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.

(CNBC)   So, if Congress does nothing we immediately get a balanced budget and cut defense spending? I'm having a hard time seeing the problem here   (cnbc.com) divider line 81
    More: Spiffy, congresses, balanced budgets  
•       •       •

4012 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jul 2012 at 5:56 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-07-01 10:25:31 AM
We cut the deficit by a third or so if the tax increases turn into long term revenue increases and the short term spending cuts turn into long term spending cuts. Budget talk is deceptive because it uses different time scales. We have an annual deficit of a trillion dollars and the debt ceiling deal saves a trillion or four over the next decade.
 
2012-07-01 11:56:41 AM
Sometimes, fear of pissing off constituents can make politicians do the right thing in spite of themselves. Rather heartening to see.
 
2012-07-01 12:38:00 PM

ZAZ: We cut the deficit by a third or so if the tax increases turn into long term revenue increases and the short term spending cuts turn into long term spending cuts. Budget talk is deceptive because it uses different time scales. We have an annual deficit of a trillion dollars and the debt ceiling deal saves a trillion or four over the next decade.


But the cuts include funding for social and state programs which is going to translate into lost jobs.
 
2012-07-01 01:30:05 PM

Bontesla: ZAZ: We cut the deficit by a third or so if the tax increases turn into long term revenue increases and the short term spending cuts turn into long term spending cuts. Budget talk is deceptive because it uses different time scales. We have an annual deficit of a trillion dollars and the debt ceiling deal saves a trillion or four over the next decade.

But the cuts include funding for social and state programs which is going to translate into lost jobs.


That's true of pretty much all kinds of government spending, subsidies, etc. If we can't cut any spending that reduces jobs, it means we can't really cut much of anything. If the money is not going into the economy, some jobs will be lost.

If the size of our total debt wasn't so large, it wouldn't be such a concern. Our national debt (not annual deficit - the total debt) is starting to reach our total annual GDP.

Around 60% is ideal, 80% is manageable, 100% plus and we risk further credit downgrades. That will increase our borrowing costs and reduce our long term financial strength in the international community. So there is a need to reduce spending, even though the spending creates jobs.
 
2012-07-01 02:16:34 PM
Except that would mean raising taxes on themselves..........
 
2012-07-01 02:20:10 PM
They would come back in January with a new Congress relatively flush with cash - at least on paper - from the impact of the tax hikes; hit reset and start over to structure a new series of tax cuts.

FORGET about actually paying down part of the debt.
God I hate these people.
 
2012-07-01 02:20:18 PM
Romney last month floated the idea of Congress leaving town and waiting until he arrives in late January to act, which initially brought gasps, in part because nobody can f*cking believe this guy will actually win.
 
2012-07-01 02:22:38 PM

Otherwise Just Fine: That's true of pretty much all kinds of government spending, subsidies, etc. If we can't cut any spending that reduces jobs, it means we can't really cut much of anything. If the money is not going into the economy, some jobs will be lost.


this
As much as I would LOVE to cut defense spending (and we should), those cuts in spending would translate into higher unemployment. Funny how the GOP talks about cutting government spending and ignores this fact. Or worse, waves the magic "NEW JORBS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR" wand.
 
2012-07-01 02:23:13 PM

DeltaPunch: Romney last month floated the idea of Congress leaving town and waiting until he arrives in late January to act, which initially brought gasps, in part because nobody can f*cking believe this guy will actually win.


bwahahahahhhahaah
 
2012-07-01 02:28:13 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Sometimes, fear of pissing off constituents can make politicians do the right thing in spite of themselves. Rather heartening to see.


Hell, the only reason that both sides voted to renew the tax-cuts was that both sides were terrified that they would be labeled as raising taxes. But if BOTH sides do nothing ... bwhahahahaha

Those farkers are playing with fire with "the cliff" being the next big, never ending news story.
 
2012-07-01 02:33:28 PM
It hits the economy hard and any expected revenue from the tax increases gets offset by the loss of revenue from the cuts.

Does the CBO project both things?
 
2012-07-01 03:24:58 PM
Time to nut up as a nation and eat our vegetables. I'm in the BOTTOM 20% for income distribution, and I'll pay more if it means EVERYONE pays more.
 
2012-07-01 04:00:35 PM

meat0918: It hits the economy hard and any expected revenue from the tax increases gets offset by the loss of revenue from the cuts.

Does the CBO project both things?


Cuts = loss revenue? Not following you here...
 
2012-07-01 04:25:59 PM

DeltaPunch: meat0918: It hits the economy hard and any expected revenue from the tax increases gets offset by the loss of revenue from the cuts.

Does the CBO project both things?

Cuts = loss revenue? Not following you here...


Revenue projections include taxes collected from employees of all the ancillary private businesses that supply both the government and what those employees spend their paychecks on.
 
2012-07-01 04:28:04 PM

DeltaPunch: meat0918: It hits the economy hard and any expected revenue from the tax increases gets offset by the loss of revenue from the cuts.

Does the CBO project both things?

Cuts = loss revenue? Not following you here...


If the government CUTS spending, it will increase unemployment (at least in the short run), which will probably lead to yet another recession, which would lead to lower revenues regardless of the tax rate.

Increase tax rate by x% (by letting the bush tax cuts expire) - lost revenue because of down turn = bad

and yes, CBO projects, scores, estimates, guesstimates all sides of the equation
 
2012-07-01 04:29:44 PM
But a $50 million check to a gernan defense contractor is capitalism, smitty! unlike a $50k check to a high school teacher - which is, of course, communist and/or something bad.
 
2012-07-01 04:44:23 PM

DeltaPunch: meat0918: It hits the economy hard and any expected revenue from the tax increases gets offset by the loss of revenue from the cuts.

Does the CBO project both things?

Cuts = loss revenue? Not following you here...


The Government spends money. Money goes to contractors, buisness and so on. Buisness hires workers. Workers spend money on things- Things, salary get taxed. Government gets some of their money back.

Unlike corporations, the government expenduratures goes back into all levels of the economy. The corporations a majority of money goes to a small few that avoids spending and paying back any taxes
 
2012-07-01 05:21:50 PM
Hang them all by the slack of their neckfat!
 
2012-07-01 05:42:09 PM

Otherwise Just Fine: Around 60% is ideal, 80% is manageable, 100% plus and we risk further credit downgrades.


This ignores that Japan is considered perfectly fine with a debt equal to around 220% of GDP. What's more, the US once sat at 140% of GDP, and nothing happened.
 
2012-07-01 05:42:44 PM

Darth_Lukecash: The Government spends money. Money goes to contractors, buisness and so on. Buisness hires workers. Workers spend money on things- Things, salary get taxed. Government gets some of their money back.

Unlike corporations, the government expenduratures goes back into all levels of the economy. The corporations a majority of money goes to a small few that avoids spending and paying back any taxes


1) THEIR money back made me laugh - but I know what you meant - even if it would make a teahadist explode

2) this is actually an interesting way to look at government vs private ... I like it. We still dont want 100% government or 100% private.
 
2012-07-01 05:46:59 PM
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected in 2001 that the federal government would erase its debt in 2006 and be $2.3 trillion in the black by 2011. The difference between projected and actual debt in 2011 can be largely attributed to:[24][25][26]
$3.6 Trillion - Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues due to recession)
$3.0 Trillion - Bush Tax Cuts
$1.4 Trillion - War in Afghanistan and Iraq
$1.4 Trillion - Stimulus spending in response to the 2008 Financial Crisis


when can we start burning bush



in effigy
 
2012-07-01 06:04:38 PM
Me either. Although the GOP has put in more effort to weasel their way out of defense cuts than they did with the entire budget.
 
2012-07-01 06:08:19 PM
I heard what I thought was a good point some time ago. If the government starts cutting back programs it increases the unemployment rate. But doesn't that mean the government has gotten too large if making a cutback here and there is going to negatively effect the economy?

So now we are faced with a strange paradox. The government is too big to cut back without additional cutting back after the first round of cut backs hurt the economy. Yes, I think we can see it quite clearly.

This government is a systemic risk.
This government is too big to fail.
 
2012-07-01 06:09:20 PM

wildcardjack: I heard what I thought was a good point some time ago. If the government starts cutting back programs it increases the unemployment rate. But doesn't that mean the government has gotten too large if making a cutback here and there is going to negatively effect the economy?

So now we are faced with a strange paradox. The government is too big to cut back without additional cutting back after the first round of cut backs hurt the economy. Yes, I think we can see it quite clearly.

This government is a systemic risk.
This government is too big to fail.


LOL
 
2012-07-01 06:11:47 PM
This is bad news... for Obama.
 
2012-07-01 06:26:33 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-01 06:32:12 PM
Well I'm a veteran and rely on disability payments and GI bill, so I might see a problem.
 
2012-07-01 06:36:28 PM

Otherwise Just Fine: Bontesla: ZAZ: We cut the deficit by a third or so if the tax increases turn into long term revenue increases and the short term spending cuts turn into long term spending cuts. Budget talk is deceptive because it uses different time scales. We have an annual deficit of a trillion dollars and the debt ceiling deal saves a trillion or four over the next decade.

But the cuts include funding for social and state programs which is going to translate into lost jobs.

That's true of pretty much all kinds of government spending, subsidies, etc. If we can't cut any spending that reduces jobs, it means we can't really cut much of anything. If the money is not going into the economy, some jobs will be lost.

If the size of our total debt wasn't so large, it wouldn't be such a concern. Our national debt (not annual deficit - the total debt) is starting to reach our total annual GDP.

Around 60% is ideal, 80% is manageable, 100% plus and we risk further credit downgrades. That will increase our borrowing costs and reduce our long term financial strength in the international community. So there is a need to reduce spending, even though the spending creates jobs.


Hold on there, I have been assured that gov't does not create jobs...
 
2012-07-01 06:38:04 PM
I'm having a hard time seeing the problem here

. . . other than Grandma having to go back to eating cat food and using sulfur drugs, and unemployment doubling overnight. What could go wrong?
 
2012-07-01 06:47:59 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Well I'm a veteran and rely on disability payments and GI bill, so I might see a problem.


Socialist commie non-bootstrappy freeloader!

Really though, I'll bet there are some jets and submarines that don't get built a long time before your congresscritter stands in front of a camera to defend cutting your bennies.
 
2012-07-01 06:52:15 PM

Quagdingo: Otherwise Just Fine: Bontesla: ZAZ: We cut the deficit by a third or so if the tax increases turn into long term revenue increases and the short term spending cuts turn into long term spending cuts. Budget talk is deceptive because it uses different time scales. We have an annual deficit of a trillion dollars and the debt ceiling deal saves a trillion or four over the next decade.

But the cuts include funding for social and state programs which is going to translate into lost jobs.

That's true of pretty much all kinds of government spending, subsidies, etc. If we can't cut any spending that reduces jobs, it means we can't really cut much of anything. If the money is not going into the economy, some jobs will be lost.

If the size of our total debt wasn't so large, it wouldn't be such a concern. Our national debt (not annual deficit - the total debt) is starting to reach our total annual GDP.

Around 60% is ideal, 80% is manageable, 100% plus and we risk further credit downgrades. That will increase our borrowing costs and reduce our long term financial strength in the international community. So there is a need to reduce spending, even though the spending creates jobs.

Hold on there, I have been assured that gov't does not create jobs...


if you include the post office the govt is the largest employer in the US. (2.7 million) and that's just civilians. not including soldiers or the private contractors who operate mostly on govt money. About 1.5 million active duty and about 1.2 million reserves are in the military.
so that's like 5 million not including private contractors.
 
2012-07-01 06:53:54 PM
I work for a defense contractor. The rumor is if the budget doesn't favor defense spending there will be massive layoffs. Anyone hiring?
 
2012-07-01 06:53:57 PM

GAT_00: Otherwise Just Fine: Around 60% is ideal, 80% is manageable, 100% plus and we risk further credit downgrades.

This ignores that Japan is considered perfectly fine with a debt equal to around 220% of GDP. What's more, the US once sat at 140% of GDP, and nothing happened.


Yeah, this is one of those made up ""received wisdom" kind of things that has very little, if any, support from empirical observation. The whole discussion is absurd - in the short term at least, so long as real bond yields are negative, the federal government should be borrowing as much money as it possibly can without knocking the market cattywampus.
 
2012-07-01 06:57:52 PM
Why does cheese
 
2012-07-01 07:04:33 PM
Unless Congress, you know, just decides not to at the last minute. Again.

/ did not read TFA
// tell me if I'm wrong
 
2012-07-01 07:20:00 PM

runcible spork: Unless Congress, you know, just decides not to at the last minute. Again.

/ did not read TFA
// tell me if I'm wrong


It does make you wonder what the House GOP thought they got out of the debt ceiling deal.
 
2012-07-01 07:29:50 PM
There is no real-world reason the US could not scale back its military and related industries.

We do not need to be in a state of perpetual war, nor do we need to be an empire.

All those engineers and soldiers could use the same skills for helping people, at home and abroad, instead of trying to find new ways to kill people.

www.rickety.us

We could've cut 2010 spending by half a trillion dollars and still would've spent double than the next biggest. What would an extra half a trillion , every year, on infrastructure, healthcare, education and debt reduction do for the US? Anyone want to argue that it's better to spend it as we do, on war?
 
2012-07-01 07:33:20 PM
Call them the "Obama tax cuts" or "Romney tax cuts," depending on the victor in the November election. The risk of shaking the markets is always there.

Oh, I think we all know who's going to shoulder the blame for this no matter the outcome in November.
 
2012-07-01 07:34:18 PM
"Romney last month floated the idea of Congress leaving town and waiting until he arrives in late January to act, which initially brought gasps,"

"Gasps"??? Don't you mean "hysterical laughter"?
 
2012-07-01 07:35:57 PM

El Pachuco: There is no real-world reason the US could not scale back its military and related industries.

We do not need to be in a state of perpetual war, nor do we need to be an empire.

All those engineers and soldiers could use the same skills for helping people, at home and abroad, instead of trying to find new ways to kill people.

[www.rickety.us image 566x337]

We could've cut 2010 spending by half a trillion dollars and still would've spent double than the next biggest. What would an extra half a trillion , every year, on infrastructure, healthcare, education and debt reduction do for the US? Anyone want to argue that it's better to spend it as we do, on war?


But then how will we keep the world safe from terrorists and fight the impending tide of Socialism that will surely take over our country if we put down our guard for one second?

/Not to mention those poor self-defense contractors who would stand to lose billions
 
2012-07-01 07:38:25 PM
why haven't the Republicans cut spending, because I was told "we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem"
 
2012-07-01 07:45:53 PM

aug3: why haven't the Republicans cut spending, because I was told "we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem"


Surely you're not arguing the Teabaggers have been silent on the hundred billion dollar transportation bill, or the trillion dollar farm bill, or any other spending bill. Because that would be like arguing that the Teabaggers have spent the last 2 years championing hundreds and hundreds of abortion bills and voter suppression bills, which would make the Teabaggers look like disingenuous shills, hacks and liars.
 
2012-07-01 07:54:43 PM
My favorite is that everyone thought Obama lost the debt ceiling deal. And now he has an incredible amount of leverage with huge military cuts AND tax increases looming on the horizon unless Republicans do what Democrats want. And almost all the nasty things looming, while distasteful to everyone, are way more distasteful to Republicans.
 
2012-07-01 07:58:22 PM

El Pachuco: All those engineers and soldiers could use the same skills for helping people, at home and abroad, instead of trying to find new ways to kill people.


BUT, you would still need to PAY those people, about the same amount of money.
NOW, the PLUS side would be that they would be building roads, schools, hospitals, factories, what not instead of bombs ....
 
2012-07-01 08:02:10 PM

aug3: why haven't the Republicans cut spending, because I was told "we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem"


This has always been the question with the GOP. The GOP TALKS about cutting spending, but never does. The GOP has controlled the house for 18 months now? They could cut spending ANY TIME they want. And yet, I notice, not so much cutting.

Why is that??

Bwahahahahahahahahahaahahah
 
2012-07-01 08:10:40 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Time to nut up as a nation and eat our vegetables. I'm in the BOTTOM 20% for income distribution, and I'll pay more if it means EVERYONE pays more.


Same here. Raise the top brackets back to Reagan-era levels and I'll have no problem with my paying a bit more, too.

/institute a European-style social safety net including universal, single-payer healthcare and I wouldn't mind paying a lot more
 
2012-07-01 08:11:33 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Time to nut up as a nation and eat our vegetables. I'm in the BOTTOM 20% for income distribution, and I'll pay more if it means EVERYONE pays more.

Same here. Raise the top brackets back to Reagan-era levels and I'll have no problem with my paying a bit more, too.

/institute a European-style social safety net including universal, single-payer healthcare and I wouldn't mind paying a lot more


I am generally against sales taxes but I would be willing to pay a Federal sales tax if it meant UHC.
 
2012-07-01 08:17:25 PM
Let it burn.
 
2012-07-01 08:25:29 PM

namatad: aug3: why haven't the Republicans cut spending, because I was told "we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem"

This has always been the question with the GOP. The GOP TALKS about cutting spending, but never does. The GOP has controlled the house for 18 months now? They could cut spending ANY TIME they want. And yet, I notice, not so much cutting.

Why is that??

Bwahahahahahahahahahaahahah


And i have to endure watching those stupid PAC ads with the family complaining about government spending but strangely leave defense spending out of the question.

Is it November yet?
 
2012-07-01 08:44:24 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Sometimes, fear of pissing off constituents can make politicians do the right thing in spite of themselves. Rather heartening to see.



No, mark my words... they're going to fark this up. If all they have to do is do nothing? They'll fark this up. They're going to change the law, and they're going to keep digging a big, deep, hole. They're going to keep throwing money to their buddies and masters and they'll keep selling the nation's future away inch by inch as they do it.

We have a really terrible congress right now.
 
Displayed 50 of 81 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report