'mon Joan, you're a very bright guy. Austerity doesn't buy growth, it buys you a reprieve from the grim reaper of default.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2012, 12:01:39 PM
I don't see any evidence that Obama has been irresponsible with respect to fiscal policy.
Of course you don't. You never criticize him for anything.
Quote from: derspiess on December 13, 2012, 12:07:40 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2012, 12:01:39 PM
I don't see any evidence that Obama has been irresponsible with respect to fiscal policy.
Of course you don't. You never criticize him for anything.
Do you still stand by your "The US wasn't really running a surplus in the 1990's" thing?
Quote from: merithyn on December 13, 2012, 11:52:07 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 13, 2012, 11:44:22 AM
There is a reason I think Clinton was a pretty damn good President.
The Dems since then, and previous to him, don't seem to be following that model however.
The only Democratic president we've had since him has been Obama, who's been handed a recession to keep in line while trying to fix what Bush Jr broke. That seems unfair to compare the two.
Prior to Clinton, I think only Jimmy Carter was a major cock-up economically speaking. Others may not have been as effective, but I don't see them as being inept.
You know, the Dem party is not solely defined by the President.
I am not talking about which President is in charge, I am talking about what the party seems to want - meaning Congress, Dems as individuals, etc., etc.
It is great that ONE Democrat, Clinton, while he was in charge did not see it as his mission in life to increase federal spending as much as possible.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2012, 12:04:01 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2012, 12:01:39 PM
Basically, the UK's virtuous austerity campaign has bought them nothing.
C'mon Joan, you're a very bright guy. Austerity doesn't buy growth, it buys you a reprieve from the grim reaper of default.
But the UK and the US are both fiat currency issues. Default isn't the issue. Inflation is. But anyone c. 2009 making the judgment that inflation was a bigger risk than deflation needs to have their head examined and certificate of governance revoked.
The other consideration that must always be kept in mind is that economy needs to be considered as a whole. The public sector is just one piece. The fact of the matter is that the US *did* engage in austerity on a rather massive scale: but that austerity consisted of consumers and business enterprises sharply increasing their private savings and paying down debt. I can't emphasize too much how vital that was to the ability of the US to recover from a collapse brought on by years of over-extension by consumers and the financial institutions that lent to them. The willingness of the public sector to take on additional indebtedness made that recovery in private sector balance sheets possible. The problem with public sector austerity in the context of a balance sheet recession is that it inhibits that vital process of repairing private sector indebtedness. Thus, public austerity not only doesn't (in the US/UK context) stave off a public default, it actually increases the risks of private defaults.
It's all one economy.
Right, so clearly the right thing to do is spend spend spend. The public sector can and should just spend with no consideration to any kind of balance to the budget.
Should we just not worry about raising taxes at all then, since public sector debt is apparently great?
Maybe we should cut taxes in fact, in addition to spending more and more and more. Why not?
Berkut, are you posting from an alternate dimension or what?
Quote from: Berkut on December 13, 2012, 12:18:11 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 13, 2012, 11:52:07 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 13, 2012, 11:44:22 AM
There is a reason I think Clinton was a pretty damn good President.
The Dems since then, and previous to him, don't seem to be following that model however.
The only Democratic president we've had since him has been Obama, who's been handed a recession to keep in line while trying to fix what Bush Jr broke. That seems unfair to compare the two.
Prior to Clinton, I think only Jimmy Carter was a major cock-up economically speaking. Others may not have been as effective, but I don't see them as being inept.
You know, the Dem party is not solely defined by the President.
I am not talking about which President is in charge, I am talking about what the party seems to want - meaning Congress, Dems as individuals, etc., etc.
It is great that ONE Democrat, Clinton, while he was in charge did not see it as his mission in life to increase federal spending as much as possible.
But I only know the Presidents. :(
Which is not entirely true, it's just that the Republicans stand out more for me than the Democrats. And to a degree, the party politics always seem to be the important entity rather than the individual personalities, which means I'm less likely to pipe in on that stuff. I may recognize that the parties don't define the policy makers, but it has felt for the last decade or longer that the policy makers as individuals aren't nearly as important as the parties. If that makes sense.
As such, the Democrats - while not perfect - have had the better economic policies from my perspective than the Republicans. That may be because I do tend to quantify them by their leaders (Bush vs. Clinton/Obama) than as they, as individuals, may vote on policies. Lazy on my part, to be sure.
Quote from: Berkut on December 13, 2012, 12:21:52 PM
Right, so clearly the right thing to do is spend spend spend. The public sector can and should just spend with no consideration to any kind of balance to the budget.
Should we just not worry about raising taxes at all then, since public sector debt is apparently great?
Maybe we should cut taxes in fact, in addition to spending more and more and more. Why not?
If, indeed, there's no risk of default, and the threat of inflation isn't an important concern, then why not?
Quote from: Berkut on December 13, 2012, 12:21:52 PM
Right, so clearly the right thing to do is spend spend spend. The public sector can and should just spend with no consideration to any kind of balance to the budget.
Should we just not worry about raising taxes at all then, since public sector debt is apparently great?
Maybe we should cut taxes in fact, in addition to spending more and more and more. Why not?
Why does it have to be all or nothing? I really dislike it when you slip into that mode. You know, as well as everyone else, that Joan is saying that we need a balanced approach - which is what we have had - that tends toward stimulus spending right now while increasing taxes and cutting spending elsewhere. That seems like a fair, balanced way to get through this very slow return from the recession.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2012, 12:18:41 PM
But the UK and the US are both fiat currency issues. Default isn't the issue. Inflation is. But anyone c. 2009 making the judgment that inflation was a bigger risk than deflation needs to have their head examined and certificate of governance revoked.
History is replete with examples of issuers of fiat currency which have defaulted.
QuoteThe other consideration that must always be kept in mind is that economy needs to be considered as a whole. The public sector is just one piece. The fact of the matter is that the US *did* engage in austerity on a rather massive scale: but that austerity consisted of consumers and business enterprises sharply increasing their private savings and paying down debt. I can't emphasize too much how vital that was to the ability of the US to recover from a collapse brought on by years of over-extension by consumers and the financial institutions that lent to them. The willingness of the public sector to take on additional indebtedness made that recovery in private sector balance sheets possible. The problem with public sector austerity in the context of a balance sheet recession is that it inhibits that vital process of repairing private sector indebtedness. Thus, public austerity not only doesn't (in the US/UK context) stave off a public default, it actually increases the risks of private defaults.
It's all one economy.
Fair enough. But what I fail to see is the logic behind the implicit argument that public insolvency is preferable to private insolvency.
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2012, 12:25:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 13, 2012, 12:21:52 PM
Right, so clearly the right thing to do is spend spend spend. The public sector can and should just spend with no consideration to any kind of balance to the budget.
Should we just not worry about raising taxes at all then, since public sector debt is apparently great?
Maybe we should cut taxes in fact, in addition to spending more and more and more. Why not?
If, indeed, there's no risk of default, and the threat of inflation isn't an important concern, then why not?
The risk of inflation wasn't a serious concern in 2009.
But after 3 years of adding debt, absent a credible plan to start bringing debt/GDP levels down, it could become a risk.
My point is only that panicked over-reaction -- like an instant 5% of GDP cut in spending - is like reducing the risk of some chronic condition by stabbing the patient in the heart. That will ensure that the condition won't develop, but at a high cost.
The question I would pose to the fiscal super-hawks is this: where do the dis-savings come from that will allow the government to increase its savings?
Let's assume that the trade balance is unlikely to improve significantly and that private investment in manufacturing and services is likely to remain muted - both pretty decent assumptions over the next year (2013).
If the government is to save more, then one of two things must happen:
1) more consumer borrowing
2) a new RE investment boom
I don't think that this is yet the right time for those things to happen. I think such a cure is worse than the disease.
Quote from: merithyn on December 13, 2012, 12:28:03 PM
Why does it have to be all or nothing? I really dislike it when you slip into that mode. You know, as well as everyone else, that Joan is saying that we need a balanced approach - which is what we have had - that tends toward stimulus spending right now while increasing taxes and cutting spending elsewhere. That seems like a fair, balanced way to get through this very slow return from the recession.
It's also a formula for kicking the can down the road and aggravating the problem. The most popular time to start a diet is next Monday. The most popular time to cut a deficit is a couple years from now, when things are better.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2012, 12:40:33 PM
History is replete with examples of issuers of fiat currency which have defaulted.
It's a matter of choice.
A country can either inflate its way out of the debt or impose losses directly on the bondholders.
The main difference is distributional consequences. Inflation spreads the pain more widely, but also harms vulnerable yet politically powerful groups like pensioners.
For a country like the US or UK, I would expect them to avoid the default route; smaller countries might prefer default.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2012, 12:42:49 PMIt's also a formula for kicking the can down the road and aggravating the problem. The most popular time to start a diet is next Monday. The most popular time to cut a deficit is a couple years from now, when things are better.
Seems that when things are better in a few years you're better off electing a Democrat like Clinton rather than a Republican like Bush. Seems more likely that the deficit will actually be shrunk, then.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2012, 12:42:49 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 13, 2012, 12:28:03 PM
Why does it have to be all or nothing? I really dislike it when you slip into that mode. You know, as well as everyone else, that Joan is saying that we need a balanced approach - which is what we have had - that tends toward stimulus spending right now while increasing taxes and cutting spending elsewhere. That seems like a fair, balanced way to get through this very slow return from the recession.
It's also a formula for kicking the can down the road and aggravating the problem. The most popular time to start a diet is next Monday. The most popular time to cut a deficit is a couple years from now, when things are better.
Sure. So in four years, after we get through this recession through the current policies on the table, we elect someone who feels the way you do. I'm 100% behind that.
Quote from: merithyn on December 13, 2012, 12:55:26 PM
Sure. So in four years, after we get through this recession through the current policies on the table, we elect someone who feels the way you do. I'm 100% behind that.
Technically we're no longer in a recession.
Let's say four years from now growth is around 2% a year and unemployment is around 7%. Should we elect someone who feels the way you do?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2012, 12:49:33 PM
It's a matter of choice.
A country can either inflate its way out of the debt or impose losses directly on the bondholders.
Both choices are similar in that they lead to an inability to borrow at nonpunative rates.
What about, you know, paying them back? That's an option too. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2012, 01:01:00 PM
Technically we're no longer in a recession.
Let's say four years from now growth is around 2% a year and unemployment is around 7%. Should we elect someone who feels the way you do?
To be honest, I think that our taxes are way too low for the society that we now live in. Based on that, I don't think that taxes should ever be as low as they are right now. Not for anyone. So, I think that once the economy is doing more than barely moving upward and unemployment is considerably lower, we need to up taxes so that we can up spending on social issues like universal medical and social security.
Not for the good of the economy, but for the good of the country.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2012, 01:02:44 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2012, 12:49:33 PM
It's a matter of choice.
A country can either inflate its way out of the debt or impose losses directly on the bondholders.
Both choices are similar in that they lead to an inability to borrow at nonpunative rates.
ATM I'm not sure there's been another 3 year span where it's been cheaper for the US to borrow money. The threat is certainly in the future that it will get more expensive, but I wouldn't say that it is an immediate worry. The inability of Congress to deal with the problem in a remotely rational way (see 1 1/2 years ago) frightens bondholders way more than the opportunity to buy more debt.
As an intellectual exercise, think of a time in the last, say fifty years, when it would have been the right time to cut spending.
It might be my bias coming through, but I never thought that way before. There has to be a correct time for it, but I think most of the time we just don't think about it because the pressure is off then.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2012, 01:02:44 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2012, 12:49:33 PM
It's a matter of choice.
A country can either inflate its way out of the debt or impose losses directly on the bondholders.
Both choices are similar in that they lead to an inability to borrow at nonpunative rates.
Agreed.
Debt sustainability is a concern but it has to be placed in context.
The US debt-GDP ratio of 100% is very high compared to say Norway at under 50%, moderately high compared to Germany or Canada at 80-85%, on the low side compared to Italy's 120%, and pleasantly light compared to Japan's 220%.
hypothetically if a country could borrow at 0% interest it could accumulate virtually any amount of debt because countries are immortal.
Of course we don't live in such a hypothetical world but where governments can issue debt at under 2% there is a lot of room to manuever.
The real question to ask is what is the long run cost of the economic distortions required to keep interest on public debt so low. (the Japanese experience suggests an answer that is not very reassuring) . It is a serious question and it explains why - contra whatevery berkut might think - I don't advocate the spend, spend, spend without end solution. But neither am I prepared to embrace sky-is-falling hysteria. At least not yet.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 13, 2012, 01:23:35 PM
As an intellectual exercise, think of a time in the last, say fifty years, when it would have been the right time to cut spending.
It might be my bias coming through, but I never thought that way before. There has to be a correct time for it, but I think most of the time we just don't think about it because the pressure is off then.
Eisenhower
Quote from: merithyn on December 13, 2012, 01:11:25 PM
To be honest, I think that our taxes are way too low for the society that we now live in. Based on that, I don't think that taxes should ever be as low as they are right now. Not for anyone. So, I think that once the economy is doing more than barely moving upward and unemployment is considerably lower, we need to up taxes so that we can up spending on social issues like universal medical and social security.
Not for the good of the economy, but for the good of the country.
"Barely moving upward" is pretty close to America's historical growth rate since the 1960s. I think we've averaged around 3%.
5% unemployment is generally accepted as the "full employment" level of unemployment. Not sure what you mean by considerably lower.
Quote from: frunk on December 13, 2012, 01:13:04 PM
ATM I'm not sure there's been another 3 year span where it's been cheaper for the US to borrow money. The threat is certainly in the future that it will get more expensive, but I wouldn't say that it is an immediate worry.
A Greek, a Spaniard, an Italian, a Portuguese, a Cypriot, or an Irishman could have said the exact same thing (and probably did) just before the shit hit the fan.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2012, 01:28:57 PM
Agreed.
Debt sustainability is a concern but it has to be placed in context.
The US debt-GDP ratio of 100% is very high compared to say Norway at under 50%, moderately high compared to Germany or Canada at 80-85%, on the low side compared to Italy's 120%, and pleasantly light compared to Japan's 220%.
And in two and half years of the status quo we will be Italy.
Quotehypothetically if a country could borrow at 0% interest it could accumulate virtually any amount of debt because countries are immortal.
Of course we don't live in such a hypothetical world but where governments can issue debt at under 2% there is a lot of room to manuever.
But that's not the relevant question. Rather we should ask what we will be charged to roll over that debt when it matures.
Quote from: Jacob on December 13, 2012, 12:51:55 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2012, 12:42:49 PMIt's also a formula for kicking the can down the road and aggravating the problem. The most popular time to start a diet is next Monday. The most popular time to cut a deficit is a couple years from now, when things are better.
Seems that when things are better in a few years you're better off electing a Democrat like Clinton rather than a Republican like Bush. Seems more likely that the deficit will actually be shrunk, then.
Hey, no argument from me - my point is NOT that we would be better of with Republicans in charge- certainly history has shown that is not the case.
MY point is simply that the Dems don't seem to do more than pay passing lip service to the idea of ever cutting spending, or even just not increasing it.
Even Joan, while he tells us how Clinton did not increase spending faster than revenues (he didn't cut anything, of course) is telling us out of the other side of his mouth that we should be spending more even now.
Clinton spent more - he didn't cut anything. When times were good, what was the right thing to do? Spend more money!
Times were really bad a few years ago, and the answer? Spend a LOT more money!
Times are tough now, but we are recovering, and what should we do? Why, we should spend MORE money!
I am no fiscal conservative "hawk" - I just think at some point we should maybe possibly consider not spending more moeny we don't have. I am not economist, and don't pretend to be any kind of expert, but simple and common sense should say that even for the wealthiest nation on earth, there must be SOME point where we should start being concerned about spending money we do not have.
And my experience with the Dems is that that point is never, ever, EVER today.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 13, 2012, 01:23:35 PM
As an intellectual exercise, think of a time in the last, say fifty years, when it would have been the right time to cut spending.
Define terms - do you mean cut spending absolutely, in real terms, or in %GDP terms.
From a purely fiscal management POV, what matters in %GDP terms. (i.e. without taking any ideological position re the appropriate role and scope of government).
With that in mind, I would say the following dates (what actually happened in parens):
1950-1953 (spending increased)
1955-1957 (spending increased)
1960-1968 (spending decreased up to 1965, increased from 1966-1968)
1971-1972 (spending decreased)
1976-1978 (spending decreased)
1984-1989 (spending increased in 84-85 and then went down)
1993-2000 (spending decreased. A lot.)
2004-2006 (spending increased slightly).
Focusing on the increases -
1950-53 involved a huge increase in military spending, ramping up for Cold War including of course the fighting in Korea
1955-57 was Ike building the interstate highway system and spending money on housing.
1966-68 was LBJ trying to fund the Great Society and escalate Vietnam at the same time. Of the two effects, the military one was larger.
1984-86 Reagan increasing military spending. Medicare costs also went up.
2004-06 Same as above - Bush fighting Iraq/GWOT and Medicare spending.
Of those I give Truman and Reagan passes. The Cold War had to be fought and while some of the mid-80s spending was wasteful it's hard to argue with results.
I give Ike a qualified pass. If you are going to spend in the boom, spend on infrastructure projects likely to increase future growth potential.
LBJ committed a now classic blunder; he could have gone for guns or butter but not both. Bush made the same mistake and compounded by piling it on the second tax cut.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 13, 2012, 12:11:50 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 13, 2012, 12:07:40 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2012, 12:01:39 PM
I don't see any evidence that Obama has been irresponsible with respect to fiscal policy.
Of course you don't. You never criticize him for anything.
Do you still stand by your "The US wasn't really running a surplus in the 1990's" thing?
:unsure:
It looked like it got shot down, I wondered if you wanted to defend it.
I think that was dps Raz.
I prefer healer Raz.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2012, 08:10:13 PM
Social Security has its own dedicated tax, as does Medicare/Medicaid.
Whether it "comes out of the general fund" or not is a bit of a semantic issue.
I hate to say it, but Yi's right on this one. It's mainly paid by the Social Security Trust Fund, which is where the tax goes, separate from your federal income tax, but it's supplemented by the general fund (since 2010, when more started being paid out than being collected in social security taxes).
Actually, if we're going to take a token pound of flesh from the wealthy, I'd prefer to see it be the social security taxable salary cap removed- as of right now, it's $110,000. So Joe Schmo who's been grinding along as a senior network engineer for ten years is paying at least the same amount of social security tax as Mitt Romney or even Warren Buffett.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 13, 2012, 03:16:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2012, 08:10:13 PM
Social Security has its own dedicated tax, as does Medicare/Medicaid.
Whether it "comes out of the general fund" or not is a bit of a semantic issue.
I hate to say it, but Yi's right on this one. It's mainly paid by the Social Security Trust Fund, which is where the tax goes, separate from your federal income tax, but it's supplemented by the general fund (since 2010, when more started being paid out than being collected in social security taxes).
Actually, if we're going to take a token pound of flesh from the wealthy, I'd prefer to see it be the social security taxable salary cap removed- as of right now, it's $110,000. So Joe Schmo who's been grinding along as a senior network engineer for ten years is paying at least the same amount of social security tax as Mitt Romney or even Warren Buffett.
Do they withhold social security from capital gains and investment income? I bet Joe actually pays a lot more than Mittens and Warren.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 13, 2012, 03:16:13 PM
I hate to say it, but Yi's right on this one
Another fan. :lol:
Quote from: sbr on December 13, 2012, 03:18:13 PM
Do they withhold social security from capital gains and investment income? I bet Joe actually pays a lot more than Mittens and Warren.
They don't--the tax is only on earned income up to $110k or so. But--I would think that both Romney and Buffett have that much earned income and are paying max social security taxes.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 13, 2012, 03:23:04 PM
Quote from: sbr on December 13, 2012, 03:18:13 PM
Do they withhold social security from capital gains and investment income? I bet Joe actually pays a lot more than Mittens and Warren.
They don't--the tax is only on earned income up to $110k or so. But--I would think that both Romney and Buffett have that much earned income and are paying max social security taxes.
I wasn't sure if either of then actually had a wage paying job that would have anything like that withheld. It was just off the top of my head though so I am likely wrong.
I'm pretty sure Buffet gets a salary as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway.
Don't know what Mitt woul be getting a salary for.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2012, 03:36:50 PM
I'm pretty sure Buffet gets a salary as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway.
Don't know what Mitt woul be getting a salary for.
Speaking fees? I assume he has some earned income coming from somewhere, but I don't know that.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 13, 2012, 03:46:38 PM
Speaking fees?
Look at the big brain on Fredo!
Come to think of it, he probably sits on a number of boards too.
Buffett gets a hundred grand as salary. Presumably it makes no sense to get more than that, since it would provide all he needs to fit the limits to 401k contributions and reach the SSA cap. Making more would just raise his tax liability. Yes, I see the irony.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 13, 2012, 03:53:02 PM
Buffett gets a hundred grand as salary. Presumably it makes no sense to get more than that, since it would provide all he needs to fit the limits to 401k contributions and reach the SSA cap. Making more would just raise his tax liability. Yes, I see the irony.
:huh: He would still get 65 cents for every dollar raise he gave himself.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2012, 03:56:00 PM
:huh: He would still get 65 cents for every dollar raise he gave himself.
Yeah but if he takes stock instead he'll get 85 cents of every dividend dollar.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 13, 2012, 04:02:41 PM
Yeah but if he takes stock instead he'll get 85 cents of every dividend dollar.
I'm not positive, but I don't think options are part of his package either.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 13, 2012, 04:02:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2012, 03:56:00 PM
:huh: He would still get 65 cents for every dollar raise he gave himself.
Yeah but if he takes stock instead he'll get 85 cents of every dividend dollar.
What do you mean by "takes stock"? If you mean pay himself by giving himself dividends, that it would only work if he owned the whole company, or a pretty large piece of it anyway. You can't really give out targeted dividends to only one shareholder, at least not without getting charged with embezzlement.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2012, 12:49:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2012, 12:40:33 PM
History is replete with examples of issuers of fiat currency which have defaulted.
It's a matter of choice.
A country can either inflate its way out of the debt or impose losses directly on the bondholders.
The main difference is distributional consequences. Inflation spreads the pain more widely, but also harms vulnerable yet politically powerful groups like pensioners.
For a country like the US or UK, I would expect them to avoid the default route; smaller countries might prefer default.
I remember one of the investment banks did a study and ended up arguing that inflation risk is never really adequately priced into bond yields. The UK has a very good record on defaults, but a dreadful record on inflating our debt away but that's not reflected in the price we pay to borrow. If inflation's somewhat expected and not historically terribly high then that has far less impact than defaults.
QuoteBoth choices are similar in that they lead to an inability to borrow at nonpunative rates.
Not true. See above. The UK's one of the worst offenders in Europe of inflating debt away and yet we've got one of the lowest bond yields and have for a very long time.
QuoteA Greek, a Spaniard, an Italian, a Portuguese, a Cypriot, or an Irishman could have said the exact same thing (and probably did) just before the shit hit the fan.
What? The Spaniard, the Irishman and the Cypriot would have been looking at the glowing praise of the EU, their record low national debt and significant surpluses.
QuoteAnd in two and half years of the status quo we will be Italy.
But who's arguing for the status quo? From what I can see the options from both parties (as much as has been leaked) are roughly the same amount of fiscal consolidation but distributed differently. The status quo is renewing everything.
QuoteMY point is simply that the Dems don't seem to do more than pay passing lip service to the idea of ever cutting spending, or even just not increasing it.
But inflation matters, as does growth, the numbers themselves are far, far less important.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 13, 2012, 07:49:51 PM
Not true. See above. The UK's one of the worst offenders in Europe of inflating debt away and yet we've got one of the lowest bond yields and have for a very long time.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. When did the UK experience very high inflation? And what were bond yields in the following years?
QuoteWhat? The Spaniard, the Irishman and the Cypriot would have been looking at the glowing praise of the EU, their record low national debt and significant surpluses.
You're arguing a technicality. Spanish banks needed recapitalization and Spanish regional governments did and still do have large debts that are assumed to be guaranteed by the national government.
QuoteBut who's arguing for the status quo? From what I can see the options from both parties (as much as has been leaked) are roughly the same amount of fiscal consolidation but distributed differently. The status quo is renewing everything.
Point conceded. Expectations are that with the offers on the table, it will take three years before we aree Italy. Satisfied?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2012, 08:17:51 PMI'm not sure what you're talking about. When did the UK experience very high inflation? And what were bond yields in the following years?
As I said above it's not necessarily historically very high inflation that has an effect. The bank's paper found that if the inflation was expected and higher than average but not too historically high it could have a significant effect inflating debt away and very little impact on bond yields.
QuoteYou're arguing a technicality. Spanish banks needed recapitalization and Spanish regional governments did and still do have large debts that are assumed to be guaranteed by the national government.
Eurozone comparisons don't work with the US - Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Italy and Cyprus all have lower deficits than the US, many of them still have lower national debts than the US. But within the Eurozone there were a number of different situations, you're too smart to generalise off handy acronyms.
QuotePoint conceded. Expectations are that with the offers on the table, it will take three years before we aree Italy. Satisfied?
No. That assumes their won't be further rounds of austerity and further growth. It's a medium term problem that's going to take many years to solve. In my view we will still have austerity politics in a decades time. Because of that, what matters most is the credibility of the political system's ability to negotiate deals and their commitment to reform.
Quote from: dps on December 12, 2012, 10:46:20 PM
Quote from: Fate on December 12, 2012, 10:15:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2012, 09:00:27 PM
This table is illustrative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP Not a lot of countries below US on this list that you would really want to emulate.
Half of the Republican party wouldn't mind emulating the religious government Saudi Arabia. The other half of the party would be willing sign away their freedoms to a friendly looking gestapo so as long as their tax rates went down to 5.3%.
Somehow, I doubt that 50% of Republicans want a Wahhabist government.
They don't call it Wahhabism, they call it Evangelicalism.
Shouldn't you be in the GOP now? You are doctor aren't you?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2012, 02:50:42 PM
I think that was dps Raz.
Yes, it was me, and yes, I'll still defend the statement.
Do I have a link? No, it was based on newspaper accounts I read at the time--I didn't even have internet access until just before the 2000 election, or even a computer until almost the end of Clinton's 1st term.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 13, 2012, 08:39:13 PM
As I said above it's not necessarily historically very high inflation that has an effect. The bank's paper found that if the inflation was expected and higher than average but not too historically high it could have a significant effect inflating debt away and very little impact on bond yields.
Inflation has had very little effect on Gilt yields? I'd like to see a link on that Shelf.
QuoteEurozone comparisons don't work with the US - Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Italy and Cyprus all have lower deficits than the US, many of them still have lower national debts than the US. But within the Eurozone there were a number of different situations, you're too smart to generalise off handy acronyms.
I don't recall mentioning any acronyms, handy or otherwise. I recall pointing out that when investors flee a given countries bonds, it's very sudden. The bond market is not in the habit of saying "things are dire right now, in 10 to 15 years we will probably all dump US Treasuries."
QuoteNo. That assumes their won't be further rounds of austerity and further growth. It's a medium term problem that's going to take many years to solve. In my view we will still have austerity politics in a decades time. Because of that, what matters most is the credibility of the political system's ability to negotiate deals and their commitment to reform.
And in the medium term, while the problem is getting fixed, we will have become Italy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2012, 07:38:10 AM
Inflation has had very little effect on Gilt yields? I'd like to see a link on that Shelf.
Inflation that isn't historically high and wasn't a surprise hasn't.
I can't remember where I read it. I think an FT blog link sometime.
QuoteI don't recall mentioning any acronyms, handy or otherwise. I recall pointing out that when investors flee a given countries bonds, it's very sudden.
Frankly it looks endless. Spain and Italy still have market access. But again I don't think the Eurozone's a great example given the number of cases involving political pressure to go for a bailout or say changes in ECB policy suddenly causing a far more severe situation.
An example with an independent central bank, global reserve currency and relatively steady growth would be far more useful for thinking about US policy than Ireland.
Quote
And in the medium term, while the problem is getting fixed, we will have become Italy.
Which is fine as long as it's being fixed. If there are policies in place reducing the deficit, reforming social programs and in, say, 8 years or so seeing debt decline I don't think the markets will go insane because you've crossed some magic number. As I say it comes back to credibility of the government - whether or not they can negotiate and agree is very important.
Quote from: dps on December 14, 2012, 01:47:24 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2012, 02:50:42 PM
I think that was dps Raz.
Yes, it was me, and yes, I'll still defend the statement.
Do I have a link? No, it was based on newspaper accounts I read at the time--I didn't even have internet access until just before the 2000 election, or even a computer until almost the end of Clinton's 1st term.
That's convincing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2012, 08:19:49 AM
An example with an independent central bank, global reserve currency and relatively steady growth would be far more useful for thinking about US policy than Ireland.
You do realize the euro is an international reserve currency, don't you? And that the ECB is independent?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2012, 07:38:10 AM
And in the medium term, while the problem is getting fixed, we will have become Italy.
We don't elect cool enough presidents to achieve that goal :(
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2012, 09:25:37 AM
Quote from: dps on December 14, 2012, 01:47:24 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2012, 02:50:42 PM
I think that was dps Raz.
Yes, it was me, and yes, I'll still defend the statement.
Do I have a link? No, it was based on newspaper accounts I read at the time--I didn't even have internet access until just before the 2000 election, or even a computer until almost the end of Clinton's 1st term.
That's convincing.
Nobody's provided any evidence to the contrary.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2012, 10:14:26 AM
You do realize the euro is an international reserve currency, don't you?
Yeah, but scale matters. The Euro's about 25% - roughly the same level as in 2003 after a few years of increases. The Dollar's at around 60%, it also used to be higher but is about the level it was in the mid-90s.
QuoteAnd that the ECB is independent?
Of course. In my view too independent - it's sort of like the German courts - they are independent but from a British perspective they look rather too much political actors.
But you're right I meant independent, national central bank.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2012, 12:27:10 PM
How so?
I think there's benefits to having the global reserve currency, for example I believe it's been estimated that it knocks 50-60 base points off Treasuries because of large purchases by foreign governments and central banks. That there's always slightly inflated demand for dollars is a helpful advantage. I think there are other benefits which are bit chicken and egg. So for example the US has the largest and most liquid financial market - that helps secure the dollar's position but is also an advantage in itself in the issuing of further bonds.
Those reasons were what various British governments to try and preserve Sterling as a reserve currency even though it occasionally hurt the domestic economy at the time. They wanted the lower borrowing costs, to support London as a financial centre and, sadly, prestige.
But the US has debt for which there's still high demand, issued in its own currency, by its own sovereign central bank and it's got fiscal room for manoeuvre - it's still relatively low-tax so that should probably be on the revenue side. The first two weren't true for any of the Eurozone crisis countries and the last problem wasn't the case in Italy, Greece or Portugal. As Spain and Italy still have market access we're left with Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Cyprus - I don't think there's any useful comparisons to be made with countries that small, that vulnerable, in the Eurozone with the US.
Edit: And, incidentally, the two things that have most helped Spain and Italy maintain market access are a change in policy by the ECB (which the US already has) and market faith in the ability of their governments to deliver. This is why, as I say, the credibility of the US government's ability to function by negotiating and agreeing deals matters more than unexpectedly, unwillingly and suddenly embarking on a fiscal consolidation of 5%.
I think it's fairer to say that 50 to 60 basis points have been knocked off US Treasuries because China and to a lesser extent Japan have in the last few years been buying dollars to keep their currencies undervalued. Not simply due to the dollar being a reserve currency. With those exceptions central banks typically do not buy or sell large amounts of foreign currency.
Not any is an absolute. Soon, on the present trend, we will have indebtedness similar to Italy. Does that mean that investors will invariably dump Treasuries when we hit that mark? It does not. But it does offer some context and perspective on the US's debt sustainability.
One last point to consider is that the US, unlike the Eurozone, does not have a sugar daddy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2012, 12:52:19 PM
Not any is an absolute. Soon, on the present trend, we will have indebtedness similar to Italy. Does that mean that investors will invariably dump Treasuries when we hit that mark? It does not. But it does offer some context and perspective on the US's debt sustainability.
One last point to consider is that the US, unlike the Eurozone, does not have a sugar daddy.
We have Uncle Ben. I'll take him over the Prussians any day.
Uncle Ben has committed to holding inflation a fraction below 2%.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2012, 01:00:37 PM
Uncle Ben has committed to holding inflation a fraction below 2%.
Not exactly.
The FOMC is committed to a long-run goal of maintaining inflation under 2 percent which is not quite the same thing.
Hence the most recent announcement that the Fed will keep down rates indefinitely until unemployment goes below 6.5 or inflation goes above 2.5% (which is well above the target).
I think revealing those criteria was a mistake on his part.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2012, 12:52:19 PMNot any is an absolute. Soon, on the present trend, we will have indebtedness similar to Italy. Does that mean that investors will invariably dump Treasuries when we hit that mark? It does not. But it does offer some context and perspective on the US's debt sustainability.
But as I said earlier the present trend isn't going to happen. In two weeks your deficit will be on trend to be reduced by around 2% of GDP or 5% of GDP, either way further steps'll be needed.
Again the UK's an instructive example. First of all the American deficit since 2009 to now has declined faster than the UK's deficit, despite the UK going for austerity and the Americans generally not. The US deficit declined by around 5% (of GDP) while the UK deficit only declined by 2.4%, the key reason was because growth was more effective than a double-dip recession which necessitate greater consolidation. The UK's done better on the structural budget, as you'd expect, but that is, as I say, a medium-term project. This isn't just about austerity, there are important supply side differences too, but it's an element.
Secondly the UK government's consistently missed their own targets on deficit reduction (largely because there's been less growth than expected) which means they're extending the timeframe. Initially the government's goal was to eliminate the deficit and be reducing the national debt by the end of this Parliament (2015 at the latest, actually 2014). Then they moved that back to 2016 and in the latest Autumn Statement to 2018 (and beyond). We had lower national debt and a smaller deficit to begin with but we're still projected to hit 80% of GDP in a couple of years and our deficit will still be around 2.5% by 2018. Despite all of that there's been no massive market reaction because, in part, we've got a credible medium term plan.
There is a point when markets react and often it's sudden but none of the Eurozone countries provide a decent comparison and in those countries it's clear that market access can be retained if there's belief in government reform and consolidation plans.
I'd add two other points. One is that at the minute interest rates don't seem to me to be very attached to debt risks. It looks more like markets are looking for safe assets in a time of low and skittish growth. That's why France is borrowing at record lows and why the yield on gilts and treasuries declines in response to underwhelming growth numbers - which makes that debt more difficult to pay. This is, in some ways, more worrying than their response to the fiscal situation because my understanding is that that was the situation in Japan for many years.
Secondly Italian debt isn't wildly unsustainable. When taken in the round they did quite well in EU debt sustainability analysis, better than some Northern saints like the Netherlands. This is good on the subject:
http://cib.bnpparibas.com/01/MyDocuments/C1201_A1.pdf
QuoteI think revealing those criteria was a mistake on his part.
Isn't it what Carney, our future BofE Governor, is most prominent for from the Canadian Central Bank?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2012, 01:48:31 PM
But as I said earlier the present trend isn't going to happen. In two weeks your deficit will be on trend to be reduced by around 2% of GDP or 5% of GDP, either way further steps'll be needed.
Where'd do you get those numbers from?
QuoteAgain the UK's an instructive example. First of all the American deficit since 2009 to now has declined faster than the UK's deficit, despite the UK going for austerity and the Americans generally not. The US deficit declined by around 5% (of GDP) while the UK deficit only declined by 2.4%, the key reason was because growth was more effective than a double-dip recession which necessitate greater consolidation.
I would think the key reason is because we only had one trillion dollar stimulus.
Quote from: dps on December 14, 2012, 12:16:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2012, 09:25:37 AM
Quote from: dps on December 14, 2012, 01:47:24 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2012, 02:50:42 PM
I think that was dps Raz.
Yes, it was me, and yes, I'll still defend the statement.
Do I have a link? No, it was based on newspaper accounts I read at the time--I didn't even have internet access until just before the 2000 election, or even a computer until almost the end of Clinton's 1st term.
That's convincing.
Nobody's provided any evidence to the contrary.
Nobody has provided any evidence in support.
Re surpluses:
Look at historical table 1.2 in the Federal Budget.
It shows a surplus for the years 1998-2001, including all off-budget items.
If you just look on-budget (exclude social security), there is a slight deficit in 98 and 01, a balanced budget (rounded off) in 99 and a surplus in 2000.
Then if you look at the exact number for 1999, table 3.1 reveals 1,381,064,000 in on budget spending, and table 2.1 shows 1,382,984,000 in on budget receipts. So without the rounding, there was a surplus.
Bottom line is that the feds ran a surplus in 1999 and 2000 no matter how you slice it.
The Bank of England has been unofficially targeting nominal GDP ever since it was made independent in 1997. What Mark Carney is saying is that the BoE should also be targeting the historical nominal GDP growth line. Given 1997 as a base line, we're about 10% off that at the moment.
Incidentally, George Osbourne hasn't ruled out a GDP target either. So it's possible the UK could adopt the target in the near future.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2012, 01:59:49 PM
Where'd do you get those numbers from?
IMF had US deficit at 13% in 2009 and 8.1% in 2012, they had the UK at 10.4% in 2009 and 8 in 2012.
QuoteI would think the key reason is because we only had one trillion dollar stimulus.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Seems a bit of a non-sequitur :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2012, 07:08:26 PM
IMF had US deficit at 13% in 2009 and 8.1% in 2012, they had the UK at 10.4% in 2009 and 8 in 2012.
I was asking where you got the 2% and 5% deficits we will have one of after January 1.
QuoteI'm not sure what you mean here. Seems a bit of a non-sequitur :mellow:
It's an explanation of why the US deficit has dropped. We had an enormous stimulus package in 2009. In the years since, we have not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2012, 07:15:22 PM
I was asking where you got the 2% and 5% deficits we will have one of after January 1.
Sorry, the Economist had the total fiscal cliff as 5% of GDP and the most likely to expire or come into effect (eg. Obamacare taxes, things no-one's trying to defend) come up to 2% of GDP.
QuoteIt's an explanation of why the US deficit has dropped. We had an enormous stimulus package in 2009. In the years since, we have not.
Not enormous enough and too many tax cuts. But that isn't a difference with the UK comparison. We also had large stimulus though, at around 2% of GDP (excluding automatic stabilisers like unemployment payments which aren't renewed here), I think slightly smaller than in the US, but maybe more if you included respective benefits spends.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2012, 07:36:21 PM
Sorry, the Economist had the total fiscal cliff as 5% of GDP and the most likely to expire or come into effect (eg. Obamacare taxes, things no-one's trying to defend) come up to 2% of GDP.[/quotes]
Thanks.
That 5% cliff sounds real good to me. :mmm:
QuoteNot enormous enough and too many tax cuts. But that isn't a difference with the UK comparison. We also had large stimulus though, at around 2% of GDP (excluding automatic stabilisers like unemployment payments which aren't renewed here), I think slightly smaller than in the US, but maybe more if you included respective benefits spends.
That does seem to explain it Shelf. You had a one time 2% stimulus. We had a one time 7% stimulus. When they were done our deficit shrank more than yours.
To reverse your question from earlier do you think there can be such a thing as too much fiscal consolidation, or it going too fast?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2012, 08:02:05 PM
To reverse your question from earlier do you think there can be such a thing as too much fiscal consolidation, or it going too fast?
I don't think there's any need to run a surplus right now. I have no problem with time compression. I don't see the advantage of cutting 2% a year for 3 years over 6% in one year.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2012, 08:10:04 PM
I don't think there's any need to run a surplus right now.
That's not what fiscal consolidation means. If you could would you cut the whole 8% in one year?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2012, 08:13:29 PM
That's not what fiscal consolidation means.
Tell me what it means.
QuoteIf you could would you cut the whole 8% in one year?
My preference would be to let the Bush tax cuts expire then see where we stand.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2012, 08:20:52 PM
Tell me what it means.
It's a process of reducing deficits and debt, I don't think it means anything to do with surpluses.
QuoteMy preference would be to let the Bush tax cuts expire then see where we stand.
Well there's more to the fiscal cliff than the Bush tax cuts, but that wasn't my question :P
Do you think consolidation that's self-defeating, because the rise in automatic stabilisers/loss in revenue is greater than the decline in other spending/increase in other revenues, is worth it? Is the possibility of kicking off a global recession and certainty of starting a domestic one worth doing it?
You seem to approach fiscal policy like murdering Scottish kings. I think both'd be equally disastrous :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2012, 08:26:18 PM
It's a process of reducing deficits and debt, I don't think it means anything to do with surpluses.
:huh: When you run a surplus, you reduce your debt.
QuoteWell there's more to the fiscal cliff than the Bush tax cuts, but that wasn't my question :P
I answered your question of how much deficit reduction I would like to see. :mellow:
QuoteDo you think consolidation that's self-defeating, because the rise in automatic stabilisers/loss in revenue is greater than the decline in other spending/increase in other revenues, is worth it? Is the possibility of kicking off a global recession and certainty of starting a domestic one worth doing it?
You seem to approach fiscal policy like murdering Scottish kings. I think both'd be equally disastrous :P
I'll take loaded questions for 500 Alex.
I would not be in favor of deficit reduction that would result in an increase in spending on food stamps and Medicaid greater than the deficit reduction. Christ Shelf. Would you oppose substantial deficit reduction even if it resulted in a cure for cancer and everlasting salvation for all humanity in the Kingdom of Heaven?
I think the possibility/probability of recession is something we just have to live with. I've lived through a few. It's not the same as thermonuclear exchange or a species destroying meteor impact.
Currently we're putting 8% of everything we buy on the credit card each year. This can't go on forever. You know what happens when you cut up your credit cards? You get to buy less nice stuff each year.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2012, 08:39:26 PMI would not be in favor of deficit reduction that would result in an increase in spending on food stamps and Medicaid greater than the deficit reduction. Christ Shelf.
That's what's happening in Europe and the UK right now, which you generally seem supportive of. I certainly haven't seen you cheering on Francois :lol:
Our deficit is flatlining or increasing this year, despite consolidation at far smaller rate than 5% a year. To meet consolidation targets we're having to cut more because of that (and because Osborne's a bit of an idiot).
QuoteWould you oppose substantial deficit reduction even if it resulted in a cure for cancer and everlasting salvation for all humanity in the Kingdom of Heaven?
I support deficit reduction. For the UK I think about 1% a year is right with a focus on cutting current, not capital spending, with structural reforms and without the immediate VAT increase - but with flexibility just in case the Eurozone explodes. The US can probably take it a bit faster.
QuoteI think the possibility/probability of recession is something we just have to live with. I've lived through a few. It's not the same as thermonuclear exchange or a species destroying meteor impact.
No. But the last global recession was 2008-09, prior to that it's the Great Depression. The only example I can see in IMF figures of a 5% fiscal consolidation in one year was Greece, they're currently in the sixth year of recession which has now cut GDP by 20% since the crisis started. It's not nuclear war but it's still a relatively large and negative event.
QuoteCurrently we're putting 8% of everything we buy on the credit card each year. This can't go on forever. You know what happens when you cut up your credit cards? You get to buy less nice stuff each year.
Hello TINA :lol:
The credit card analogy works for Maggie, but it's not true.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2012, 08:58:54 PM
That's what's happening in Europe and the UK right now, which you generally seem supportive of. I certainly haven't seen you cheering on Francois :lol:
Our deficit is flatlining or increasing this year, despite consolidation at far smaller rate than 5% a year. To meet consolidation targets we're having to cut more because of that (and because Osborne's a bit of an idiot).
I've done a great deal of reading about the fiscal situation in Europe and this is the very first time I've heard anyone assert a euro of spending cuts generates more than a euro of safety net payments. I think you misread Shelf.
QuoteHello TINA :lol:
The credit card analogy works for Maggie, but it's not true.
Of course it is. You consume more than your produce, then eventually someone else decides they don't want to lend you any more money.
They're gonna pass something. (http://apps.facebook.com/wpsocialreader/me/channels/read/content/9H1M5?_p=wpsrEditorialOnWP)
Quote
House Republicans to vote on "fiscal cliff" bill Thursday: Cantor
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader Eric Cantor said he expects a vote on a Republican offer to avert the "fiscal cliff" on Thursday, and he expects to have enough votes to pass the measure.
Cantor spoke on Tuesday, a day after top Republicans rejected the latest White House offer to avert some $600 billion in tax hikes and spending cuts looming at year's end, known as the fiscal cliff.
Instead, Republicans plan a vote on a bill to raise taxes on income above $1 million while extending low rates for other taxpayers.
I'm not sure I get Obama's negotiating strategy here. For the past week, I've been hearing about Boehner making this offer or that, and pretty much nothing from the White House. Maybe he's working on something big and Reykjavik-like.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 18, 2012, 08:18:45 PM
I'm not sure I get Obama's negotiating strategy here. For the past week, I've been hearing about Boehner making this offer or that, and pretty much nothing from the White House. Maybe he's working on something big and Reykjavik-like.
Just today Reuters were leading on Obama offering $1.2 trillion spending to $1.4 trillion revenues. But I'm not sure with politics and briefing that what's public at this stage matters. For example I think a lot of the stories could be either with the internal party negotiations or kite flying (I suspect today's story about Obama is the latter). All of them are, I think, probably behind the state of the real negotiations both within and between the parties.
I'll respond later Yi.
Obama doesn't have much reason to negotiate publicly. It looks like most people will blame the Republican House if things go pear-shaped so why put out anything that could change that public opinion.
Enjoy the fall, everybody.
QuoteBoehner abandons plan to avoid 'fiscal cliff'
By Lori Montgomery and Rosalind S. Helderman, Published: December 20
House Speaker John A. Boehner threw efforts to avoid the year-end "fiscal cliff" into chaos late Thursday, as he abruptly shuttered the House for the holidays after failing to win support from his fellow Republicans for a plan to let tax rates rise for millionaires.
The proposal — Boehner's alternative to negotiating a broader package with President Obama — would have protected the vast majority of Americans from significant tax increases set to take effect next year. But because it also would have permitted tax rates to rise for about 400,000 extremely wealthy families, conservatives balked, leaving Boehner (Ohio) humiliated and his negotiating power immeasurably weakened.
No one could say late Thursday what will happen next. Just 11 days remain until the new year, when more than $500 billion in automatic tax increases and spending cuts will begin to take effect, threatening to undermine the sluggish recovery and prompt a new recession.
As a grim-faced Boehner hurried from the Capitol on Thursday evening, his office issued a statement abdicating responsibility for solving the crisis to Obama and the Democratic-controlled Senate.
"The House did not take up the tax measure today because it did not have sufficient support from our members to pass. Now it is up to the president to work with Reid on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff," the statement said, referring to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).
White House press secretary Jay Carney vowed that Obama would act but offered no clear path through the political mine field. The House is now out of session until after Christmas. The Senate is scheduled to meet for only a few hours on Friday afternoon before members leave town until next Thursday.
"The president's main priority is to ensure that taxes don't go up on 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses in just a few short days," Carney said in a written statement. "The President will work with Congress to get this done and we are hopeful that we will be able to find a bipartisan solution quickly that protects the middle class and our economy."
Senior Democrats, meanwhile, urged Boehner to stop wooing his hard-liners and resume negotiations with the White House over a debt-reduction compromise that could win the support of Democrats and Republicans.
"Speaker Boehner's partisan approach wasted an entire week and pushed middle-class families closer to the edge," Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson said in a statement. "The only way to avoid the cliff altogether is for Speaker Boehner to return to negotiations, and work with President Obama and the Senate to forge a bipartisan deal."
Even if the resumption of talks were to yield a breakthrough, Boehner's ability to deliver GOP votes for any proposal that raises taxes is now in doubt after he was unable to rally House Republicans behind what he had dubbed "Plan B."
Emboldened liberals quickly argued that Democrats should demand additional concessions from Republicans, either upping the demand for fresh tax revenue or withdrawing Obama's offer to seek savings through cuts in federal health and retirement programs.
The vote on Plan B was perhaps the most consequential test of Boehner's leadership since he took control of the House early last year. Persuading a majority of Republicans to cast a politically treacherous vote to allow higher taxes could have enhanced his leverage with Obama in future talks to rein in the national debt, Republicans said. But failure could imperil his hold on power, said Craig Shirley, a Republican consultant who wrote a biography of former president Ronald Reagan.
"If this was a parliamentary system, tonight's dissent on Plan B would be seen as a vote of no confidence in Boehner," Shirley said. "The national GOP is now simply a collection of warring tribal factions."
Until earlier this week, Boehner had been pursuing an entirely different course, trying to strike a deal with Obama to save $2 trillion over the next decade. Boehner offered to raise $1 trillion in fresh revenue, in part by increasing tax rates for millionaires, and he offered to delay a fight over the federal debt limit for one year — both major GOP concessions.
But then on Monday, he abruptly switched gears, complaining that the president had not made concessions of equal size and significance to control the soaring cost of federal health and retirement programs. Obama also insisted on delaying a debt-limit fight for two years, a position Republican leaders considered unacceptable.
Plan B was always a high-risk strategy. House leaders sold it as a $3.9 trillion tax cut — one of the largest in U.S. history. But it would have allowed taxes to rise by about $300 billion over the next decade compared with current law. Some conservatives labeled it a betrayal that would put congressional Republicans on record in support of a tax increase for the first time in more than two decades — while doing nothing to curb government spending.
As the week wore on and House leaders scrambled for votes, Plan B appeared to gain traction as a preferable alternative to a deal with Obama.
"The Republicans are in an untenable situation," said Rep. Dan Burton (Ind.), who was leaning toward supporting the measure Thursday. "If we don't do anything, we go over the fiscal cliff. And then the president will come back . . . and if the economy goes to hell, he's going to say it was the Republicans' fault."
But Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), serving his final days after losing his reelection bid in November, said the GOP brand would suffer if Republicans took a step that they had long argued amounted to a tax increase. "If you don't draw a contrast with the other side, who are you?" he asked.
Speaking to reporters midday Thursday, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) confidently predicted that Plan B would pass. But by mid-afternoon, GOP aides said, it became clear that House leaders had been unable to overcome the skepticism of their members, who were also swayed by veto threats from the White House and Reid's vow that the measure would die in the Senate.
More than four dozen House Republicans were either on the fence or signaling their opposition heading into the evening vote. Shortly after 7 p.m., the House adjourned and Republican leaders rushed to huddle privately in Boehner's office just off the Capitol rotunda, where the late senator Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) was lying in state.
On his way to pay his respects to Inouye, Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said he had "no clue" what was happening with Plan B. Asked whether he planned to vote for it, he said again: "I have no clue."
Rank-and-file lawmakers were then summoned to an emergency meeting. In a break with his custom, Boehner offered to open the meeting with a prayer.
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference," he said.
Minutes later, Boehner's office issued a terse statement calling off the vote. And he and other Republican leaders hurried out of the Capitol without answering reporters' questions.
MILK CLIFF
'If a new farm bill is not approved, one from 1949 will go into effect, and milk’s price may reach $6 to $8 a gallon.'
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F12%2F21%2Fus%2FMILK%2FMILK-thumbStandard-v3.jpg&hash=85f74876e78eb45878d57653337067b9310dd3c1)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/us/milk-prices-could-double-as-farm-bill-stalls.html
QuoteThe Senate passed a farm bill in July. A House version of the bill made it out of committee, but House leaders have yet to bring its version to the floor.
Imagine that.
Wouldn't it be the easiest to just postpone the various measures of the fiscal cliff by half a year?
Quote from: Zanza on December 21, 2012, 07:44:42 AM
Wouldn't it be the easiest to just postpone the various measures of the fiscal cliff by half a year?
Why? I've been told for years now that the deficit is the greatest threat facing America. Let's cheer on the painful austerity measures!
Quote from: Faeelin on December 21, 2012, 07:48:52 AM
Quote from: Zanza on December 21, 2012, 07:44:42 AM
Wouldn't it be the easiest to just postpone the various measures of the fiscal cliff by half a year?
Why? I've been told for years now that the deficit is the greatest threat facing America. Let's cheer on the painful austerity measures!
Yup, nothing says "The Destruction of America" like measures that would balance the budget by 2040. So fuck it, let's do it in hyperdrive. I hear it's all the rage in Europe.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 21, 2012, 07:48:52 AM
Quote from: Zanza on December 21, 2012, 07:44:42 AM
Wouldn't it be the easiest to just postpone the various measures of the fiscal cliff by half a year?
Why? I've been told for years now that the deficit is the greatest threat facing America. Let's cheer on the painful austerity measures!
I am just wondering why these measures are "automatic". If everybody agrees the status quo is better then these measures, I guess it may be easier to just stop them instead of working out a compromise...
Quote from: Zanza on December 21, 2012, 08:01:17 AM
I am just wondering why these measures are "automatic". If everybody agrees the status quo is better then these measures, I guess it may be easier to just stop them instead of working out a compromise...
They're automatic because they were initially voted on with a definite end date. To continue them would require a new piece of legislation. Which would require a majority vote in the GOP controlled House and a majority vote in the Democrat controlled Senate. Plus no veto.
And none of the parties is in favor of continuing the status quo ante. For example Boehner's "Plan B" made the Bush tax cuts permanent, except for people earning a million plus. The House rank and file was not going to accept even that (since it raised taxes), Reid said it was dead before it made it to the Senate, and Obama said he would veto it. The Democrats want taxes raised on people earning 250K plus.
"Just extending them" is what they ended up doing the last time the Bush tax cuts expired and I figure there's a decent chance the same thing will happen again this time, at the very last moment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2012, 08:14:02 AM
The Democrats want taxes raised on people earning 250K plus.
Obama's most recent offer was $400K+.
Quote from: Phillip V on December 21, 2012, 07:31:02 AM
MILK CLIFF
'If a new farm bill is not approved, one from 1949 will go into effect, and milk's price may reach $6 to $8 a gallon.'
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F12%2F21%2Fus%2FMILK%2FMILK-thumbStandard-v3.jpg&hash=85f74876e78eb45878d57653337067b9310dd3c1)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/us/milk-prices-could-double-as-farm-bill-stalls.html
Yeah the prices on the things everybody needs, food and fuel and housing, keeps going up dramatically. At least luxury goods are pretty cheap, thanks China.
Heh Boehner could not even get his party to agree to raise taxes on the 1$ Million+ people. Pretty much no chance of compromise now.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2012, 09:07:11 AM
Yeah the prices on the things everybody needs, food and fuel and housing, keeps going up dramatically. At least luxury goods are pretty cheap, thanks China.
The price of milk would rise in the absence of a new farm bill because of government price supports, not because of market forces.
I think people are overreacting to this. Boehner's plan B was opposed by the President and Pelosi, so it was not going to get a single Democratic vote in the House. Which means he'd need almost his entire caucus to pass it.
With a compromise vote, a vast majority of the Democrats will vote for it, even some of the ones balking about Obama's agreement to cut spending will be brought in line as evidence suggests the Democrats have more party control than the Republicans. So most likely if we get a compromise it will pass the House the same way the Budget Control Act 2011 will (the legislation that got us to this point), Boehner was able to get about 175 Republicans (66 voted against it) and 95 Democrats. But when Boehner is trying to pass his "Plan B" with 0 Democratic support suddenly he needs at least 218 of his own caucus (which means fewer than 20 Republicans can buck his leadership--over 60 did in the Budget Control Act.)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 21, 2012, 09:27:01 AM
I think people are overreacting to this. Boehner's plan B was opposed by the President and Pelosi, so it was not going to get a single Democratic vote in the House. Which means he'd need almost his entire caucus to pass it.
Do we know how many House members were opposed? Boehner withdrew the bill, no?
Quote from: Faeelin on December 21, 2012, 10:11:13 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 21, 2012, 09:27:01 AM
I think people are overreacting to this. Boehner's plan B was opposed by the President and Pelosi, so it was not going to get a single Democratic vote in the House. Which means he'd need almost his entire caucus to pass it.
Do we know how many House members were opposed? Boehner withdrew the bill, no?
There are head counters in Congress who work for the leaders of both parties in matters like this. Unless someone leaks it, the head counts aren't public and are based on backroom conversations. We just know based on that, Boehner lost at least 20+ GOP votes because that is what makes it unpassable with 100% Democratic opposition.
So your point is that Boehner spent a weak touting a plan he knew he didn't have the votes to pass?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2012, 09:14:25 AM
The price of milk would rise in the absence of a new farm bill because of government price supports, not because of market forces.
Um wouldn't that mean the market would set those prices even higher? Presuming these government price supports are keeping them artificially low.
Republicans seem to be doing their best to make me a Democrat. :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2012, 10:49:18 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2012, 09:14:25 AM
The price of milk would rise in the absence of a new farm bill because of government price supports, not because of market forces.
Um wouldn't that mean the market would set those prices even higher? Presuming these government price supports are keeping them artificially low.
I am not sure that a reduction in US farm subsidies would be such a bad thing
Quote from: Faeelin on December 21, 2012, 10:47:08 AM
So your point is that Boehner spent a weak touting a plan he knew he didn't have the votes to pass?
No, my point is a compromise could still pass because it'd most likely get 100+ Democratic votes which means instead of 218 GOP votes Boehner only needs 115 or so.
Are you stupid or something? I said this:
QuoteI think people are overreacting to this. Boehner's plan B was opposed by the President and Pelosi, so it was not going to get a single Democratic vote in the House. Which means he'd need almost his entire caucus to pass it.
With a compromise vote, a vast majority of the Democrats will vote for it, even some of the ones balking about Obama's agreement to cut spending will be brought in line as evidence suggests the Democrats have more party control than the Republicans. So most likely if we get a compromise it will pass the House the same way the Budget Control Act 2011 will (the legislation that got us to this point), Boehner was able to get about 175 Republicans (66 voted against it) and 95 Democrats. But when Boehner is trying to pass his "Plan B" with 0 Democratic support suddenly he needs at least 218 of his own caucus (which means fewer than 20 Republicans can buck his leadership--over 60 did in the Budget Control Act.)
My point had nothing to do with Boehner, but was instead about a compromise still being viable. People saying it aren't don't understand apparently that a compromise would mean decent numbers of Democrats supporting the bill.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2012, 11:04:40 AM
I am not sure that a reduction in US farm subsidies would be such a bad thing
I am not necessarily campaigning for farm subsidies or government intervention. Just making an observation that the things the poor and middle classes spend most of their incomes on are getting more and more expensive.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2012, 11:04:40 AMI am not sure that a reduction in US farm subsidies would be such a bad thing
The milk bill isn't quite so simple, it's a poison pill sort of thing designed to force compromise. Basically if a new milk bill isn't passed, the U.S. government, under standing 1949 law will be
required to buy milk at a very high price based on calculations from the 1940s that calculate milk producer's costs under the assumption dairy farming is labor intensive (as it was in the 40s.)
This massive government purchase of milk at a high price would create both short and long term problems.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 21, 2012, 11:08:14 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2012, 11:04:40 AMI am not sure that a reduction in US farm subsidies would be such a bad thing
The milk bill isn't quite so simple, it's a poison pill sort of thing designed to force compromise. Basically if a new milk bill isn't passed, the U.S. government, under standing 1949 law will be required to buy milk at a very high price based on calculations from the 1940s that calculate milk producer's costs under the assumption dairy farming is labor intensive (as it was in the 40s.)
This massive government purchase of milk at a high price would create both short and long term problems.
Ah, I see. So even worse than it is now. Who is responsible for creating this default position? Seems to me that it is of a different character then tax cuts expiring. Someone had to have a something similar to malice of forethought to dream this up.
Your analogy to a poison pill is apt it seems.
I don't think people are saying that compromise is impossible and that we are stuck with the fiscal cliff forever. They are sayin that Boehner's plan to show the GOP could craft a viable alternative has failed because his party bolted. So your point "it's not a big deal, because if enough Democrats agree we'll get something" is true but not the point.
People are giving Boehner crap because he couldn't keep his party in line, and has spent days talking about a Plan B he couldn't get enough of his own party to support.
I guess the 1949 bill was "permanent legislation" that is superseded annually by the annual farm bill. If there is no farm bill, it isn't superseded:
Linky (http://www.capitalpress.com/dairy/TH-vilsack-milk-122012)
QuoteThe Agricultural Act of 1949 contains the basic provisions for setting milk prices. The act is superseded every time a new farm bill is passed, but if no farm bill or extension is passed the old law goes back into effect.
Under a mechanism for guaranteeing a minimum milk price that covers producers' cost, the government guarantees to buy milk products at that cost, but producers can also sell on the consumer market.
Industry officials say in current market conditions the government price could be double the current rate. In that scenario, farmers would sell their dairy products to the government instead of the private market and store prices would surge, then they could collapse as the government sold off its stockpiles.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 21, 2012, 11:33:13 AM
I don't think people are saying that compromise is impossible and that we are stuck with the fiscal cliff forever. They are sayin that Boehner's plan to show the GOP could craft a viable alternative has failed because his party bolted. So your point "it's not a big deal, because if enough Democrats agree we'll get something" is true but not the point.
People are giving Boehner crap because he couldn't keep his party in line, and has spent days talking about a Plan B he couldn't get enough of his own party to support.
A plan which Reid said had no chance in the Senate and which Obama said he would veto. Even if it passed the House it was never going to be more than a negotiating position.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 21, 2012, 11:35:24 AM
I guess the 1949 bill was "permanent legislation" that is superseded annually by the annual farm bill. If there is no farm bill, it isn't superseded:
Linky (http://www.capitalpress.com/dairy/TH-vilsack-milk-122012)
QuoteThe Agricultural Act of 1949 contains the basic provisions for setting milk prices. The act is superseded every time a new farm bill is passed, but if no farm bill or extension is passed the old law goes back into effect.
Under a mechanism for guaranteeing a minimum milk price that covers producers' cost, the government guarantees to buy milk products at that cost, but producers can also sell on the consumer market.
Industry officials say in current market conditions the government price could be double the current rate. In that scenario, farmers would sell their dairy products to the government instead of the private market and store prices would surge, then they could collapse as the government sold off its stockpiles.
It is surprising that nobody has simply revoking the old legislation as part of a new legislative package. I wonder how many of these kinds of brinksmenship typic devices (or as you accurately termed it poision pills) are built into other pieces of US legislation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2012, 11:50:09 AM
A plan which Reid said had no chance in the Senate and which Obama said he would veto. Even if it passed the House it was never going to be more than a negotiating position.
That's right. And Boehner has shown that he doesn't have enough support in the party for his position. Because a marginal tax hike of a few percent on people making over a million dollars a year to pay off the deficit is too much for the modern GOP.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 21, 2012, 12:07:40 PM
a marginal tax hike of a few percent on people making over a million dollars a year to pay off the deficit
It'd barely make a dent in the deficit.
Quote from: derspiess on December 21, 2012, 12:12:16 PM
It'd barely make a dent in the deficit.
So what you're saying is that Boehner's plan on tax hikes would barely make a dent in the deficit, wouldn't affect the vast majority of Americans, and still couldn't get enough of his party's support.
I'm trying to understand why Republicans would vote no on this. Is the principle that no tax hikes are acceptable as part of dealing with the deficit?
And if you don't have a vote for this, and given how close Boehner and Obama had gotten, what was the point?
Quote from: Faeelin on December 21, 2012, 12:20:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 21, 2012, 12:12:16 PM
It'd barely make a dent in the deficit.
So what you're saying is that Boehner's plan on tax hikes would barely make a dent in the deficit, wouldn't affect the vast majority of Americans, and still couldn't get enough of his party's support.
I'm trying to understand why Republicans would vote no on this. Is the principle that no tax hikes are acceptable as part of dealing with the deficit?
Because it's lose-lose to them. They piss off their base of support by favoring a tax hike without it ultimately doing any good, given that it was DOA even if it passed the House.
That said, I'd have voted for it just to put the ball in the Dems' court. I was skeptical at first but I'm starting to agree with those who believe that Obama doesn't want a deal.
By don't want a deal, you mean that the deal he proposed (and came close to Boehner's own offer) was a lie? So Obama was a genius who expected the GOP to collapse in infighting?
Quote from: Faeelin on December 21, 2012, 12:34:58 PM
By don't want a deal, you mean that the deal he proposed (and came close to Boehner's own offer) was a lie?
That's a bit too strong of a word. I'd say it was a bit disingenuous.
QuoteSo Obama was a genius who expected the GOP to collapse in infighting?
Another strong word (my, aren't you fond of those). But it is obvious he's been running circles around the GOP in this debate. Not that he's in the right-- just giving a good political performance.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2012, 11:50:09 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on December 21, 2012, 11:33:13 AM
I don't think people are saying that compromise is impossible and that we are stuck with the fiscal cliff forever. They are sayin that Boehner's plan to show the GOP could craft a viable alternative has failed because his party bolted. So your point "it's not a big deal, because if enough Democrats agree we'll get something" is true but not the point.
People are giving Boehner crap because he couldn't keep his party in line, and has spent days talking about a Plan B he couldn't get enough of his own party to support.
A plan which Reid said had no chance in the Senate and which Obama said he would veto. Even if it passed the House it was never going to be more than a negotiating position.
I wonder how many GOP votes Boehner could have gotten if it had been clear there would be enough Dem support to pass it and Reid had not indicated it would be DOA when it hits the Senate. You know these guys are going to get a shit sandwich from their constituents if they vote for a tax increase, so the ones who might actually vote for one that's likely to pass would probably not vote for one that's going to fail anyway. No point in eating the sandwich if it does no good.
How many people are really opposed to a tax increase for people making over a million dollars? From the latest WSJ Poll:
QuoteQ28 If the plan to avoid the fiscal cliff and reduce the deficit included an income tax rate increase for people who earn more than $250,000 per year would that be acceptable or unacceptable to you?*
Acceptable ................................................................................................76
Unacceptable ..............................................................................................22
Not sure ..................................................................................................2
Quote from: Faeelin on December 21, 2012, 12:56:23 PM
How many people are really opposed to a tax increase for people making over a million dollars? From the latest WSJ Poll:
QuoteQ28 If the plan to avoid the fiscal cliff and reduce the deficit included an income tax rate increase for people who earn more than $250,000 per year would that be acceptable or unacceptable to you?*
Acceptable ................................................................................................76
Unacceptable ..............................................................................................22
Not sure ..................................................................................................2
Cool. So do you have the breakdown by congressional district and campaign contributors? Didn't think so-- TAKE A HIKE, KID :P
Quote from: derspiess on December 21, 2012, 12:58:37 PM
Cool. So do you have the breakdown by congressional district and campaign contributors? Didn't think so-- TAKE A HIKE, KID :P
Obviously the perspective is being skewed by the moochers in blue districts.
I hate to break it to you, but Obama just won a national election campaigning on a platform of a mix of tax hikes and spending cuts. To pretend that most Americans don't agree with him more than the GOP is kinda silly.
Quote from: derspiess on December 21, 2012, 12:58:37 PM
Cool. So do you have the breakdown by congressional district and campaign contributors?
Good point.
And yet also a devastating one for the long-term viability of the US political system.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 21, 2012, 01:01:27 PM
Obviously the perspective is being skewed by the moochers in blue districts.
Moochers? :huh:
QuoteI hate to break it to you, but Obama just won a national election campaigning on a platform of a mix of tax hikes and spending cuts. To pretend that most Americans don't agree with him more than the GOP is kinda silly.
There you go again. I didn't say that.
Serious question: what do you guys think the president means by having the rich pay their "fair share"? The pre-Bush cut rates as he's pushing for right now, or do you think he has more tax hikes on his mind longer term?
Quote from: Faeelin on December 21, 2012, 01:01:27 PM
I hate to break it to you, but Obama just won a national election campaigning on a platform of a mix of tax hikes and spending cuts. To pretend that most Americans don't agree with him more than the GOP is kinda silly.
And all those guys voting against just won re-election, presumably while campaigning on not raising taxes.
Quote from: derspiess on December 21, 2012, 02:55:46 PM
Serious question: what do you guys think the president means by having the rich pay their "fair share"? The pre-Bush cut rates as he's pushing for right now, or do you think he has more tax hikes on his mind longer term?
No. He's stated since 2008 that returning to the Clinton-era rates would be just fine and dandy for the nation, just like they were back then when everybody prospered and plenty of millionaires were to be made.
I don't think he has ever said more than that, and I see no reason to think he'd go beyond that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 21, 2012, 03:02:00 PM
No. He's stated since 2008 that returning to the Clinton-era rates would be just fine and dandy for the nation, just like they were back then when everybody prospered and plenty of millionaires were to be made.
I don't think he has ever said more than that, and I see no reason to think he'd go beyond that.
Is he going to create another tech bubble to help re-create the Clinton years as well? Anyway I'd be fine going back to Clinton-era tax rates if we went back to Clinton-era spending.
Quote from: derspiess on December 21, 2012, 03:06:17 PM
Is he going to create another tech bubble to help re-create the Clinton years as well? Anyway I'd be fine going back to Clinton-era tax rates if we went back to Clinton-era spending.
This works in theory, but doesn't in reality. We have far more elderly and disabled now than we did then. It would be impossible to cover them under the same budget as Clinton pushed through without cutting the military more unless we plan to leave the elderly and disabled out in the cold.
Quote from: merithyn on December 21, 2012, 03:09:27 PM
We have far more elderly and disabled now than we did then.
We do? :huh:
Well, we have more population, so it stands to reason.
Quote from: derspiess on December 21, 2012, 03:06:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 21, 2012, 03:02:00 PM
No. He's stated since 2008 that returning to the Clinton-era rates would be just fine and dandy for the nation, just like they were back then when everybody prospered and plenty of millionaires were to be made.
I don't think he has ever said more than that, and I see no reason to think he'd go beyond that.
Is he going to create another tech bubble to help re-create the Clinton years as well? Anyway I'd be fine going back to Clinton-era tax rates if we went back to Clinton-era spending.
But that wouldn't get us anywhere because we weren't running a surplus back then, right?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2012, 03:00:44 PM
And all those guys voting against just won re-election, presumably while campaigning on not raising taxes.
Such is the miracle of gerrymandering.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2012, 03:10:51 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 21, 2012, 03:09:27 PM
We have far more elderly and disabled now than we did then.
We do? :huh:
We have a lot of people on disability now-- IIRC more now than ever as a % of our population. One theory is that many shifted over to drawing Social Security checks once their extended unemployment compensation ran out. You can claim disability from a lot more conditions than you used to. Hell, I could probably do it with my Crohn's.
Quote from: sbr on December 21, 2012, 03:12:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 21, 2012, 03:06:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 21, 2012, 03:02:00 PM
No. He's stated since 2008 that returning to the Clinton-era rates would be just fine and dandy for the nation, just like they were back then when everybody prospered and plenty of millionaires were to be made.
I don't think he has ever said more than that, and I see no reason to think he'd go beyond that.
Is he going to create another tech bubble to help re-create the Clinton years as well? Anyway I'd be fine going back to Clinton-era tax rates if we went back to Clinton-era spending.
But that wouldn't get us anywhere because we weren't running a surplus back then, right?
You asking me? :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on December 21, 2012, 03:06:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 21, 2012, 03:02:00 PM
No. He's stated since 2008 that returning to the Clinton-era rates would be just fine and dandy for the nation, just like they were back then when everybody prospered and plenty of millionaires were to be made.
I don't think he has ever said more than that, and I see no reason to think he'd go beyond that.
Is he going to create another tech bubble to help re-create the Clinton years as well?
What do tech bubbles have to do with more equitable tax rates? Oh, I get it: you want no revenue raised but all spending cut. Nyuk, nyuk.
Quote from: derspiess on December 21, 2012, 03:18:17 PM
Hell, I could probably do it with my Crohn's.
I SAID NO PEANUTS, LADY
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2012, 03:00:44 PM
And all those guys voting against just won re-election, presumably while campaigning on not raising taxes.
That's a good point. And now we can see how those guys feel about voting against tax cuts for the middle class, which is what they'll have to do to stop Obama from controlling what happens from here on out.
Quote from: derspiess on December 21, 2012, 03:18:17 PMHell, I could probably do it with my Crohn's.
I looked into it when my doc suggested it. After reading the guidelines it seems I would need to be quite fucked up to reach the score needed to get any kind of benefit. I'll file if I get laid off regardless (you have better chances of gaining public employment and any future employer gets reduced payroll taxes).
Quote from: Iormlund on December 21, 2012, 07:22:45 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 21, 2012, 03:18:17 PMHell, I could probably do it with my Crohn's.
I looked into it when my doc suggested it. After reading the guidelines it seems I would need to be quite fucked up to reach the score needed to get any kind of benefit.
About ten years ago, after a series of surgeries and various other issues (including cancer), I looked into it. At the time, I was on a liquid diet indefinitely (my intestines were messed up due to the cancer and other "female things"), I walked with a cane, couldn't stand for more than 10-15 minutes without getting dizzy, and was weaker than a kitty due to the issue with my heart (that caused the dizzy spells). The lawyer I consulted said that I wasn't likely to get it because I could still do a sit-down job.
I highly doubt that Crohn's would qualify anyone in and of itself, so don't quit your job just yet. :P Besides, the pay for disability is pretty awful. You're talking around $500-1000 a month plus a stipend for kids. So not worth it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2012, 03:10:51 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 21, 2012, 03:09:27 PM
We have far more elderly and disabled now than we did then.
We do? :huh:
We do.
LINK (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/disability-payments-record-numbers/2012/07/02/id/444255)
QuotePeople on Disability Payments Hits Record 8.7 Million
Monday, 02 Jul 2012 08:55 PM
By Todd Beamon
More than 8.7 million people took federal disability payments in June — more than the population of New York City, the Social Security Administration reports.
In June, 8,733,461 workers received payments, up from 8,707,185 in May, with an average payment of $1,111.42, cnsnews.com reports.
Both figures exceed the population of New York City — 8,244,910 — according to Census figures.
According to CNSNews.com, the 2012 figures continue to illustrate the dramatic shrinkage in the number of American citizens actually employed and earning paychecks over the past 20 years.
In June 1992, for instance, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 118,419,000 people were working in the United States, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics – but only 3,334,333 workers were claiming federal disability payments.
That amounted to one person on disability for every 35.5 people actually working.
But when President Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, those employed totaled 142,187,000, while 7,442,377 people were taking federal disability payments – or about 1 person on disability per 19.1 people actually working.
As for the May 2012 figures, 8,707,185 were claiming disability payments compared with 142,287,000 people actually working – or 1 worker on disability for every 16.3 people working.
In addition, 165,469 spouses of disabled workers were taking payments in June, along with 1,899,756 children of disabled workers. That brought the total number of June beneficiaries to 10,798,686.
I wants a crazy check too.
People like to bitch about how all the culuh'd folks is sucking up all dat SSI, but they forget how lawyers play their part in the process.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/elocal/images/11693/original/18_ShatznerAndSheradinAd2.jpg)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnewyorkdisabilitylawyer.com%2Fwp-content%2Fthemes%2Fturleyredmond%2Fimages%2Fbanner.jpg&hash=e6e192657fb7f30c613fff0bf5005a7c09ef547c)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fssi-disability-attorney.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F01%2FHeader1.jpg&hash=3059094d61b568ad0015fc1efe5ab29620b210a7)
There would be less people on disability if there were less lawyers.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 21, 2012, 07:58:34 PM
I wants a crazy check too.
You really don't get that much.
Oh, you meant money wise. :Embarrass:
I get 465 bucks a month. I never had to hire a lawyer. I did stipulate that it would all come out of Berkut's taxes though. They seemed fine with that.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2012, 08:12:27 PM
I get 465 bucks a month. I never had to hire a lawyer. I did stipulate that it would all come out of Berkut's taxes though. They seemed fine with that.
Then you suck ass, because
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.daggettshulerlaw.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2Fattorney-banner1.jpg&hash=d129fd1c28901f79aaf9bdd7652956194cbdc541)
these people look like they can score more than $465 a month.
Well, yeah of course they can. They have a job. They are lawyers. I'm sure that pays more then social security disability.
They could've scored you more, retard, instead of shitty money and a T-shirt that says, "This Is What Mental Illness Looks Like".
:D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 21, 2012, 08:31:46 PM
They could've scored you more, retard, instead of shitty money and a T-shirt that says, "This Is What Mental Illness Looks Like".
Tell you what, when that last string of sanity breaks, you call them and see how much they get you. Then we can compare.
Sounds like a green light, Seedy.
Shit, when my string snaps, I'll be selling tickets. You won't want to miss it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 21, 2012, 08:23:19 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.daggettshulerlaw.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2Fattorney-banner1.jpg&hash=d129fd1c28901f79aaf9bdd7652956194cbdc541)
these people look like they can score more than $465 a month.
The dumpy broad and fat boy in the back row look like they could do $480 max.
I just couldn't believe the front and center guy went with a white handkerchief with that tie and shirt combo. I mean, who does that?
Quote from: merithyn on December 21, 2012, 07:50:56 PM
I highly doubt that Crohn's would qualify anyone in and of itself, so don't quit your job just yet. :P Besides, the pay for disability is pretty awful. You're talking around $500-1000 a month plus a stipend for kids. So not worth it.
Crohn's can actually be devastating, if one is unfortunate enough. Thankfully that is not my situation.
In any case I was talking about the first "rung" of benefits. Those consist here of a slightly higher ceiling for non-taxable income, payroll tax decreases for an employer and easier access to public jobs. They mean squat for those who don't want to work.
Sad truth is they are needed and should be more easily accessible. Most people I know lost their jobs after the first serious flare up. I'm quite an extraordinary case in that regard.
Yeah, my work was pretty cool about it. Apart from nobody coming to see me that one time I went to the hospital.
All I know is that my early onset Geriatric Profanity Disorder is not covered...
Will a fiscal cliff result in cheap stocks and real estate?
Quote from: Phillip V on December 21, 2012, 11:13:14 PM
Will a fiscal cliff result in cheap stocks and real estate?
Seems likely. I'm thinking boom in munis too.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/603225_573637069328848_617652479_n.jpg)
:lol:
I was reading a cnn.com article about the Fiscal Cliff and it referenced something I hadn't heard about. According to the article:
QuoteThe GOP revulsion over any kind of tax rate increase has stymied deficit negotiations for two years and led to unusual political drama, such as McConnell recently filibustering his own proposal and Thursday night's rebuff by House Republicans of an alternative tax plan pushed by Boehner, their leader.
What the hell is that about? :lol:
Apologies if it has already been discussed here.
Quote from: Syt on December 22, 2012, 12:32:42 AM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/603225_573637069328848_617652479_n.jpg)
:lol:
:lol:
Nice Syt.
Quote from: Iormlund on December 21, 2012, 09:26:12 PM
Crohn's can actually be devastating, if one is unfortunate enough. Thankfully that is not my situation.
I'm well aware of how devastating it can be. I actually ghost wrote an ebook about Crohn's several years ago. However, if you read what I wrote, I said that it's unlikely that Crohn's itself will score you disability. It's the problems that come with Crohn's that makes it debilitating. You'd have to have a pretty severe episode that ended up causing serious damage to qualify, was my point. As I said, I was in pretty bad shape for a couple of years, and still didn't qualify for disability. It's not an easy thing to get.
QuoteIn any case I was talking about the first "rung" of benefits. Those consist here of a slightly higher ceiling for non-taxable income, payroll tax decreases for an employer and easier access to public jobs. They mean squat for those who don't want to work.
Sad truth is they are needed and should be more easily accessible. Most people I know lost their jobs after the first serious flare up. I'm quite an extraordinary case in that regard.
Luckily, that can't happen here anymore. FMLA helped a lot with that. And most companies have short- and long-term disability insurance now.
Quote from: derspiess on December 21, 2012, 02:55:46 PM
Serious question: what do you guys think the president means by having the rich pay their "fair share"? The pre-Bush cut rates as he's pushing for right now, or do you think he has more tax hikes on his mind longer term?
A lot less than a fair share. Certainly not even Kennedy-era top rates.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 21, 2012, 03:12:04 PM
Well, we have more population, so it stands to reason.
We also keep a lot more people alive at reduced capacity for work.
Although, interestingly, I read somewhere, maybe through Krugman, that life expectancy for below-median income (or something like that) Americans is actually declining.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 22, 2012, 09:31:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 21, 2012, 02:55:46 PM
Serious question: what do you guys think the president means by having the rich pay their "fair share"? The pre-Bush cut rates as he's pushing for right now, or do you think he has more tax hikes on his mind longer term?
A lot less than a fair share. Certainly not even Kennedy-era top rates.
I'm rubbing a wad of hundred dollar bills on my crotch, right now.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 22, 2012, 09:31:29 PM
A lot less than a fair share. Certainly not even Kennedy-era top rates.
This is an interesting and illuminating response. Not because of your preference for a top marginal rate in the 70s (which is to be expected), but rather because most people, when asked a question about what a fair share would be, interpret the question to mean what proportion of total taxation should fall on a certain individual or group, whereas you seem to interpret it to mean what's the fair share of their income that the rich get to keep.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2012, 10:00:56 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 22, 2012, 09:31:29 PM
A lot less than a fair share. Certainly not even Kennedy-era top rates.
This is an interesting and illuminating response. Not because of your preference for a top marginal rate in the 70s (which is to be expected), but rather because most people, when asked a question about what a fair share would be, interpret the question to mean what proportion of total taxation should fall on a certain individual or group, whereas you seem to interpret it to mean what's the fair share of their income that the rich get to keep.
I thought Kennedy's top rate was in the 60s (although, you were right--turns out I was wrong).
I dunno. That's an interesting way to put it, and does capture my approach nicely; it isn't how I usually think about my opinions on tax policy, so the insight is novel to me.
But it isn't that surprising. I don't look at fair compensation from a market-anarchic standpoint. I look at fair compensation first and foremost from a central planner's standpoint. And from that vantage one asks what is enough to keep the incentive for people to organize labor and capital? We know from history that a confiscatory top rate does not destroy those incentives (though I do think good arguments can be made that rates in the 70s, 80s and 90s may be too high).
Because that's the function of the rich--they do not expend the labor that creates the goods and services the market demands, though they organize the labor needed to do so; and they rarely directly create innovations that increase productivity, meet nascent market demand, or create new market demand, though they organize the innovators needed to do so--with some exceptions like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, but even within those exceptions there is usually a phase transition from innovator to organizer.
You can run an economy without them, but they make an economy much more efficient by their efforts. So I don't begrudge them a good or even a spectacular living, nor power over men. But there's only so much wealth you can extract from organizing the efforts of others before it becomes both 1)unfair from a moral perspective and 2)socially dangerous. I.e. 21st century declining America.
Although it's also important to note that I support (what are currently considered) outrageous tax rates (including upon the middle class) because I want the government to do things that are (currently considered) outrageous, like build solar power satellites, anti-ballistic missiles, and wind farms, and fight wars, and fully nationalize whole sectors of the economy like health care and education, and create a Friedmanesque negative income tax, and upgrade our collapsing 1950s-vintage infrastructure. So it's not merely about hurting rich people, although that is a bonus. I want the government to take rich people's, and not-so-rich people's, money and do things with it that rich people won't do and can't do, but which benefit everybody.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 23, 2012, 12:43:22 AM
But there's only so much wealth you can extract from organizing the efforts of others before it becomes both 1)unfair from a moral perspective and 2)socially dangerous. I.e. 21st century declining America.
Shelf has valiantly tried to sustain the argument that inequality is bad from a utilitarian point of view, but runs into the road block that the only empirical evidence on his side is that inequality rose before the Great Depression and before Teh Great Recession. There's also a World Bank report that says inequality might or might not decrease growth.
The reasons you gave are really the heart of the matter. And it's really one reason, since the risk of social unrest arises from people thinking it's so damn unfair they have to resort to violence.
But if you examine the issue of unfairness, it's either predicated on the assumption that the rich person is taking more than their fair share of a communal resource--here's the American income pie, that guy grabbed too big a slice--or it's simply unhappiness that somebody is enjoying a better outcome than you. In other words, envy.
There are legitimate arguments about improper ways to amass great wealth--Standard Oil pops to mind--but it seems that most people arguing about inequality are unconcerned about proper and improper ways to earn money.
Shelf is a valiant man.
He's great.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 22, 2012, 09:48:53 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 22, 2012, 09:31:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 21, 2012, 02:55:46 PM
Serious question: what do you guys think the president means by having the rich pay their "fair share"? The pre-Bush cut rates as he's pushing for right now, or do you think he has more tax hikes on his mind longer term?
A lot less than a fair share. Certainly not even Kennedy-era top rates.
I'm rubbing a wad of hundred dollar bills on my crotch, right now.
You ar hence forth dubbed......C-Note.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 23, 2012, 12:43:22 AM
Although it's also important to note that I support (what are currently considered) outrageous tax rates (including upon the middle class) because I want the government to do things that are (currently considered) outrageous, like build solar power satellites, anti-ballistic missiles, and wind farms, and fight wars, and fully nationalize whole sectors of the economy like health care and education, and create a Friedmanesque negative income tax, and upgrade our collapsing 1950s-vintage infrastructure. So it's not merely about hurting rich people, although that is a bonus. I want the government to take rich people's, and not-so-rich people's, money and do things with it that rich people won't do and can't do, but which benefit everybody.
:hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 23, 2012, 01:49:46 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 23, 2012, 12:43:22 AM
But there's only so much wealth you can extract from organizing the efforts of others before it becomes both 1)unfair from a moral perspective and 2)socially dangerous. I.e. 21st century declining America.
The reasons you gave are really the heart of the matter. And it's really one reason, since the risk of social unrest arises from people thinking it's so damn unfair they have to resort to violence.
No, it's a separate reason. The social danger is not solely Occupy-type annoyances, riots, or full-scale proletarian revolution, but the far more likely case that democracy will falter in the face of oligarchy, through a combination of corruption and political power following economic power, which we've seen happen within many societies, as well as between many societies, where substantial economic inequalities are present.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 23, 2012, 12:43:22 AM
But it isn't that surprising. I don't look at fair compensation from a market-anarchic standpoint. I look at fair compensation first and foremost from a central planner's standpoint. And from that vantage one asks what is enough to keep the incentive for people to organize labor and capital? We know from history that a confiscatory top rate does not destroy those incentives (though I do think good arguments can be made that rates in the 70s, 80s and 90s may be too high).
Keep in mind that with our current tax structure, it's not clear that changing the rates makes all that much difference in what the most wealthy members of society pay in taxes, partly because much of their wealth is not directly tied to their income, and partly because there are so many ways for them to legally deduct much of what they do have in income. Getting rid of almost all deductions would probably raise more in tax revenue than doubling the top rate (thogh of course, at what income the top rate kicks in would also play a big role--a top rate of 60% that kicks in at $100,000/yr would have a substantially different affect than a top rate of 60% that kicks in at $2,000,000/yr).
Quote from: Ideologue on December 23, 2012, 10:55:34 AM
No, it's a separate reason. The social danger is not solely Occupy-type annoyances, riots, or full-scale proletarian revolution, but the far more likely case that democracy will falter in the face of oligarchy, through a combination of corruption and political power following economic power, which we've seen happen within many societies, as well as between many societies, where substantial economic inequalities are present.
You think there's a reasonable possibility the US will turn into, say, Pakistan because of inequality? I don't see it. I don't think there was an increase in corruption during the Jazz age, nor in the 80s or 90s. In fact I think the causality usually runs the other direction, from corruption to inequality.
You don't think there was an increase in corruption in the 1920's?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 23, 2012, 06:29:50 PM
You don't think there was an increase in corruption in the 1920's?
:mellow:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 23, 2012, 06:27:15 PM
You think there's a reasonable possibility the US will turn into, say, Pakistan because of inequality? I don't see it.
Plenty of bombings and assassinations during the anarchist movements and labor strife of the 1880s onward. Or did those have nothing to do with economic inequality?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 23, 2012, 06:29:50 PM
You don't think there was an increase in corruption in the 1920's?
Everyone knows that it did. Prohibition is hard on a society.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 23, 2012, 06:36:46 PM
Plenty of bombings and assassinations during the anarchist movements and labor strife of the 1880s onward. Or did those have nothing to do with economic inequality?
We were discussing Ide's thesis that inequality breeds corruption and the concentration of political power, not whether it breeds discontent.
Though to answer your question, it seems to me what you are describing was largely a result of large numbers of immigrants who had already adopted the class warfare paradigm.
Is this going to be averted or do I only have another 5 shopping to get in the canned goods and guns ?
edit:
guns redacted, read catapults.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 23, 2012, 06:45:50 PM
We were discussing Ide's thesis that inequality breeds corruption and the concentration of political power, not whether it breeds discontent.
Corruption, meh, that's an independent variable, and concentration of political power? Don't need even inequality for that to happen.
QuoteThough to answer your question, it seems to me what you are describing was largely a result of large numbers of immigrants who had already adopted the class warfare paradigm.
But they meant well.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 23, 2012, 07:00:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 23, 2012, 06:45:50 PM
Though to answer your question, it seems to me what you are describing was largely a result of large numbers of immigrants who had already adopted the class warfare paradigm.
But they meant well.
Did Yi just play the "Outside Agitators" card?
Quote from: dps on December 23, 2012, 07:03:00 PM
Did Yi just play the "Outside Agitators" card?
They were all overeducated Jews or pissed off swarthy types from Europe anyway, never had any reason for homegrown anarchists here, you know.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 23, 2012, 06:37:05 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 23, 2012, 06:36:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 23, 2012, 06:29:50 PM
You don't think there was an increase in corruption in the 1920's?
:mellow:
That'll be a "No", Raz.
That strikes as a bit odd, considering that it was age of prohibition and Harding administration. Maybe he's thinking about Korea or something.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 23, 2012, 06:27:15 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 23, 2012, 10:55:34 AM
No, it's a separate reason. The social danger is not solely Occupy-type annoyances, riots, or full-scale proletarian revolution, but the far more likely case that democracy will falter in the face of oligarchy, through a combination of corruption and political power following economic power, which we've seen happen within many societies, as well as between many societies, where substantial economic inequalities are present.
You think there's a reasonable possibility the US will turn into, say, Pakistan because of inequality? I don't see it. I don't think there was an increase in corruption during the Jazz age, nor in the 80s or 90s. In fact I think the causality usually runs the other direction, from corruption to inequality.
Massive economic inequalities between classes can over time evolve into massive political inequalities, for example in Republican Rome--and in early industrial America. E.g. railroads, mining stakes, anti-union laws, and so forth.
It's true, of course, that they can run the other way, e.g. the Soviet Union, where political inequalities begat economic ones, but that's not germane here.
The danger of this kind of aggregration is not solely because of the likelihood of hard or soft corruption, that is monied interests directly buying favors from politicians or indirectly influencing the electorate via dominance of media, etc.--though such danger exists. But it is also because this kind of aggregation creates structures that we rely on, that become too big to fail, and become increasingly above the law in their pursuit of profit--even though their reason for existence is not to provide to the commonwealth, but generate wealth for private interests. Does any of this sound familiar?
You can also see it more subtly in things like tax breaks given to Wal-Marts and BMW plants (to name a few examples from my hometown) because they "create jobs." Sure, it's true that jobs were created locally, and it was probably a net gain for the community, and as a practical matter I'm not opposed to those specific instances, but the "fair share" BMW should have paid in terms of property taxes was discounted because of their superior bargaining position, and the willingness of local government to except capital from the rules everyone else has to follow.
It is seen further in cries from business that they need X or Y to remain competitive, etc. Like right-to-work laws or tort reform.
It's not impossible to imagine an America where political and economic power are identical.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 23, 2012, 07:15:35 PM
Massive economic inequalities between classes can over time evolve into massive political inequalities, for example in Republican Rome--and in early industrial America. E.g. railroads, mining stakes, anti-union laws, and so forth.
It's true, of course, that they can run the other way, e.g. the Soviet Union, where political inequalities begat economic ones, but that's not germane here.
The danger of this kind of aggregration is not solely because of the likelihood of hard or soft corruption, that is monied interests directly buying favors from politicians or indirectly influencing the electorate via dominance of media, etc.--though such danger exists. But it is also because this kind of aggregation creates structures that we rely on, that become too big to fail, and become increasingly above the law in their pursuit of profit--even though their reason for existence is not to provide to the commonwealth, but generate wealth for private interests. Does any of this sound familiar?
You can also see it more subtly in things like tax breaks given to Wal-Marts and BMW plants (to name a few examples from my hometown) because they "create jobs." Sure, it's true that jobs were created locally, and it was probably a net gain for the community, and as a practical matter I'm not opposed to those specific instances, but the "fair share" BMW should have paid in terms of property taxes was discounted because of their superior bargaining position, and the willingness of local government to except capital from the rules everyone else has to follow.
It is seen further in cries from business that they need X or Y to remain competitive, etc. Like right-to-work laws or tort reform.
It's not impossible to imagine an America where political and economic power are identical.
Dude, the Roman Senate was from the very beginning a rich man's club.
All the other things you mentioned had legitimate public policy objectives, as you yourself admitted with the tax holidays.
And for the most part you've been talking about publicly traded companies. I thought we were talking about inequality.
What's the worst-case scenario. We go off the fiscal cliff and then have another debt ceiling crisis in March? :(
Worst case scenario is both sides agree to boost the deficit by another 20% of GDP. Repeal all taxes and more free money for everyone.
Meh, doesn't sound damaging enough to the President.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 23, 2012, 12:43:22 AM
Although it's also important to note that I support (what are currently considered) outrageous tax rates (including upon the middle class) because I want the government to do things that are (currently considered) outrageous, like build solar power satellites, anti-ballistic missiles, and wind farms, and fight wars, and fully nationalize whole sectors of the economy like health care and education, and create a Friedmanesque negative income tax, and upgrade our collapsing 1950s-vintage infrastructure. So it's not merely about hurting rich people, although that is a bonus. I want the government to take rich people's, and not-so-rich people's, money and do things with it that rich people won't do and can't do, but which benefit everybody.
I agree with this completely. :hug:
Wow.
Yeah, they're both pretty bonkers.
What wars are we not fighting now that need fighting?
Quote from: Habbaku on December 26, 2012, 01:25:00 PM
What wars are we not fighting now that need fighting?
I assumed Ide meant actually funding the wars we had to be in instead of cutting taxes at the same time, not starting new ones.
Quote from: sbr on December 26, 2012, 01:26:25 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on December 26, 2012, 01:25:00 PM
What wars are we not fighting now that need fighting?
I assumed Ide meant actually funding the wars we had to be in instead of cutting taxes at the same time, not starting new ones.
Not sure if that's what he meant, but that interpretation is what I agreed with. :)
Quote from: derspiess on December 26, 2012, 01:20:20 PM
Wow.
What part is objectionable to you? To me, it's pretty clear that private enterprise can't and won't rebuild the infrastructure like roads, ports, etc. The business model for health care isn't sustainable so long as our sick and old are such a large part of the population. I know that you and I disagree with the whole energy thing, so, I'm guessing that that's part of it.
Re-reading Ide's post, I would disagree with education being nationalized, but I do agree that it should be federally funded rather than relying entirely on neighborhood taxation. I would be okay with higher taxes to subsidize college tuition, too.
In a nation as large as ours, there are some things that just can't be covered by charities or local governments. I think education, healthcare, and the infrastructure are some of those things.
Quote from: merithyn on December 26, 2012, 02:03:39 PM
I think education, healthcare, and the infrastructure are some of those things.
They already are.
Meri, it seesm to me the words "do" and "completely" don't mean what you think they mean.
Quote from: Berkut on December 26, 2012, 02:08:24 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 26, 2012, 02:03:39 PM
I think education, healthcare, and the infrastructure are some of those things.
They already are.
Yes, and I think that funding should be increased.
Quote from: Berkut on December 26, 2012, 02:08:24 PM
They already are.
Yes, but Ide is so desperate to sound like a radical that he declares that it is "currently considered... outrageous" that government should "fight wars" and "upgrade ... infrastructure." :rolleyes:
What he and Meri don't understand, because they don't understand how government works, is that it would be a disaster to have the government build the solar power satellites and wind farms. Doing so would suck out of the economy money and incentive needed to create satellites and wind farms that actually worked and were efficient. The USSR and Mao's China should have provided all the necessary evidence that we don't want government to do anything that it does not
have to do, but some people aren't interested in evidence, it seems.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 23, 2012, 01:49:46 AM
Shelf has valiantly tried to sustain the argument that inequality is bad from a utilitarian point of view, but runs into the road block that the only empirical evidence on his side is that inequality rose before the Great Depression and before Teh Great Recession. There's also a World Bank report that says inequality might or might not decrease growth.
How are you using the concept "utilitarian" in this context?
I think its pretty easy to come up with a utilitarian argument against economic inequality if one makes somewhat plausible assumptions about satiation and the shape of an income-utility or wealth-utility curve. But you seem to be using "utility" here as a proxy for economic growth globally. If the argument is that there is little evidence empirically to prove that inequality harms long run growth, I would agree that the case is not proven.
Would current corporations be capable of coming up with the equivalent of the 50s/60s interstate network ?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 26, 2012, 02:49:49 PM
I think its pretty easy to come up with a utilitarian argument against economic inequality if one makes somewhat plausible assumptions about satiation and the shape of an income-utility or wealth-utility curve.
Partially conceded, but you are using a static model.
Quote from: mongers on December 26, 2012, 02:51:37 PM
Would current corporations be capable of coming up with the equivalent of the 50s/60s interstate network ?
Private toll highways are not unheard of.
The most difficult aspect from a for-profit POV is land aquisition.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 03:11:58 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 26, 2012, 02:51:37 PM
Would current corporations be capable of coming up with the equivalent of the 50s/60s interstate network ?
Private toll highways are not unheard of.
The most difficult aspect from a for-profit POV is land aquisition.
What about network externalities? The existence of New Jersey Turnpike makes highways in New York, Delaware, and Pennsylvania more valuable. In addition to that, the might of the federal government imposed a set of standards on interstates, making them run smoother, and far less subject to the tyranny of local speed trap towns that robbed the travelers.
Quote from: DGuller on December 26, 2012, 03:19:46 PM
What about network externalities?
Not as difficult as land aquisition.
Dude, you're having trouble with relatives and superlatives today. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 03:21:40 PM
Dude, you're having trouble with relatives and superlatives today. :P
Evidently I am, because I don't know what that is. :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on December 26, 2012, 02:42:36 PM
What he and Meri don't understand, because they don't understand how government works, is that it would be a disaster to have the government build the solar power satellites and wind farms. Doing so would suck out of the economy money and incentive needed to create satellites and wind farms that actually worked and were efficient. The USSR and Mao's China should have provided all the necessary evidence that we don't want government to do anything that it does not have to do, but some people aren't interested in evidence, it seems.
That seems fair. To my mind, what needs to happen isn't that the goverment actually do the building, but I do believe in continued and increased government funding of private businesses in this regard.
Quote from: DGuller on December 26, 2012, 03:32:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 03:21:40 PM
Dude, you're having trouble with relatives and superlatives today. :P
Evidently I am, because I don't know what that is. :huh:
Yi's just on one of his, "you don't know what the words you're using mean" gigs, this must be the third thread today he's said this or similar.
Quote from: DGuller on December 26, 2012, 03:32:14 PM
Evidently I am, because I don't know what that is. :huh:
A superlative is something like "the best," or "the brightest." A relative is like better or brighter.
Quote from: DGuller on December 26, 2012, 03:32:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 03:21:40 PM
Dude, you're having trouble with relatives and superlatives today. :P
Evidently I am, because I don't know what that is. :huh:
Watch more CBS broadcast football games with Dan Dierdorf. Everything is "a superlative".
So hey, apparently the US is hitting the debt ceiling on Monday: http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/26/news/economy/debt-ceiling/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Quote from: grumbler on December 26, 2012, 02:42:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 26, 2012, 02:08:24 PM
They already are.
Yes, but Ide is so desperate to sound like a radical that he declares that it is "currently considered... outrageous" that government should "fight wars" and "upgrade ... infrastructure." :rolleyes:
What he and Meri don't understand, because they don't understand how government works, is that it would be a disaster to have the government build the solar power satellites and wind farms. Doing so would suck out of the economy money and incentive needed to create satellites and wind farms that actually worked and were efficient. The USSR and Mao's China should have provided all the necessary evidence that we don't want government to do anything that it does not have to do, but some people aren't interested in evidence, it seems.
Thanks Ron Paul. Who knew that national parks were the road to Stalinism?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2012, 07:03:29 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 26, 2012, 02:42:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 26, 2012, 02:08:24 PM
They already are.
Yes, but Ide is so desperate to sound like a radical that he declares that it is "currently considered... outrageous" that government should "fight wars" and "upgrade ... infrastructure." :rolleyes:
What he and Meri don't understand, because they don't understand how government works, is that it would be a disaster to have the government build the solar power satellites and wind farms. Doing so would suck out of the economy money and incentive needed to create satellites and wind farms that actually worked and were efficient. The USSR and Mao's China should have provided all the necessary evidence that we don't want government to do anything that it does not have to do, but some people aren't interested in evidence, it seems.
Thanks Ron Paul. Who knew that national parks were the road to Stalinism?
Ever heard of Katyn Forest? :huh:
Was it a national park?
Well, I guess you shouln't try to meet Marty in Yellowstone national park. Otherwise you might be seized by the overwhelming urge to shoot him in the back of the neck.
Quote from: DGuller on December 26, 2012, 07:06:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2012, 07:03:29 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 26, 2012, 02:42:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 26, 2012, 02:08:24 PM
They already are.
Yes, but Ide is so desperate to sound like a radical that he declares that it is "currently considered... outrageous" that government should "fight wars" and "upgrade ... infrastructure." :rolleyes:
What he and Meri don't understand, because they don't understand how government works, is that it would be a disaster to have the government build the solar power satellites and wind farms. Doing so would suck out of the economy money and incentive needed to create satellites and wind farms that actually worked and were efficient. The USSR and Mao's China should have provided all the necessary evidence that we don't want government to do anything that it does not have to do, but some people aren't interested in evidence, it seems.
Thanks Ron Paul. Who knew that national parks were the road to Stalinism?
Ever heard of Katyn Forest? :huh:
God, I do enjoy the occasional reminder of why the ignore function is so great.
I thought we disabled the Ignore function.
Quote from: mongers on December 26, 2012, 02:51:37 PM
Would current corporations be capable of coming up with the equivalent of the 50s/60s interstate network ?
Sure. In Virginia, a private corporation has built a $2 billion bypass for the DC beltway. It's a toll road, and the corporation has a 75-year concession (for which they financed the road and pay 10-30% - depending on the total revenue - to the state).
The privately-financed lanes are indistinguishable from the publicly-funded lanes they parallel, other than being less crowded.
A larger version of this would require a bigger investment, but that seems entirely possible so long as ROI is good.
Quote from: grumbler on December 26, 2012, 07:47:49 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 26, 2012, 02:51:37 PM
Would current corporations be capable of coming up with the equivalent of the 50s/60s interstate network ?
Sure. In Virginia, a private corporation has built a $2 billion bypass for the DC beltway. It's a toll road, and the corporation has a 75-year concession (for which they financed the road and pay 10-30% - depending on the total revenue - to the state).
The privately-financed lanes are indistinguishable from the publicly-funded lanes they parallel, other than being less crowded.
A larger version of this would require a bigger investment, but that seems entirely possible so long as ROI is good.
Not sure I am convinced that something of the scale of the national interstate system would result from strictly private investment, simply because it is unlikely that the ROI would be that good.
I don't have any problem with the feds doing stuff like the interstate system. I think that went pretty damn well.
On the other hand, it also seems to me like that US interstate system is almost "as good as it gets" as far as government programs. Overall, the outcome was pretty good - but I don't know that it is a typical outcome of large, federal programs.
And it certainly has it's own set of issues that are typical of state solutions.
Quote from: merithyn on December 26, 2012, 03:32:18 PM
That seems fair. To my mind, what needs to happen isn't that the goverment actually do the building, but I do believe in continued and increased government funding of private businesses in this regard.
The government is notoriously bad at picking the winners in economic competitions. See Solyndra Corporation, A123 Systems, etc.
The government has a role in providing infrastructure and establishing standards, for sure, but I think anyone arguing for subsidizing individual corporations, even if they do things the arguer likes, is mad.
Those are toll roads, which are an abomination.
Quote from: Berkut on December 26, 2012, 07:53:58 PM
Not sure I am convinced that something of the scale of the national interstate system would result from strictly private investment, simply because it is unlikely that the ROI would be that good.
I don't have any problem with the feds doing stuff like the interstate system. I think that went pretty damn well.
On the other hand, it also seems to me like that US interstate system is almost "as good as it gets" as far as government programs. Overall, the outcome was pretty good - but I don't know that it is a typical outcome of large, federal programs.
And it certainly has it's own set of issues that are typical of state solutions.
I think the ROI would, in fact, be quite good if the interstate system had been built with private funds and was all toll-based. I am not sure that would be a good thing for the country, though. It would make interstate commerce much more expensive, and thus reduce the impact of relative advantage, which, as we all know from our Adam Smith, is a bad thing.
The question was whether it would be possible, not whether it would be a good thing.
Quote from: Neil on December 26, 2012, 08:01:39 PM
Those are toll roads, which are an abomination.
You are interrupting their libertarian circle jerk.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2012, 08:47:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 26, 2012, 08:01:39 PM
Those are toll roads, which are an abomination.
You are interrupting their libertarian circle jerk.
I don't mind toll roads. They needn't necessarily be libertarian. The French ones are mostly built and operated by private companies (I think the government tends to retain a share of costs and profits).
I love a bit of dirigiste public-private infrastructure myself :mmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 02:57:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 26, 2012, 02:49:49 PM
I think its pretty easy to come up with a utilitarian argument against economic inequality if one makes somewhat plausible assumptions about satiation and the shape of an income-utility or wealth-utility curve.
Partially conceded, but you are using a static model.
After consideration, utilitarian doesn't work, but efficiency does.
Quote from: grumbler on December 26, 2012, 07:58:18 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 26, 2012, 03:32:18 PM
That seems fair. To my mind, what needs to happen isn't that the goverment actually do the building, but I do believe in continued and increased government funding of private businesses in this regard.
The government is notoriously bad at picking the winners in economic competitions. See Solyndra Corporation, A123 Systems, etc.
The government has a role in providing infrastructure and establishing standards, for sure, but I think anyone arguing for subsidizing individual corporations, even if they do things the arguer likes, is mad.
I was thinking more along the lines of tax incentives and government grants rather than direct supplementation to any particular company.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2012, 08:47:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 26, 2012, 08:01:39 PM
Those are toll roads, which are an abomination.
You are interrupting their libertarian circle jerk.
Someone's pouting again.
Quote from: Habbaku on December 26, 2012, 11:53:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2012, 08:47:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 26, 2012, 08:01:39 PM
Those are toll roads, which are an abomination.
You are interrupting their libertarian circle jerk.
Someone's pouting again.
If I didn't say something they would be tossing each other off about the gold standard right now.
Quote from: Habbaku on December 26, 2012, 01:25:00 PM
Yeah, they're both pretty bonkers.
What wars are we not fighting now that need fighting?
Bombing Uganda till they adopt Lawrence v. Texas.
Intervention in Mexico.
Afghanistan, but now with more air power.
And we'll eventually be faced with an unstable, belligerent PRC or an even more unstable and perhaps more belligerent successor regime.
Quote from: sbr on December 26, 2012, 01:26:25 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on December 26, 2012, 01:25:00 PM
What wars are we not fighting now that need fighting?
I assumed Ide meant actually funding the wars we had to be in instead of cutting taxes at the same time, not starting new ones.
That too, although it may be a day late and a dollar short on Iraq and Afghanistan. The other ones I suggest are either logistically simple (Mexico), limited (Uganda), or cheap (winning any war really need only cost about $2 billion that we've already spent).
But I'm being a little facetious. I'm not necessarily advocating any new war, just, if we could trivially do so, those are countries whose situations I'd find of interest were I president.
Your Martinusism has been noted. I always figured that Asian girls were a gateway drug to homoness.
Senator Reid Says a Deal Is Unlikely Before the Fiscal Deadline :(
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/28/us/politics/senate-leader-fears-not-enough-time-for-fiscal-deal.html
“We are here in Washington working,” Mr. Reid said. “While the members of the House of Representatives are out watching movies and watching their kids play soccer and basketball and doing all kinds of things.” :o
Well at least it should liven up the first day of what looks like being a fairly dull/quiet start to 2013.
Also please spare a thought for all of those doomsday predictors/charlatans who've had to slave away over the holidays, whilst we enjoy ourselves, to come up with some new BS, following the ending of the Mayan/2012 meal ticket. :)
Looks like nothing's gonna happen
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/30/16254655-no-fiscal-deal-sunday-senate-to-return-for-dramatic-new-years-eve?lite
Yes they will. High Drama is all.
I dunno. I wonder if the politicos perhaps got the idea that the "fiscal cliff" is the perfect device...tax increases and spending cuts needed for deficit reduction, and because it's "automatic", there is no direct blame either way.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 31, 2012, 03:34:52 AM
I dunno. I wonder if the politicos perhaps got the idea that the "fiscal cliff" is the perfect device...tax increases and spending cuts needed for deficit reduction, and because it's "automatic", there is no direct blame either way.
I agree. There is a lot to "fix" after the fact if it goes through, but just going through fixes a lot on its own.
Taxes become more regressive after the cliff, but everybody and his cat will want to change that. We get a CapGains tax and an inheritance tax that come in. Buffett and his buddies already have that in hand. The rich will be fine. And the revenue we'll get from it will be insignificant. 40 bil. A week of national spending. Next Issue.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 31, 2012, 03:34:52 AM
I dunno. I wonder if the politicos perhaps got the idea that the "fiscal cliff" is the perfect device...tax increases and spending cuts needed for deficit reduction, and because it's "automatic", there is no direct blame either way.
Also, it gives them the opportunity to magnanimously lower taxes afterwards . . . though probably not by the amount they went up.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 31, 2012, 04:10:22 AM
Taxes become more regressive after the cliff, but everybody and his cat will want to change that.
How's that?
Quote from: Neil on December 27, 2012, 08:28:27 AM
Your Martinusism has been noted. I always figured that Asian girls were a gateway drug to homoness.
Well not if they have a nice rack.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 31, 2012, 12:17:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 27, 2012, 08:28:27 AM
Your Martinusism has been noted. I always figured that Asian girls were a gateway drug to homoness.
Well not if they have a nice rack.
Which is-- not very often, sadly.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2012, 07:50:46 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 31, 2012, 04:10:22 AM
Taxes become more regressive after the cliff, but everybody and his cat will want to change that.
How's that?
The Bush tax cuts shifted the tax burden more toward the higher earners. When they expire, that goes away.
Anyway, we've got an announcement coming in a half hour. Probably some agreement to delay everything keeping the status quo.
The President has spoken, not there yet, but hopeful of some compromise on some details ?
Yeah. Ten hours left.
Word is, the Prez has balked on the sequestration cuts. We'll see.
QuoteWASHINGTON — The House will miss the midnight Monday deadline lawmakers set for voting to avoid the "fiscal cliff."
House Republicans notified lawmakers that the chamber will vote Monday evening on other bills. They say that will be their only votes of the day.
President Barack Obama and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Monday they are near a deal to avoid wide-ranging tax increases and spending cuts — the fiscal cliff — that take effect with the new year.
Both men said they were still bargaining over whether — and how — to avoid $109 billion in cuts to defense and domestic programs that take effect on Wednesday.
It remained unclear whether the Senate would vote Monday.
Congress could pass later legislation retroactively blocking the tax hikes and spending cuts
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flistverse.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F10%2Fcar-flying-off-cliff.jpg&hash=50807ea31057fb49cd22ea265060e36edff74340)
It's really more of a....
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.speednik.com%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F04%2Fgeneral_lee_jump_video.jpg&hash=3531882305f5402e19ea9a4fc15490cf38ce3079)
Yep, them Duke boys did it intentionally too.
It was funny to see the frames of those Chargers twist and shatter every time they did that. I wonder how many they went through.
Time to bury my gold. Please don't make a city slickers III based on looking for it.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 31, 2012, 05:13:49 PM
It was funny to see the frames of those Chargers twist and shatter every time they did that. I wonder how many they went through.
No it's not.
All those muscle cars gone, like tears in the rain.
But wait:
QuoteWith the midnight deadline approaching, a Democratic aide says a deal has been reached, avoiding the "fiscal cliff."
WASHINGTON — A Democratic aide says the White House and congressional Republicans have reached an agreement to avert the "fiscal cliff."
The measure would extend Bush-era tax cuts for family incomes below $450,000 and briefly avert across-the-board spending cuts set to strike the Pentagon and domestic agencies this week.
Vice President Joe Biden was set to sell the agreement to Senate Democrats at a meeting at the Capitol on Monday night.
The aide required anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.
House Republicans notified lawmakers that the chamber will vote Monday evening on other bills. They say that will be their only votes of the day.
President Barack Obama and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Monday they are near a deal to avoid wide-ranging tax increases and spending cuts that take effect with the new year.
Both men said they were still bargaining over whether — and how — to avoid $109 billion in cuts to defense and domestic programs that take effect on Wednesday.
America is not Broken! :flags:
Austerity forever! Save the rich!
I enjoy Washington on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/George-Washington/233415533418621
(https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-prn1/162071_233415533418621_1895412972_q.jpg)
"When the situation of this Country calls loudly for unanimity and vigor, it is to be lamented that Gentlemen of talents and character should disagree in their sentiments for promoting the public weal; but unfortunately, this ever has been, and most probably ever will be the case, in the affairs of man."
– George Washington, letter to Alexander Hamilton, Mount Vernon, October 18, 1787
The Senate has voted in favor
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/01/16268297-senate-approves-deal-to-avert-fiscal-cliff-vote-goes-to-house?lite
But will the House vote in favor.
And then we do this again in two months. :D
Yea, I'm kind of at a loss here. Doesn't Obama lose bigtime here?
Quote from: Faeelin on January 01, 2013, 05:02:31 PM
Yea, I'm kind of at a loss here. Doesn't Obama lose bigtime here?
No more than everybody else.
Presume Obama doesn't want anymore spending cuts. The debt ceiling crisis comes along in a couple months, and Obama doesn't have the Bush tax cuts to hold over them.
What stops them from saying "give us what we want?"
Just when you thought things might be going smoothly:
QuoteHouse Majority Leader Eric Cantor says he does not support the Senate-passed bill and that could mean back to the drawing board for lawmakers.
WASHINGTON — The Senate-approved compromise to avert the "fiscal cliff" ran headlong into opposition from the No. 2 House Republican and other GOP lawmakers Tuesday, raising questions about how — and in what form — Congress might be able to give final approval to the measure.
"I do not support the bill," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., told reporters after Republicans held a lengthy closed-door meeting to gauge support for the compromise. Participants in the extraordinary New Year's Day meeting said there was widespread criticism that the bill did not contain enough spending cuts.
Rep. Steve LaTourette of Ohio said the overwhelming sentiment among House Republicans was to amend the bill to incorporate more spending cuts and send it back to the Senate. Several lawmakers and aides said such a move was likely, and on balance the GOP reaction seemed to seriously complicate efforts to enact a new law before the current Congress expires on Thursday.
"The speaker and leader laid out options to the members and listened to feedback," said Brendan Buck, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. "The lack of spending cuts in the Senate bill was a universal concern amongst members in today's meeting. Conversations with members will continue throughout the afternoon on the path forward."
Exiting the meeting, Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., said he was among lawmakers who wanted the deal to include more spending cuts.
"I'd be shocked if this does not go back to the Senate" with changes by the House, Bachus said.
Boehner has pointedly refrained from endorsing the agreement, though he's promised a vote on it or on a GOP alternative right away.
Vice President Joe Biden tried rallying House Democrats behind the deal in a separate meeting. When that session ended, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other top Democrats called on Boehner to allow the House to vote on the Senate-approved accord.
"That is what we expect. That is what the American people deserve," Pelosi told reporters.
The two closed-door gatherings of House lawmakers came just hours after the Senate used an overnight vote to easily approve the bipartisan compromise, which would negate across-the-board tax increases and sweeping spending cuts to the Pentagon and other government agencies.
In a New Year's drama that climaxed in the middle of the night, the Senate endorsed the legislation by 89-8 early Tuesday. That vote came shortly after Biden pushed Democratic senators to back the agreement that he and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had brokered hours earlier.
The measure would prevent middle-class taxes from going up but would raise rates on higher incomes. It would also block spending cuts for two months, extend unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless, prevent a 27 percent cut in fees for doctors who treat Medicare patients and prevent a spike in milk prices.
The bill ensures that lawmakers will have to revisit difficult budget questions in just a few weeks, as relief from painful spending cuts expires and the government requires an increase in its borrowing cap.
As the House staged a rare New Year's Day session, it was clear that there were divisions among lawmakers from both parties.
Rep. James Moran, D-Va., called it "a bad deal for America." Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., said approving it would "show the American people that this Congress isn't broken."
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said that while he might vote for it, "I won't do it thinking we've accomplished anything here today, other than the smallest finger in a dike that in fact has hundreds of holes in it."
The measure is the first significant bipartisan tax increase since 1990, when former President George H.W. Bush violated his "read my lips" promise on taxes. It would raise an additional $620 billion over the coming decade when compared with revenues after tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003, during the Bush administration. But because those policies expired at midnight Monday, the measure is officially scored as a whopping $3.9 trillion tax cut over the next decade.
Allowed to lapse was a 2 percentage point cut in the Social Security payroll tax first enacted in late 2010 to help prod consumer spending and goose the economy. It meant an extra $1,000 in the wallets of typical families earning $50,000 annually.
An extension of the cut — which temporarily reduced the tax to 4.2 percent — lacked strong support from both parties, including the White House.
President Barack Obama praised the agreement after the Senate's vote.
"While neither Democrats nor Republicans got everything they wanted, this agreement is the right thing to do for our country and the House should pass it without delay," Obama said in a statement. "This agreement will also grow the economy and shrink our deficits in a balanced way — by investing in our middle class, and by asking the wealthy to pay a little more."
The sweeping Senate vote exceeded expectations — tea party conservatives like Pat Toomey, R-Pa., and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., backed the measure — and would appear to grease enactment of the measure despite lingering questions in the House, where conservative forces sank a recent bid by Boehner to permit tax rates on incomes exceeding $1 million to go back to Clinton-era levels.
In the Senate, three Democrats and five Republicans voted against the legislation.
Lawmakers hope to resolve any uncertainty over the fiscal cliff before financial markets reopen Wednesday. It could take lots of Democratic votes to pass the measure and overcome opposition from tea party lawmakers.
Under the Senate deal, taxes would remain steady for the middle class but rise at incomes over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples — levels higher than President Barack Obama had campaigned for in his successful drive for a second term in office. Some liberal Democrats were disappointed that the White House did not stick to a harder line, while other Democrats sided with Republicans to force the White House to partially retreat on increases in taxes on multi-million-dollar estates.
The measure also allocates $24 billion in spending cuts and new revenues to defer, for two months, some $109 billion worth of automatic spending cuts that were set to slap the Pentagon and domestic programs starting this week. That would allow the White House and lawmakers time to regroup before plunging very quickly into a new round of budget brinkmanship, certain to revolve around Republican calls to rein in the cost of Medicare and other government benefit programs.
Officials also decided at the last minute to use the measure to prevent a $900 pay raise for lawmakers due to take effect this spring.
Even by the dysfunctional standards of government-by-gridlock, the activity at both ends of historic Pennsylvania Avenue was remarkable as the administration and lawmakers spent the final hours of 2012 haggling over long-festering differences.
The measure would raise the top tax rate on large estates to 40 percent, with a $5 million exemption on estates inherited from individuals and a $10 million exemption on family estates. At the insistence of Republicans and some Democrats, the exemption levels would be indexed for inflation.
Taxes on capital gains and dividends over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples would be taxed at 20 percent, up from 15 percent.
The bill would also extend jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed for an additional year at a cost of $30 billion, and would spend $31 billion to prevent a 27 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors.
Another $64 billion would go to renew tax breaks for businesses and for renewable energy purposes, like tax credits for energy-efficient appliances.
89-8 in the senate but not good enough for the House. <_<
Think I've mentioned before, but Cantor is our local rep here. Sometimes I've regretted voting for him every time just because he's been really recalcitrant as of late, when he shouldn't be. But in this case you have a Senate bill that will raise the debt by $4 tn over 10 years, and contains virtually no spending cuts. I think we have to get spending cuts in there right now. Once the tax stuff is passed we're back to only having the debt ceiling as a lever to use on the Democrats, and that causes far more problems than just having a showdown to get out spending cuts in the here and now.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 01, 2013, 07:00:28 PM
Think I've mentioned before, but Cantor is our local rep here. Sometimes I've regretted voting for him every time just because he's been really recalcitrant as of late, when he shouldn't be.
You should regret it; he's a typical Virginian politician that caters to the redneck mouthbreathing demo, so it's not surprising he's as much of a dickhead as he is. You're supposed to be smarter than that.
QuoteBut in this case you have a Senate bill that will raise the debt by $4 tn over 10 years, and contains virtually no spending cuts. I think we have to get spending cuts in there right now. Once the tax stuff is passed we're back to only having the debt ceiling as a lever to use on the Democrats, and that causes far more problems than just having a showdown to get out spending cuts in the here and now.
The priority for this bill is to stave off the tax problem at the turn of the year, not solving the entire spending enchilada. That comes later. Except when it comes to Defense and Social Security, then the GOP will say "what cuts?"
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 01, 2013, 07:00:28 PM
Think I've mentioned before, but Cantor is our local rep here. Sometimes I've regretted voting for him every time just because he's been really recalcitrant as of late, when he shouldn't be. But in this case you have a Senate bill that will raise the debt by $4 tn over 10 years, and contains virtually no spending cuts. I think we have to get spending cuts in there right now. Once the tax stuff is passed we're back to only having the debt ceiling as a lever to use on the Democrats, and that causes far more problems than just having a showdown to get out spending cuts in the here and now.
You really shouldn't have any kind of level at all. I mean, the GOP did lose the last election. The situation the GOP finds itself in is one of their own making. Instead of making a deal two years ago, they chose to hold off in the hopes winning the whitehouse and Senate and not having to compromise. Now their plan has backfired, and the Republicans should have to bleed badly for making these reckless gambles. Honestly I don't see why they should get anything.
GOP has no leverage
Of course it does; it has the House of Representatives.
The Clinton-era tax rates are a problem? For shame, CdM. Ideologue will kick you out of the Commie Club.
Quote from: Neil on January 01, 2013, 10:45:13 PM
The Clinton-era tax rates are a problem? For shame, CdM. Ideologue will kick you out of the Commie Club.
Ideologue has his own problems to worry about.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 01, 2013, 10:24:04 PM
Of course it does; it has the House of Representatives.
I'm sorta confused on how we got in a situation where if the Republicans win an election they get everything they want, and if Democrats win they have to negotiate with Republicans.
The Republicans in the government have two things that the Democrats don't, spines and unity.
The first problem is definitely fixable.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 01, 2013, 11:02:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 01, 2013, 10:24:04 PM
Of course it does; it has the House of Representatives.
I'm sorta confused on how we got in a situation where if the Republicans win an election they get everything they want, and if Democrats win they have to negotiate with Republicans.
This is what happens when one party is interested in governing, and the other is interested in abolishing government.
Looks like it might get passed after all.
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/01/16288012-fiscal-cliff-deal-house-okays-proposal-after-gop-objections?lite
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 01, 2013, 11:08:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 01, 2013, 11:02:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 01, 2013, 10:24:04 PM
Of course it does; it has the House of Representatives.
I'm sorta confused on how we got in a situation where if the Republicans win an election they get everything they want, and if Democrats win they have to negotiate with Republicans.
This is what happens when one party is interested in governing, and the other is interested in abolishing government.
It's like trying to negotiate with Hamas. We are quickly reaching the point where government will stop functioning. While all those Dipshit Republicans and Libertarians
think that's what they want, they will become disappointed when their social security and veterans benefits checks stop coming in.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 01, 2013, 11:09:23 PM
Looks like it might get passed after all.
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/01/16288012-fiscal-cliff-deal-house-okays-proposal-after-gop-objections?lite
Of course it did. GOP doesnt want to shoot themselves in the face again. :lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 01, 2013, 11:07:09 PM
The Republicans in the government have two things that the Democrats don't, spines and unity.
The first problem is definitely fixable.
How do you figure this?
For good or ill, the GOP has more ideological cohesiveness these days. That's without a doubt, there are almost no moderate republicans left these days, while the Dems span the spectrum from the Blue Dogs to the Progressive Caucus.
Yes, they march to the beat of their own drum.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 02, 2013, 01:49:10 AM
For good or ill, the GOP has more ideological cohesiveness these days. That's without a doubt, there are almost no moderate republicans left these days, while the Dems span the spectrum from the Blue Dogs to the Progressive Caucus.
Do they? Boehner couldn't seem to get his people together for his "plan B" vote. And Bush had a much easier time getting much of his programs through. I mean, how many Dems voted against the Iraq War? I think we have a fundamental difference in how both parties see how Congress work. Dems believe in coalitions, negotiations and compromise. The GOP tends to see things in black white, good and evil, those who would save America and those who would destroy it. You don't negotiate with pure evil. You make a stand and you never give an inch.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2013, 09:15:19 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 02, 2013, 01:49:10 AM
For good or ill, the GOP has more ideological cohesiveness these days. That's without a doubt, there are almost no moderate republicans left these days, while the Dems span the spectrum from the Blue Dogs to the Progressive Caucus.
Do they? Boehner couldn't seem to get his people together for his "plan B" vote. And Bush had a much easier time getting much of his programs through. I mean, how many Dems voted against the Iraq War? I think we have a fundamental difference in how both parties see how Congress work. Dems believe in coalitions, negotiations and compromise. The GOP tends to see things in black white, good and evil, those who would save America and those who would destroy it. You don't negotiate with pure evil. You make a stand and you never give an inch.
The Iraq War was pure evil.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 01, 2013, 11:02:07 PM
I'm sorta confused on how we got in a situation where if the Republicans win an election they get everything they want, and if Democrats win they have to negotiate with Republicans.
Lets pretend that the Republicans actually want to reduce spending.
Theoretically, with the House of Rep, they can unilaterally impose their will. If the president wants to spend $50 on something, and the Republicans want to spend $25, the Republicans can just pass a bill authorizing $25. For the Democrats to ensure that they get their $50, they really need the House, Senate, and Presidency.
Even with the House, Senate and Presidency Dems weren't allowed to get what they wanted through.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2013, 10:32:55 AM
Even with the House, Senate and Presidency Dems weren't allowed to get what they wanted through.
Sure they were. I don't think Obamacare was especially bipartisan.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 02, 2013, 10:34:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2013, 10:32:55 AM
Even with the House, Senate and Presidency Dems weren't allowed to get what they wanted through.
Sure they were. I don't think Obamacare was especially bipartisan.
And it got filibustered. And what about everything else? Appointments and treaties and such? It took forever to get the new Start treaty through.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2013, 11:33:10 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 02, 2013, 10:34:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2013, 10:32:55 AM
Even with the House, Senate and Presidency Dems weren't allowed to get what they wanted through.
Sure they were. I don't think Obamacare was especially bipartisan.
And it got filibustered. And what about everything else? Appointments and treaties and such? It took forever to get the new Start treaty through.
And then it passed.
Even ignoring that the majority could do away with the filibuster if they so chose, the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for a while.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 02, 2013, 12:52:16 PM
And then it passed.
Even ignoring that the majority could do away with the filibuster if they so chose, the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for a while.
An opportunity that should have been used better, I think.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 02, 2013, 01:29:26 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 02, 2013, 12:52:16 PM
And then it passed.
Even ignoring that the majority could do away with the filibuster if they so chose, the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for a while.
An opportunity that should have been used better, I think.
I think that what the members of parties say they want doesn't really match with what they want. Case in point: I don't think the republicans are unified by the idea of actually reducing spending.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 02, 2013, 12:52:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2013, 11:33:10 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 02, 2013, 10:34:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2013, 10:32:55 AM
Even with the House, Senate and Presidency Dems weren't allowed to get what they wanted through.
Sure they were. I don't think Obamacare was especially bipartisan.
And it got filibustered. And what about everything else? Appointments and treaties and such? It took forever to get the new Start treaty through.
And then it passed.
Even ignoring that the majority could do away with the filibuster if they so chose, the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for a while.
But in practice they did not have a filibuster proof majority. The Start treaty was a no brainer, yet it languished for months. Not to mention just getting routine appointments is like pulling teeth.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 02, 2013, 01:33:51 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 02, 2013, 01:29:26 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 02, 2013, 12:52:16 PM
And then it passed.
Even ignoring that the majority could do away with the filibuster if they so chose, the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for a while.
An opportunity that should have been used better, I think.
I think that what the members of parties say they want doesn't really match with what they want. Case in point: I don't think the republicans are unified by the idea of actually reducing spending.
Well no, they never have been. They are usually united in saying they want it, that's about as far as it's ever gone.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2013, 02:13:01 PM
But in practice they did not have a filibuster proof majority.
In practice there was disagreement between progressives and Blue Dogs that had to be worked out. Which has nothing to do with the issue of Democrats being more cooperative than Republicans.
Chris Christie just went Jersey mental on the House Republicans and Beohner for skipping the Hurricane Sandy Relief package.
Apparently Rep. Peter King (R) threatened to go Democrat over this. He seems pretty angry.
Who gives a shit about Hurricane Sandy relief, how about that fucking milk bill?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2013, 02:26:46 PM
Who gives a shit about Hurricane Sandy relief, how about that fucking milk bill?
Well apparently gov Christie and rep King care.
Quote from: Jacob on January 02, 2013, 02:40:33 PM
Well apparently gov Christie and rep King care.
They're paid to care.
The milk thing was in the fiscal cliff bill IIRC.
OK, is this thing now sorted, well at least for another couple of months; cus I can't be arsed to turn on the news channel and wade through all the uk politics/news.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2013, 02:42:14 PMThey're paid to care.
I didn't realize being paid to care excluded them from your rhetorical question.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2013, 02:16:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2013, 02:13:01 PM
But in practice they did not have a filibuster proof majority.
In practice there was disagreement between progressives and Blue Dogs that had to be worked out. Which has nothing to do with the issue of Democrats being more cooperative than Republicans.
What does that have to do with the price of Tea in China?
Quote from: mongers on January 02, 2013, 03:15:15 PM
OK, is this thing now sorted, well at least for another couple of months; cus I can't be arsed to turn on the news channel and wade through all the uk politics/news.
Oh no. More to follow.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2013, 07:59:08 PM
What does that have to do with the price of Tea in China?
I thought you and Fredo were bringing up Obamacare in the context of a discussion about relative cooperativeness of the parties. If not, please disregard.
I'm loving Boehner's potty mouth.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2013, 08:02:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2013, 07:59:08 PM
What does that have to do with the price of Tea in China?
I thought you and Fredo were bringing up Obamacare in the context of a discussion about relative cooperativeness of the parties. If not, please disregard.
Okay, how many "blue dogs" actually disagreed?
Quote from: Faeelin on January 01, 2013, 05:02:31 PM
Yea, I'm kind of at a loss here. Doesn't Obama lose bigtime here?
He loses no more than Joe Taxpayer does, only when Obama loses, it's not at his own expense. It's only when he wins that it's at his own expense.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2013, 08:09:21 PM
Okay, how many "blue dogs" actually disagreed?
Okay, disagreed with what? Okay, what does that have to do with the relative cooperativeness of the two parties?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2013, 08:24:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2013, 08:09:21 PM
Okay, how many "blue dogs" actually disagreed?
Okay, disagreed with what? Okay, what does that have to do with the relative cooperativeness of the two parties?
QuoteIn practice there was disagreement between progressives and Blue Dogs that had to be worked out.
I didn't understand what you were getting at, at first. Now I do.
So we reached the debt ceiling on Monday.
Quote from: Jacob on January 02, 2013, 02:24:50 PM
Apparently Rep. Peter King (R) threatened to go Democrat over this. He seems pretty angry.
It seems that Boehner couldn't have easily brought up Sandy relief that night while trying to pass the fiscal bill, and get all that passed. Not sure but that seems the general consensus by some. He has promised to bring it up as soon as possible though.
What is up with the farm/milk subsidy? How much is milk being subsidised in the US? There was talk of prices doubling without the milk subsidy. That just seems out of wack that the US has to subsidize milk like that.
I'm not sure why it's considered necessary anyway. You don't *need* to drink milk to live, or there'd be a whole lot less people living in Asia. :)
Give me chocolate milk or give me death.
The way it was described to me is that the government buys milk at a price set by some law from the 40s, and if that formula for the price they pay goes into effect in today's dollars they'll be buying it at way over the current market price. I haven't looked it up though.
This bill adds hundreds of billions in additional spending. Hollywood film makers get a nice break, along with perks for other interests. Really, was this all needed in this bill which is really just a stop-gap measure? Congress and the Pres are supposedly going to go at it all again in two months. Same thing.
This is a lousy bill but averts a likely even worse outcome. These clowns put in this sequestration in the first place because they coudn't come up with a budget, for nearly five years now. So this was supposed to force them to do something. But in the meantime they formed a small group earlier in the year to try and sort things out to avoid sequestration. But of course that had no chance of working. So now they come to this, 11th hour. And raising the debt ceiling is another 11th hour, or likely will be. But for going on five years now, no budget, no attempt to reign in an over 1 trillion dollar yearly deficit.
Sheesh. No one should be happy over this, thinking some good, positive accomplishments were made. That hasn't been the case for some years now regarding Federal spending, reforms, budgets.
Quote from: KRonn on January 02, 2013, 09:16:19 PM
This bill adds hundreds of billions in additional spending. Hollywood film makers get a nice break, along with perks for other interests. Really, was this all needed in this bill which is really just a stop-gap measure? Congress and the Pres are supposedly going to go at it all again in two months. Same thing.
This is a lousy bill but averts a likely even worse outcome. These clowns put in this sequestration in the first place because they coudn't come up with a budget, for nearly five years now. So this was supposed to force them to do something. But in the meantime they formed a small group earlier in the year to try and sort things out to avoid sequestration. But of course that had no chance of working. So now they come to this, 11th hour. And raising the debt ceiling is another 11th hour, or likely will be. But for going on five years now, no budget, no attempt to reign in an over 1 trillion dollar yearly deficit.
Sheesh. No one should be happy over this, thinking some good, positive accomplishments were made. That hasn't been the case for some years now regarding Federal spending, reforms, budgets.
:frusty:
I think if we had gone over the milk cliff the government would have been obligated to buy all the milk in the country at $8/gallon.
America = failed state. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2013, 09:24:40 PM
I think if we had gone over the milk cliff the government would have been obligated to buy all the milk in the country at $8/gallon.
Clearly the US needs to do something about the dairy cow gap!! ;)
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 02, 2013, 08:05:17 PM
I'm loving Boehner's potty mouth.
Like that doesn't happen every day down there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2013, 09:24:40 PM
I think if we had gone over the milk cliff the government would have been obligated to buy all the milk in the country at $8/gallon.
That rings a bell, I think it's called a "breast".
Quote(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.economist.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Fsuperhero%2F20130105_LDP001_473.jpg&hash=93a1d1e83d2e0372b641080d8fe596d2984b4f02)
FOR the past three years America's leaders have looked on Europe's management of the euro crisis with barely disguised contempt. In the White House and on Capitol Hill there has been incredulity that Europe's politicians could be so incompetent at handling an economic problem; so addicted to last-minute, short-term fixes; and so incapable of agreeing on a long-term strategy for the single currency.
Those criticisms were all valid, but now those who made them should take the planks from their own eyes. America's economy may not be in as bad a state as Europe's, but the failures of its politicians—epitomised by this week's 11th-hour deal to avoid the calamity of the "fiscal cliff"—suggest that Washington's pattern of dysfunction is disturbingly similar to the euro zone's in three depressing ways.
[...]
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21569024-troubling-similarities-between-fiscal-mismanagement-washington-and-mess
Mainly posted for the picture. :frog:
Boehnerhosen. Groovy.
The Economist's insistence on describing Teh cliff as a calamity is one of my few points of serious disagreement with them.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21569058-barack-obama-wrings-11th-hour-deal-taxes-john-boehner-and-republicans
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.economist.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2F290-width%2Fimages%2Fprint-edition%2F20130105_USC720.png&hash=539a14574833c9b9fbc09053cb14ba17269681aa)
Don't forget the foreclosure/short sale write-down tax exemption. That's big. They extended it one more year.
Many the new Congress will be more pragmatic? :)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/us/first-day-of-113th-congress-brings-more-women-to-capitol.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F01%2F04%2Fus%2FSCENE%2FSCENE-articleLarge.jpg&hash=b669f7d7eac3abe937fc632f8b81d4b6ee21a915)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F01%2F04%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2F04scene-webgraphic%2F04scene-webgraphic-articleInline.jpg&hash=873b851fe9303cc2bb6cf9f81c1360bfa8db0310)
Disgusting. Women in power.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 04, 2013, 06:46:37 AM
Disgusting. Women in power.
Not one of them is making me a damned sandwich.
Would any of the people who were vehemently defending Obama's deficit reduction credentials during the last debt limit crisis like to comment on the current state of affairs?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2013, 09:57:14 AM
Would any of the people who were vehemently defending Obama's deficit reduction credentials during the last debt limit crisis like to comment on the current state of affairs?
I'm guessing their answer will mostly include bitching about how the GOP doesn't "really" want to reduce spending.
Quote from: derspiess on January 04, 2013, 09:59:55 AM
I'm guessing their answer will mostly include bitching about how the GOP doesn't "really" want to reduce spending.
10 fake quatloos says the run away run away faction will outnumber the change the subject faction.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2013, 09:57:14 AM
Would any of the people who were vehemently defending Obama's deficit reduction credentials during the last debt limit crisis like to comment on the current state of affairs?
Why?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 10:15:18 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2013, 09:57:14 AM
Would any of the people who were vehemently defending Obama's deficit reduction credentials during the last debt limit crisis like to comment on the current state of affairs?
Why?
:hmm: Intellectual honesty? Integrity?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2013, 10:16:24 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 10:15:18 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2013, 09:57:14 AM
Would any of the people who were vehemently defending Obama's deficit reduction credentials during the last debt limit crisis like to comment on the current state of affairs?
Why?
:hmm: Intellectual honesty? Integrity?
What about it?
Lol, Raz awkwardly trying to pull a Yi.
I'm not seeing what he's getting at. The new deal will reduce the deficit correct?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 10:26:00 AM
I'm not seeing what he's getting at. The new deal will reduce the deficit correct?
Of course not. Look at Phil's little table. The deal cost 197 billion in lost revenue on middle class income tax. 11 billion in delayed cuts in Medicare payments. 30 billion in another year of extended unemployment benefits.
Obama supporters were crowing back in the summer about his offer to Boehner of gigantic cuts in spending in exchange for minimal increases in taxes on the rich. That has disappeared. The sequester that was the result of the GOP holding the debt limit hostage is on life support. The reduction in payments to Medicare providers that was supposed to make Obamacare revenue neutral is proving to be the sham it was predicted to be.
So I'm offering this opportunity for Obama deficit hawk cheerleaders to man up and admit they had it wrong.
The article that came with it the table (from your favorite newsource!) said otherwise.
QuoteThe deal cuts $737 billion from deficits over the coming decade, primarily through $618 billion of higher taxes on the rich and the resulting interest savings. But that barely dents the $10 trillion in deficits America was on track to accumulate in that time, roughly 5% of GDP on current policies, according to the Congressional Budget Office
So not much, but a little.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 10:55:54 AM
The article that came with it the table (from your favorite newsource!) said otherwise.
QuoteThe deal cuts $737 billion from deficits over the coming decade, primarily through $618 billion of higher taxes on the rich and the resulting interest savings. But that barely dents the $10 trillion in deficits America was on track to accumulate in that time, roughly 5% of GDP on current policies, according to the Congressional Budget Office
So not much, but a little.
I think it's dishonest of The Economist to claim that making permanent tax cuts that were due to expire is deficit reduction. They also appear to not be counting expenditure extensions, such as the unemployment benefits or the Medicare reimbursement rates.
Those Medicare reimbursement rates are going to be passed every year no matter what. Regardless of technicalities of budget rules I think they can be considered baseline. Unless you really believe having doctors dropping their Medicare patients by the millions is a viable outcome.
Quote from: Fate on January 04, 2013, 11:41:31 AM
Those Medicare reimbursement rates are going to be passed every year no matter what. Regardless of technicalities of budget rules I think they can be considered baseline. Unless you really believe having doctors dropping their Medicare patients by the millions is a viable outcome.
I understand that. But the other side of the see saw is the revenue neutrality of Obamacare.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2013, 10:52:08 AMOf course not. Look at Phil's little table. The deal cost 197 billion in lost revenue on middle class income tax. 11 billion in delayed cuts in Medicare payments. 30 billion in another year of extended unemployment benefits.
Obama supporters were crowing back in the summer about his offer to Boehner of gigantic cuts in spending in exchange for minimal increases in taxes on the rich. That has disappeared. The sequester that was the result of the GOP holding the debt limit hostage is on life support. The reduction in payments to Medicare providers that was supposed to make Obamacare revenue neutral is proving to be the sham it was predicted to be.
So I'm offering this opportunity for Obama deficit hawk cheerleaders to man up and admit they had it wrong.
I don't know if you count me in the Obama deficit hawk cheerleader camp - I don't think I'm in it - but I expect that the response is that given the tough negotiation season ahead, some of those things were held back.
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2013, 12:52:05 PM
I don't know if you count me in the Obama deficit hawk cheerleader camp - I don't think I'm in it - but I expect that the response is that given the tough negotiation season ahead, some of those things were held back.
That's an explanation that has the disadvantage of being easily proved or disproved in the near term.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2013, 01:12:53 PMThat's an explanation that has the disadvantage of being easily proved or disproved in the near term.
I'd think that's an advantage.
Are there any Obama deficit hawk cheerleaders here? Who is this challenge supposed to be directed at?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 04, 2013, 01:52:24 PM
Are there any Obama deficit hawk cheerleaders here? Who is this challenge supposed to be directed at?
I'd prefer not to rely on my faulty memory on such a serious accusation. They were definitely vocal during the first debt limit crisis.
I fault Obama for being too hawkish. The SS tax break repeal is premature and should have been kept another year. I give it a pass because going full bore over the cliff would have been clearly worse.
And for the record I was not thinking of either of you, Joan and Yake.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 04, 2013, 02:07:40 PM
I fault Obama for being too hawkish. The SS tax break repeal is premature and should have been kept another year. I give it a pass because going full bore over the cliff would have been clearly worse.
There we go.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2013, 11:31:10 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 10:55:54 AM
The article that came with it the table (from your favorite newsource!) said otherwise.
QuoteThe deal cuts $737 billion from deficits over the coming decade, primarily through $618 billion of higher taxes on the rich and the resulting interest savings. But that barely dents the $10 trillion in deficits America was on track to accumulate in that time, roughly 5% of GDP on current policies, according to the Congressional Budget Office
So not much, but a little.
I think it's dishonest of The Economist to claim that making permanent tax cuts that were due to expire is deficit reduction. They also appear to not be counting expenditure extensions, such as the unemployment benefits or the Medicare reimbursement rates.
Okay, so you should only use the part of their article that you like but the parts the contradict your argument are now "dishonest". Tsk, tsk. And you started off with talking about "intellectual integrity".
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 03:54:23 PM
Okay, so you should only use the part of their article that you like but the parts the contradict your argument are now "dishonest". Tsk, tsk. And you started off with talking about "intellectual integrity".
For Christ's sakes Raz.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2013, 03:56:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2013, 03:54:23 PM
Okay, so you should only use the part of their article that you like but the parts the contradict your argument are now "dishonest". Tsk, tsk. And you started off with talking about "intellectual integrity".
For Christ's sakes Raz.
In the future, don't use an article that contradicts your argument if you want to try get me with your "Gotcha" thing.
:shakeshead:
So what did you want me to do Yi? Admit to be wrong about arguments I made only in your head? And if I was to do that, I'm suppose to just take your word for it?
Who said you were a cheerleader Raz? You might have been, but I don't remember it. My impression is you've always been a very consistent change the subject type of guy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2013, 04:19:41 PM
Who said you were a cheerleader Raz? You might have been, but I don't remember it. My impression is you've always been a very consistent change the subject type of guy.
:lol:
As a result of the sequester - fleet week is cancelled. They've gone too far. :ultra:
Which fleet week? I know they cancelled the one for the Portland rose festival for the same reason.
What's fleet week? :unsure:
New York City's.
Meri - wiki link below, but basically a period of time when the city is full of men in uniform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_Week
Quote from: merithyn on April 26, 2013, 08:41:13 AM
What's fleet week? :unsure:
Big ship port visits and sailors given weekend leave there ?
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2013, 08:44:44 AM
New York City's.
Meri - wiki link below, but basically a period of time when the city is full of men in uniform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_Week
:blink:
How did I not know of this?
Oh. Right. I live in the middle of fucking hell with no water to speak of so why would I know about something like this? :frusty: :mad:
Quote from: merithyn on April 26, 2013, 08:51:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2013, 08:44:44 AM
New York City's.
Meri - wiki link below, but basically a period of time when the city is full of men in uniform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_Week
:blink:
How did I not know of this?
Oh. Right. I live in the middle of fucking hell with no water to speak of so why would I know about something like this? :frusty: :mad:
I knew about it. It gets mentioned all the time on TV.
Fleet week is great. They sail DDGs and LHDs right up the Hudson and there are all sorts of naval oriented events. Sailors get some liberty. It's like Anchors Aweigh but in a real city. ;)
And there I was ready to re-stage On The Town :(