Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Everybody chill - Obama does have a secret plan to deal with a US debt crisis, and you'll be pleased to know it was drawn up by now-former key adviser Peter Orszag (D-Citigroup)   (blog.american.com) divider line 94
    More: Asinine, Peter Orszag, How Obama, United States, Independent Payment Advisory Board, tax reforms, debt crisis, social insurances, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner  
•       •       •

1030 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Mar 2012 at 1:04 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



94 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-03-13 10:51:00 AM  
Considering the Bush tax cuts put us in the debt hole in the first place (with some additional complete wastes of money being two military conflicts paid for by emergency appropriations and left off of the nation's ledgers), I see nothing wrong with letting the Bush tax cuts completely expire once the recovery has built up a sufficient level of momentum.
 
2012-03-13 10:53:03 AM  
Also, it's not surprising that the AEI's entire article was largely based on speculation. For a think tank, they're less into the former and more into the latter.
 
2012-03-13 12:52:38 PM  
Wow, I'm really impressed, subby, that your blog managed to uncover a secret plot so well hidden that only one person knew about it.


/your blog sucks
//oh, and once more for the cheap seats, a repeal of a tax break is not a tax hike.
 
2012-03-13 12:57:42 PM  
Repealing the Bush tax cuts seems reasonable. The "outrageously high" taxes during the Clinton administration didn't exactly stifle growth.

Adding a VAT seems pretty goddamn reasonable to me as well, and it's not really a liberal idea, since it's a consumption tax, which impacts the rich less than the poor. I think it's necessary because only federal consumption-based tax is fuel, and that's an extremely narrow base.
 
2012-03-13 01:06:43 PM  
wow, that was a really concentrated shot of stupid juice.
 
2012-03-13 01:07:09 PM  
Your blog sucks.
 
2012-03-13 01:07:20 PM  

Babwa Wawa: Repealing the Bush tax cuts seems reasonable. The "outrageously high" taxes during the Clinton administration didn't exactly stifle growth.

Adding a VAT seems pretty goddamn reasonable to me as well, and it's not really a liberal idea, since it's a consumption tax, which impacts the rich less than the poor. I think it's necessary because only federal consumption-based tax is fuel, and that's an extremely narrow base.


Talks of vat usually are dine with lowering income rates as a means to increase saving rates. Raising both would be moronic.
 
2012-03-13 01:08:22 PM  

Babwa Wawa: The "outrageously high" taxes during the Clinton administration didn't exactly stifle growth.


Zombie Eisenhower laughs at your petty tax rates.
 
2012-03-13 01:08:23 PM  
Peter Orszag wears a toupee - he can't be trusted.
 
2012-03-13 01:09:50 PM  

Babwa Wawa: The "outrageously high" taxes during the Clinton administration didn't exactly stifle growth.


In before "but but bubble" or whatever the fark
 
2012-03-13 01:10:19 PM  
Oh yes, the debt "crisis".

/makes jerkoff motion
 
2012-03-13 01:10:59 PM  
Yet, apparently, the White House does have a secret plan to deal with a sudden debt crisis. So instead of developing a long-term plan to avoid the worst-case scenario, it has chosen to plan for the worst-case scenario.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA! They're making contingency plans!11!!
 
2012-03-13 01:11:51 PM  
(looks at Treasury yields)

What debt crisis?
 
2012-03-13 01:12:41 PM  

RexTalionis: Considering the Bush tax cuts put us in the debt hole in the first place


Not the complete reason. One of the reason, yes.

Don't forget that after the Tax Cuts were fully enacted in 2003, revenue grew by a large percentage till 2007. The debt hole is much more the result of the enonomic downturns.
 
2012-03-13 01:14:01 PM  

RickyWilliams'sBong: (looks at Treasury yields)

What debt crisis?


This one.

theeconomiccollapseblog.com
 
2012-03-13 01:14:36 PM  
We also have plans on hand to invade Canada. Does that mean we'll be seeing US soldiers razing Toronto and taking all the poutine anytime soon? Probably not.
 
2012-03-13 01:14:51 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Yet, apparently, the White House does have a secret plan to deal with a sudden debt crisis. So instead of developing a long-term plan to avoid the worst-case scenario, it has chosen to plan for the worst-case scenario.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA! They're making contingency plans!11!!


I know, right? Merely planning for the worst is a bad thing now?

As I understand it, we have contingency plans on file for the invasion of 'Canada'. You know. Just in case.
 
2012-03-13 01:15:32 PM  

MyRandomName: Talks of vat usually are dine with lowering income rates as a means to increase saving rates. Raising both would be moronic.


well no, not if your goal is to get the entire economy into gov't hands, ala best korea...
 
2012-03-13 01:17:41 PM  

HeadLever: RickyWilliams'sBong: (looks at Treasury yields)

What debt crisis?

This one.

[theeconomiccollapseblog.com image 640x466]


For those just joining us, HeadLever does not understand economics or finance, but parrots stuff he pulls from Ayn Rand fansites. Please take that into consideration.
 
2012-03-13 01:18:41 PM  
Has anyone pointed out yet that Subby's blog sucks?
 
2012-03-13 01:19:58 PM  
Obama should threaten to go nuclear on the GOP's dumb ass. Raise taxes to 18% of GDP (and spending cuts to 20% GDP) or the Federal government will inflate the currency to minimize the debt crisis. Everybody hates inflation, especially the rich, so maybe some actual threats will get Congress to do their damn job.
 
2012-03-13 01:20:11 PM  

El Pachuco: HeadLever: RickyWilliams'sBong: (looks at Treasury yields)

What debt crisis?

This one.

[theeconomiccollapseblog.com image 640x466]

For those just joining us, HeadLever does not understand economics or finance, but parrots stuff he pulls from Ayn Rand fansites. Please take that into consideration.


So the report issued by the GAO is now a Ayn Rand fantasy?

Great to know that you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
2012-03-13 01:20:25 PM  

RickyWilliams'sBong: (looks at Treasury yields)

What debt crisis?


See, you're just looking at current, real-world treasury rates, as set by the Fed and supported by actual buyers worldwide. They do not think rates will rise any time soon, but HeadLever has access to charts - CHARTS! - that show interest rates skyrocketing in the future, because socialism.
 
2012-03-13 01:21:34 PM  
Government debt is just deferred taxes. Higher taxes are coming.
 
2012-03-13 01:21:59 PM  

Infernalist: As I understand it, we have contingency plans on file for the invasion of 'Canada'. You know. Just in case.


"Amended in 1815. The calligraphy is beautiful."
 
2012-03-13 01:22:12 PM  

HeadLever: El Pachuco: HeadLever: RickyWilliams'sBong: (looks at Treasury yields)

What debt crisis?

This one.

[theeconomiccollapseblog.com image 640x466]

For those just joining us, HeadLever does not understand economics or finance, but parrots stuff he pulls from Ayn Rand fansites. Please take that into consideration.

So the report issued by the GAO is now a Ayn Rand fantasy?

Great to know that you have no idea what you are talking about.


Well, I stand corrected, since you cited THE REPORT.
 
2012-03-13 01:22:55 PM  
yeah and nixon had a secret plan to end the vietnam war

/drtfa
 
2012-03-13 01:23:14 PM  
But what about his secret plan to fight inflation (new window)?
 
2012-03-13 01:25:57 PM  
FTA: The Obama administration has already conceded it has no long-term plan to deal with rising U.S. debt, driven for the most part by social insurance spending.


This is where I stopped reading.
 
2012-03-13 01:28:00 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: We also have plans on hand to invade Canada.


Infernalist: we have contingency plans on file for the invasion of 'Canada'.


I guess more and more people are drooling over Canada's sweet sweet oil.

And why not, small population, fantastic resources, no military to speak of, and the longest unprotected border on the earth. Hell, there wouldn't even be much in the way of language or culture issues.

/they'd welcome us as liberators!
 
2012-03-13 01:30:23 PM  

El Pachuco: HeadLever: El Pachuco: HeadLever: RickyWilliams'sBong: (looks at Treasury yields)

What debt crisis?

This one.

[theeconomiccollapseblog.com image 640x466]

For those just joining us, HeadLever does not understand economics or finance, but parrots stuff he pulls from Ayn Rand fansites. Please take that into consideration.

So the report issued by the GAO is now a Ayn Rand fantasy?

Great to know that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Well, I stand corrected, since you cited THE REPORT.


Here you go. See Page xi (17). (new window, pdf)
 
2012-03-13 01:31:47 PM  

BigBooper: Sock Ruh Tease: We also have plans on hand to invade Canada.

Infernalist: we have contingency plans on file for the invasion of 'Canada'.

I guess more and more people are drooling over Canada's sweet sweet oil.

And why not, small population, fantastic resources, no military to speak of, and the longest unprotected border on the earth. Hell, there wouldn't even be much in the way of language or culture issues.

/they'd welcome us as liberators!


More interesting is(was) Defence Scheme #1 (new window)
 
2012-03-13 01:32:43 PM  

MyRandomName: Talks of vat usually are dine with lowering income rates as a means to increase saving rates. Raising both would be moronic.


I'll just say that massive tax reform is required to fix the corporate tax situation and broaden our consumption-based revenues (both achievable with VAT), and make the personal income/gains tax rates more equitable and consistent.

It's looking more and more like a crisis far larger than the credit crunch is required to effect that change. And I didn't see anything in the sekrit memo that was hella crazy or anything.
 
2012-03-13 01:32:51 PM  

El Pachuco: because socialism


Not because of socalism, but because of an inability to spend within our means. If you know nothing about the problems we face, it may be best not to say anything about them. As the saying goes, It is always better to keep your mouth closed and thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.
 
2012-03-13 01:32:56 PM  
does he also have a secret plan to fight inflation?
 
2012-03-13 01:33:40 PM  

HeadLever: RickyWilliams'sBong: (looks at Treasury yields)

What debt crisis?

This one.

[theeconomiccollapseblog.com image 640x466]


ZOMG! A site called The Economic Collapse Blog thinks there's a collapse coming based on a years-old report that makes absurd assumptions on interest payments and revenues.

Well, I'm convinced.
 
2012-03-13 01:34:48 PM  

Infernalist: Has anyone pointed out yet that Subby's blog sucks?


yes, but please continue
 
2012-03-13 01:35:46 PM  

dalovindj: Government debt is just deferred taxes. Higher taxes are coming.


[nedstark.jpg]
 
2012-03-13 01:36:12 PM  

Terlis: Infernalist: As I understand it, we have contingency plans on file for the invasion of 'Canada'. You know. Just in case.

"Amended in 1815. The calligraphy is beautiful."


Also, I thought that I had bookmarked a clip of this particular scene, but I guess not. Alas.
 
2012-03-13 01:36:39 PM  

dalovindj: Government debt is just deferred taxes. Higher taxes are coming.




I've been saying this for the last 10 years. A tax cut without a spending cut is not really a tax cut. Its a tax deferrment.

"We don't feel like paying higher taxes, so we'll just dine-and-dash and make our kids pay for our laziness instead."
 
2012-03-13 01:36:48 PM  

El Pachuco: RickyWilliams'sBong: (looks at Treasury yields)

What debt crisis?

See, you're just looking at current, real-world treasury rates, as set by the Fed and supported by actual buyers worldwide. They do not think rates will rise any time soon, but HeadLever has access to charts - CHARTS! - that show interest rates skyrocketing in the future, because socialism.


If you believe that interest rates are going to stay at close to zero for the next decade + then I have a bridge to sell you. The only way to make higher rates not hurt would be to shrink the debt to gdp ratio... but the kicker is that once we get faster gdp growth money will move out of treasuries and increase the interest rates. So we will be seeing 300b+ more in interest payments once the economy starts chugging along.

FYI the fed does not set the treasury rates. Supply and demand sets it.
 
2012-03-13 01:37:08 PM  

tomWright: yeah and nixon had a secret plan to end the vietnam war

/drtfa


Watchmen is a comic book graphic novel, not an actual account from an alternate history
 
2012-03-13 01:37:14 PM  
"American Enterprise Institute"

Manages to be not one of those words.

/your blog sucks is for tards
 
2012-03-13 01:37:18 PM  

madgonad: Obama should threaten to go nuclear on the GOP's dumb ass. Raise taxes to 18% of GDP (and spending cuts to 20% GDP) or the Federal government will inflate the currency to minimize the debt crisis. Everybody hates inflation, especially the rich, so maybe some actual threats will get Congress to do their damn job.


this is why I'm thankful that the Federal Reserve has a great degree of political independence.
 
2012-03-13 01:37:26 PM  

HeadLever: RickyWilliams'sBong: (looks at Treasury yields)

What debt crisis?

This one.

[theeconomiccollapseblog.com image 640x466]


Ah yes, the potentialCRISIS 20-30 years from now
 
2012-03-13 01:40:24 PM  
americanextremists.thecomicseries.com
 
2012-03-13 01:41:04 PM  

madgonad: Obama should threaten to go nuclear on the GOP's dumb ass. Raise taxes to 18% of GDP (and spending cuts to 20% GDP) or the Federal government will inflate the currency to minimize the debt crisis. Everybody hates inflation, especially the rich, so maybe some actual threats will get Congress to do their damn job.


He doesnt have to go nuclear though. All he has to do is not sign any legislation that reups the cuts. They will sunset the end of this year.
 
2012-03-13 01:42:20 PM  
 
2012-03-13 01:42:29 PM  
FTFA: Like most left-of-center economists, Orszag loves the idea of a VAT:

Are you f*cking kidding me? Wasn't the idea of a VAT one of the "flavor of the week" Republican nominee's central tax idea? The overwhelming buttf*cking stupid in this article is just mindblowing.
 
2012-03-13 01:42:56 PM  

HeadLever: El Pachuco: HeadLever: El Pachuco: HeadLever: RickyWilliams'sBong: (looks at Treasury yields)

What debt crisis?

This one.

[theeconomiccollapseblog.com image 640x466]

For those just joining us, HeadLever does not understand economics or finance, but parrots stuff he pulls from Ayn Rand fansites. Please take that into consideration.

So the report issued by the GAO is now a Ayn Rand fantasy?

Great to know that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Well, I stand corrected, since you cited THE REPORT.

Here you go. See Page xi (17). (new window, pdf)


Evidently you missed the caveat, "in the absence of policy changes."

In other words, you expect interest rates to skyrocket over rising spending over the next 75 years, in the absence of policy changes.

filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com

Hey, xkcd's chart looks a lot like yours! Because there's no reason to think policy will change over the next 75 years. None. Nope.

/ooga booga inflation interest rates
 
2012-03-13 01:44:53 PM  

El Pachuco: Evidently you missed the caveat, "in the absence of policy changes."


Sure. Because this political climate makes it so easy to change policies.

*rollseyes.jpg*
 
2012-03-13 01:45:06 PM  

somedude210: does he also have a secret plan to fight inflation?


Haha. Sorry, gotta remember... refresh, then post. :)
 
2012-03-13 01:45:38 PM  

s2s2s2: [americanextremists.thecomicseries.com image 421x543]


What it means is that while we're facing real issues, at home and abroad, the President's would-be successors are fighting over birth control, birth certificates and how his types of hamburger dressings reveal him to be a Marxist.

I'm sorry if that ruins your pretty little jpg, though.
 
2012-03-13 01:46:08 PM  

RickyWilliams'sBong: HeadLever: RickyWilliams'sBong: (looks at Treasury yields)

What debt crisis?

This one.

[theeconomiccollapseblog.com image 640x466]

ZOMG! A site called The Economic Collapse Blog thinks there's a collapse coming based on a years-old report that makes absurd assumptions on interest payments and revenues.

Well, I'm convinced.


You could always look at the GAO report that I referenced.
 
2012-03-13 01:47:56 PM  

El Pachuco: In other words, you expect interest rates to skyrocket over rising spending over the next 75 years,


Uh, no. Interest rates are only one part in determining the interest cost that are anticipated into the future. The other part of this is the amount of debt we have. Interest rates in this study are only expected to return back to histoical norms.
 
2012-03-13 01:50:54 PM  

HeadLever: El Pachuco: In other words, you expect interest rates to skyrocket over rising spending over the next 75 years,

Uh, no. Interest rates are only one part in determining the interest cost that are anticipated into the future. The other part of this is the amount of debt we have. Interest rates in this study are only expected to return back to histoical norms.


Sounds like a lot of conjecture. I think I'll go with the experts here and not www.economiccollapse.com
 
2012-03-13 01:51:00 PM  

Infernalist: What it means is that while we're facing real issues, at home and abroad, the President's would-be successors are fighting over birth control, birth certificates and how his types of hamburger dressings reveal him to be a Marxist.

I'm sorry if that ruins your pretty little jpg, though.


Oh nothing's ruined. I just thought it funny. I'm sure Obama will fix it all soon.
 
2012-03-13 01:51:29 PM  
For all you anti-tax people, I have a question:

If you look at the trend line since 1960-ish, tax receipts, as a percentage of GDP, were usually 19%. We've been at 14% for about 5 years now.

Cutting spending, unless it reduces GDP while keeping tax receipts stable, will not raise that ratio.

Economic growth probably won't do it alone, since the growth in GDP may not mean a commensurate growth in tax receipts (that's the idea, but as the 1% have already recovered as the rest of us suffer - and the rates on businesses and high-earners are dropping, not rising - I don't think so).

So while spending is north of 20% GDP (24-25% IIRC), tax is far south (14%). Why is raising revenue "off the table"?

At the least, we should consider BOTH raising taxes and cutting spending. I lean toward doing the former now and the latter in 2 years (just to keep money flowing through the downturn), but those who say we can cut our way out of debt, in my view, are ignoring the severity of the problem (while simultaneously using "the problem" to overhaul the tax code as they would like to see it).
 
2012-03-13 01:54:58 PM  

Saiga410: If you believe that interest rates are going to stay at close to zero for the next decade + then I have a bridge to sell you.


Actually, I don't think they will stay flat - I sure hope they don't, anyway, because it didn't solve Japan's problems. However, I know they won't be rising rapidly, as HeadLever wants us to believe. There is no real upward pressure on rates and won't be, until unemployment and consumption return to near-2007 levels, adjusted for population / demographic changes.

The only way to make higher rates not hurt would be to shrink the debt to gdp ratio... but the kicker is that once we get faster gdp growth money will move out of treasuries and increase the interest rates. So we will be seeing 300b+ more in interest payments once the economy starts chugging along.

Assuming that's the only way, which it isn't, there are many ways to shrink the debt to gdp ratio - tax increases, population growth, spending cuts, exports, efficiencies, productivity etc. And $300b is less than half the Defense Dept. budget for 2010 - is it possible we could see some cost reductions if we weren't paying for 2+ wars?

FYI the fed does not set the treasury rates. Supply and demand sets it.
 
2012-03-13 01:59:21 PM  

Infernalist: Sounds like a lot of conjecture. I think I'll go with the experts here and not www.economiccollapse.com


You mean the experts like the GAO? That is where the info comes from. Read the report I linked to above.
 
2012-03-13 01:59:39 PM  
FYI the fed does not set the treasury rates. Supply and demand sets it.

Oops, missed that part - Yes, the Fed does set the rates, but they are indeed influenced by supply and demand. However, demand is so high that, effectively, the Fed sets the rates. The buyers' only option if they don't like the Fed rates is to move to higher risk debt... which carries a higher risk premium.

Now, sales volume is indeed affected by the Fed rates, but you didn't say that.
 
2012-03-13 02:01:30 PM  

El Pachuco: Actually, I don't think they will stay flat - I sure hope they don't, anyway, because it didn't solve Japan's problems. However, I know they won't be rising rapidly, as HeadLever wants us to believe.


Again, the graph does not represent an increase in interest rates above historic norms. The yellow line is the interest on the national debt, not interest rate. If you cannot figure out the difference between the two, you may want to quit arguing with those of us that do.
 
2012-03-13 02:06:12 PM  
Is it me, or does this author seem like he has a clear agenda? Seems like he has an agenda...
 
2012-03-13 02:06:28 PM  

HeadLever: Infernalist: Sounds like a lot of conjecture. I think I'll go with the experts here and not www.economiccollapse.com

You mean the experts like the GAO? That is where the info comes from. Read the report I linked to above.


You're fixating, like a chicken staring at something shiny, on a hypothetical single chart that says, if there are no changes to any policies - spending, taxation, budget allocations - and no changes to economic growth rates for the next 75 years then it will be bad.

They're being absurd for the purpose of illustration, but you're taking it as an ironclad prediction of the next three quarters of a century.
 
2012-03-13 02:07:44 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Why is raising revenue "off the table"?


I don't think that the general concept of raising revenue is off the table. Many on the Republican side offer to do this by leaving tax rates the same and eliminating tax deductions, credits, and loopholes. I would like to see a combination of both.

However, the issue here is simliar to cutting spending in a rough economy. Raising taxes and reducing tax deduction/credits/loopholes will take money out of the consumer's hands and could slow the rate at which we can recover.
 
2012-03-13 02:13:16 PM  

El Pachuco: and no changes to economic growth rates for the next 75 years then it will be bad.


It does not have to be 75 years out to be 'bad'. This projection shows that we will be paying nealy $1T a year in interest on the national debt in only 10 short years if nothing is done to fix the problem (our current total revenue is around $2.2Trillion). Right now the net interestt eats up about 20% of the entire federal tax revenue. If left unchecked (via more trillion dollar deficits), this number will soon explode.

/Yes this projection is not possible, but that is because we will be bankrupt in only 20 years or so.
//those that support kicking this can down the road are part of the problem.
 
2012-03-13 02:15:21 PM  

El Pachuco: They're being absurd for the purpose of illustration


No, they are trying to wake folks like you up and show you what kind of mess we are in if things are left unchecked. Of course, to actually know what they are saying, you first have to be smart enough to know the difference between interest rates and the cost of the interest on the national debt.
 
2012-03-13 02:16:37 PM  

HeadLever: Dr Dreidel: Why is raising revenue "off the table"?

I don't think that the general concept of raising revenue is off the table. Many on the Republican side offer to do this by leaving tax rates the same and eliminating tax deductions, credits, and loopholes. I would like to see a combination of both.

However, the issue here is simliar to cutting spending in a rough economy. Raising taxes and reducing tax deduction/credits/loopholes will take money out of the consumer's hands and could slow the rate at which we can recover.


Or we could just, y'know, let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. That won't affect regular consumer activity in the slightest.
 
2012-03-13 02:21:57 PM  

HeadLever: El Pachuco: They're being absurd for the purpose of illustration

No, they are trying to wake folks like you up and show you what kind of mess we are in if things are left unchecked. Of course, to actually know what they are saying, you first have to be smart enough to know the difference between interest rates and the cost of the interest on the national debt.


Me: MBA, series 7 rep for 4 years, now working in the mortgage industry for 3.

You: a blog called theeconomiccollapseblog.com. Anything else?
 
2012-03-13 02:22:10 PM  

El Pachuco: Or we could just, y'know, let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. That won't affect regular consumer activity in the slightest.


That would help, but not solve the problem. Esimates say that raising this tax rate on the rich will bring in about $70Billion in additional revenue. Elimiating the tax cuts entirely will bring in about $350 Billion. It will help the $1.3 Trillion deficit but by only a small amount.
 
2012-03-13 02:23:12 PM  

El Pachuco: HeadLever: El Pachuco: They're being absurd for the purpose of illustration

No, they are trying to wake folks like you up and show you what kind of mess we are in if things are left unchecked. Of course, to actually know what they are saying, you first have to be smart enough to know the difference between interest rates and the cost of the interest on the national debt.

Me: MBA, series 7 rep for 4 years, now working in the mortgage industry for 3.

You: a blog called theeconomiccollapseblog.com the GAO. Anything else?


Nope.
 
2012-03-13 02:28:46 PM  

HeadLever: Dr Dreidel: Why is raising revenue "off the table"?

I don't think that the general concept of raising revenue is off the table. Many on the Republican side offer to do this by leaving tax rates the same and eliminating tax deductions, credits, and loopholes. I would like to see a combination of both.

However, the issue here is simliar to cutting spending in a rough economy. Raising taxes and reducing tax deduction/credits/loopholes will take money out of the consumer's hands and could slow the rate at which we can recover.


i wish killing the mortgage interest deduction, across the board, was on the table.

when it was introduced in 1913, no real effect on home ownership occured. the only thing that boosted home ownership rates significantly was the post-WW2 boom (probably due to the GI Bill), but the increase ran out of steam by 1960.

home ownership rates now are at 66%. the rate in 1960? 62%
 
2012-03-13 02:29:09 PM  

HeadLever: El Pachuco: They're being absurd for the purpose of illustration

No, they are trying to wake folks like you up and show you what kind of mess we are in if things are left unchecked. Of course, to actually know what they are saying, you first have to be smart enough to know the difference between interest rates and the cost of the interest on the national debt.


There's a big difference between saying 'leaving things unchecked' and saying 'if this happens and that happens and that other thing happens, and something highly improbable happens for 75 years, then it'll be really bad.'

I think what people are saying is that the blog is either looking for reasons to freak out unnecessarily, or they're retarded. It's hard to say which it is, though.
 
2012-03-13 02:33:09 PM  

dumbobruni: i wish killing the mortgage interest deduction, across the board, was on the table.


Just like anything that deals with raising taxes, it will be very difficult for politicians to pass this off. folks like low taxes and high government spending. Cut spending - liberals squeal. Raise taxes - republicans squeal. Hence nothing really gets done and the trillion dollar deficts continue dragging us further into the debt hole we currently find ourselves.
 
2012-03-13 02:36:37 PM  

HeadLever: El Pachuco: HeadLever: El Pachuco: They're being absurd for the purpose of illustration

No, they are trying to wake folks like you up and show you what kind of mess we are in if things are left unchecked. Of course, to actually know what they are saying, you first have to be smart enough to know the difference between interest rates and the cost of the interest on the national debt.

Me: MBA, series 7 rep for 4 years, now working in the mortgage industry for 3.

You: a blog called theeconomiccollapseblog.com the GAO. Anything else?

Nope.


So you have no formal eduction in economics or finance, then. That does explain a lot.
 
2012-03-13 02:46:43 PM  

HeadLever: dumbobruni: i wish killing the mortgage interest deduction, across the board, was on the table.

Just like anything that deals with raising taxes, it will be very difficult for politicians to pass this off. folks like low taxes and high government spending. Cut spending - liberals squeal. Raise taxes - republicans squeal. Hence nothing really gets done and the trillion dollar deficts continue dragging us further into the debt hole we currently find ourselves.


Most reasonable people are willing to find a compromise in the middle. You raise taxes and you cute spending, but you don't take it to extremes.

The problem is, conservative retards and their rich Masters have turned 'all taxes' into an evil. Taxes are not evil, taxes are necessary. So, all tax increases are terrible, or so they want us to believe.

Some spending cuts are necessary(Even defense cuts), but you have to cut the real fat out and not rip the safety net that the non-rich rely upon.

Problem is, we can't talk about Tax increases with the Grover Norquist crowd. The same crowd are the ones wanting to abolish SS and Medicare so that they can give more tax cuts to the super rich.
 
2012-03-13 02:50:23 PM  

Infernalist: There's a big difference between saying 'leaving things unchecked' and saying 'if this happens and that happens and that other thing happens, and something highly improbable happens for 75 years, then it'll be really bad.'


Of course, but this is not what is happening. For the 5th time this graph is from the GAO, which uses much of the same CBO projections for SS, Medicare/Medicaid, Defense, etc. And again, the bad shiat does not just happen 75 years out in the future. If you look carefully, interst costs starts to erode our fiscal situation much sooner than that.
 
2012-03-13 02:52:15 PM  
I don't know why, but (D-Citigroup) just tickled me.
 
2012-03-13 02:57:59 PM  

El Pachuco: So you have no formal eduction in economics or finance, then. That does explain a lot.


Even if I didn't I would expect even hobby economist to know that the yellow line posted above is not the interest rate.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallicy, anyways. Try again.
 
2012-03-13 03:07:55 PM  

Infernalist: Most reasonable people are willing to find a compromise in the middle. You raise taxes and you cute spending, but you don't take it to extremes.


I will agree with that.

The problem is, conservative retards and their rich Masters have turned 'all taxes' into an evil. Taxes are not evil, taxes are necessary. So, all tax increases are terrible, or so they want us to believe.

Not really. Some republicans have proposed raising revenues via elimination of tax breaks. However, I will generally agree that the no tax increase pledge is dumb to say the least. WWIkeD?
 
2012-03-13 03:09:17 PM  

HeadLever: Infernalist: There's a big difference between saying 'leaving things unchecked' and saying 'if this happens and that happens and that other thing happens, and something highly improbable happens for 75 years, then it'll be really bad.'

Of course, but this is not what is happening. For the 5th time this graph is from the GAO, which uses much of the same CBO projections for SS, Medicare/Medicaid, Defense, etc. And again, the bad shiat does not just happen 75 years out in the future. If you look carefully, interst costs starts to erode our fiscal situation much sooner than that.


Dude, it's one picture, with no explanation whatsoever for the hypothetical factors involved in creating it. The source document even says it's an illustration of Chart 2, which looks like this, can't find the original:

1.bp.blogspot.com

which highlights how hypothetical a scenario like that is, compared to actual history. Of course policy will change; that's the point of the paper you cite.

You post it in. every. farking. thread. and you get your ass handed to you every time by random Farkers who clearly have a bit more background than you on the subject.

Here's another CBO-based chart:

crooksandliars.com

Looks like your scary debt scenario will be dramatically reduced if we get rid of real-world current factors like the Bush tax cuts, the wars, and the economic downturn, now don't it? And that's without any other policy changes, i.e. entitlements etc. plus without what-if's extrapolated into the future based on nothing.
 
2012-03-13 03:13:04 PM  

HeadLever: Infernalist: Most reasonable people are willing to find a compromise in the middle. You raise taxes and you cute spending, but you don't take it to extremes.

I will agree with that.

The problem is, conservative retards and their rich Masters have turned 'all taxes' into an evil. Taxes are not evil, taxes are necessary. So, all tax increases are terrible, or so they want us to believe.

Not really. Some republicans have proposed raising revenues via elimination of tax breaks. However, I will generally agree that the no tax increase pledge is dumb to say the least. WWIkeD?


He'd probably get Primaried by a Tea Party extremist.
 
2012-03-13 03:16:04 PM  

HeadLever: the yellow line posted above is not the interest rate.


Nobody here said it did. It's clearly total debt, and you'd have to be kinda retarded to look at that chart and think it was somehow a combination of accumulated debt plus interest rates on the same axes. You do not understand this discussion, and are confabulating.
 
2012-03-13 03:27:30 PM  

El Pachuco: Dude, it's one picture, with no explanation whatsoever for the hypothetical factors involved in creating it. The source document even says it's an illustration of Chart 2, which looks like this, can't find the original:


Did you look at my linked pdf?. All the info you want to know is in there. In 10 seconds at looking at the discussion on debt/deficts (and I am just looking in the Overview Section), I see a footnoted reference to the Medicare Trustees' Report. It explains things very well. If you need more information, look in the Mangement Discussion and Analysis section, the body of the Report, Supplemental Information, or you can also find quite a bit of info in the Appendicies. The report is ~250 pages long and they a pretty good job at citing thier work.
 
2012-03-13 03:28:37 PM  

Infernalist: He'd probably get Primaried by a Tea Party extremist.


Lol, I would have to agree with you there.
 
2012-03-13 03:32:48 PM  

El Pachuco: Nobody here said it did. It's clearly total debt


*Facepalm*

Really? You really have an MBA and you think it is total debt? Even when I have said that it is interest on the national debt multiple times? It even says 'INTEREST COSTS' right in the farking title.

*sigh*

Sometimes you have to weep thinking how hard it is to get folks to see what the hell is going on.
 
2012-03-13 03:36:22 PM  

El Pachuco: You do not understand this discussion, and are confabulating.


Lolerskates

/ironometer pegs out
 
2012-03-13 04:24:56 PM  

HeadLever: El Pachuco: Nobody here said it did. It's clearly total debt

*Facepalm*

Really? You really have an MBA and you think it is total debt? Even when I have said that it is interest on the national debt multiple times? It even says 'INTEREST COSTS' right in the farking title.

*sigh*

Sometimes you have to weep thinking how hard it is to get folks to see what the hell is going on.


Please explain how that chart is showing Interest Costs by interest rates, rather than Interest Costs as accumulated debt. It even says Percentage of GDP right on the farking axis.

s3.amazonaws.com
 
2012-03-13 04:32:24 PM  

El Pachuco: Please explain how that chart is showing Interest Costs by interest rates, rather than Interest Costs as accumulated debt.


You really have an MBA? I smell bullshiat. If you cannot understand what a projected cost regarding the Interest on the National Debt entails, I am afraid that I can't help much.

It is not total debt, nor is it interest rates. Although, it is dependent upon both. If you want to know what these costs are for the last couple of years, you can check here (new window):
 
2012-03-13 04:50:04 PM  

El Pachuco: It even says Percentage of GDP right on the farking axis.


Sure it does. When comparing cost of Goverment items, it is best to measure the cost this way. Keeps the cost associated with economic output and removes the variable value of currrency form the equation. This is nothing new or earthshattering.
 
2012-03-13 05:18:19 PM  
An AEI blogger making tendentious arguments supported mostly by links to his other blog posts? In my Fark?

It's more likely than you think.
 
2012-03-13 05:54:27 PM  

El Pachuco: HeadLever: El Pachuco: They're being absurd for the purpose of illustration

No, they are trying to wake folks like you up and show you what kind of mess we are in if things are left unchecked. Of course, to actually know what they are saying, you first have to be smart enough to know the difference between interest rates and the cost of the interest on the national debt.

Me: MBA, series 7 rep for 4 years, now working in the mortgage industry for 3.

You: a blog called theeconomiccollapseblog.com. Anything else?


El Pachuco: ubiquitous degree printed on kleenex, didn't make it in security sales, 3 years experience in the industry that almost tanked the economy...

/FTFEP
 
2012-03-13 08:58:11 PM  

Make More Hinjews: Let me tell you something, mi compadre. You guys have been coddled. I'm not your girlfriend, I'm not your camp counselor, I'm not your sixth-grade teacher you had a crush on. I'm a graduate of Harvard and Yale, ...


As was Bush.
 
2012-03-13 09:07:00 PM  

Alien Robot: Make More Hinjews: Let me tell you something, mi compadre. You guys have been coddled. I'm not your girlfriend, I'm not your camp counselor, I'm not your sixth-grade teacher you had a crush on. I'm a graduate of Harvard and Yale, ...

As was Bush.


Um... you know I'm quoting Josh Lyman, ya? ;)
 
Displayed 94 of 94 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report