The Fed Shutdown Poll and Megathread

[Neil]

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

Voodoo economics, and the Democrats surrendering to the idea that low taxes are desirable.

[grumbler]

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

So messed up that people swallow what Ryan says without checking the facts?

Education.  I blame the educational system.

[DGuller]

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

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

[Berkut]

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

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

These are great points, since it is clear that nobody ever increases taxes in the US, and the reason we have such a "severe deficit" is all about not bringing in enough cash to fund our perfectly consistently sized government.

[DGuller]

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

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

These are great points, since it is clear that nobody ever increases taxes in the US, and the reason we have such a "severe deficit" is all about not bringing in enough cash to fund our perfectly consistently sized government.

Income taxes as percent of GDP:

2000:  14.57%
2010:  9.58%

[grumbler]

These are great points, since it is clear that nobody ever increases taxes in the US, and the reason we have such a "severe deficit" is all about not bringing in enough cash to fund our perfectly consistently sized government.

Just keep telling yourself that.  Record it, and play it in your sleep.  Find some bogus, unsourced, and misleading statistics about income tax versus GDP, write them down, and sleep with them under your pillow.

You will wake up either crazy or DGuller or both.

[Admiral Yi]

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

The problem is that the natural party of tax increases is treating the debt as a joke.

[Neil]

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

The problem is that the natural party of tax increases is treating the debt as a joke.

The natural party of tax increases?  Allegedly the Democrats are the tax and spend party, but they seem to have conceded on the taxes, and settled for just spending.  The Republicans are supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but I can't remember the last time that they proposed a tax increase.  With them, it always seems to be about cutting taxes, and then proposing small, ideological cuts to spending.

[Admiral Yi]

The natural party of tax increases?  Allegedly the Democrats are the tax and spend party, but they seem to have conceded on the taxes, and settled for just spending.  The Republicans are supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but I can't remember the last time that they proposed a tax increase.  With them, it always seems to be about cutting taxes, and then proposing small, ideological cuts to spending.

4.6 trillion being small and ideological.

[KRonn]

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

So messed up that people swallow what Ryan says without checking the facts?

Education.  I blame the educational system.

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

[KRonn]

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

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

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

[grumbler]

4.6 trillion being small and ideological.

Cutting $4.6 trillion from a $3.82 trillion budget would be quite a feat.  If they can pull it off for even ten years in a row, they will eliminate most of the total debt.

[Neil]

The natural party of tax increases?  Allegedly the Democrats are the tax and spend party, but they seem to have conceded on the taxes, and settled for just spending.  The Republicans are supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but I can't remember the last time that they proposed a tax increase.  With them, it always seems to be about cutting taxes, and then proposing small, ideological cuts to spending.

4.6 trillion being small and ideological.

Isn't that more than the total budget?  They're going to spend a negative amount?

[grumbler]

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

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

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

[grumbler]

The natural party of tax increases?  Allegedly the Democrats are the tax and spend party, but they seem to have conceded on the taxes, and settled for just spending.  The Republicans are supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but I can't remember the last time that they proposed a tax increase.  With them, it always seems to be about cutting taxes, and then proposing small, ideological cuts to spending.

4.6 trillion being small and ideological.

Isn't that more than the total budget?  They're going to spend a negative amount?

That's the number Yi is quoting.

On the other hand, if the savings is spread over years, then Yi's use of it is meaningless.  Saving $10 per year will save $4.6 trillion if you wait long enough, but I think everyone would agree that a $10 savings would be small (and probably ideological).