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.

(Reuters)   Congressional Budget Office: "Fiscal cliff" caused by the Congress, and the Administration, is worse for the economy than we thought   (reuters.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, Congressional Budget Office, Medicare and Medicaid  
•       •       •

1159 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Aug 2012 at 1:54 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-08-22 11:59:57 AM  
The administration's main failing in this was simple: not giving the Republicans each and every thing they demanded.
 
2012-08-22 12:01:49 PM  
explain how the administration is at fault here? this is 100 percent the fault of congress and its republican leaders.
 
2012-08-22 12:01:55 PM  
Arbitrarily cutting government spending 10% across the board has negative consequences?

You don't say.
 
2012-08-22 12:04:21 PM  

FlashHarry: explain how the administration is at fault here? this is 100 percent the fault of congress and its republican leaders.


I love how they're squealing about the cuts to military spending, but nothing else.
 
2012-08-22 12:07:18 PM  

FlashHarry: explain how the administration is at fault here? this is 100 percent the fault of congress and its republican leaders.


Who pass appropriations that never see the light of day in the Senate?

But the agreement that's going to cause the "fiscal cliff" issue was brokered among the three.
 
2012-08-22 12:09:23 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: I love how they're squealing about the cuts to military spending, but nothing else.


Since those are the biggest portion of discretionary spending.....

Everything else has been cut, and is really meaningless. You could cut CPB funding completely, and it'd fix problems for, oh, a few hours.
 
2012-08-22 12:10:11 PM  
Why I'm sure this means that they will "have no choice" but to renew all the tax cuts for the rich yet again. Darn. They didn't want to do that sooooo bad.

Former President Bill Clinton told CNBC Tuesday that the US economy already is in a recession and urged Congress to extend all the tax cuts due to expire at the end of the year.

"What I think we need to do is find some way to avoid the fiscal cliff, to avoid doing anything that would contract the economy now, and then deal with what's necessary in the long term debt-reduction plans as soon as they can, which presumably would be after the election," Clinton said.
 

Bill Clinton already spilled this year's excuse for extending tax cuts for the rich back at the beginning of June.

Then he very petulantly admitted that he screwed up by letting this bipartisan excuse for extending tax cuts for the rich slip before the election.

"I'm very sorry about what happened," Clinton said in an interview to air on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer." "I thought something had to be done on the 'fiscal cliff' before the election. Apparently nothing has to be done until the first of the year."

As far as the whole concept of the "fiscal cliff" goes. Our fiscal cliff is caused by the tax cuts. Extending the tax cuts will not fix them.

The term "fiscal cliff" sounds scary and implies a situation in which the budget deficit will dramatically worsen if no one intervenes. But the undeniable fact is it would dramatically improve if Congress simply does nothing - and stops extending the tax cuts!

In fact, the CBO has published yet another report indicating that the federal budget deficit would stabilize if not for the budget-busting legislation that most observers expect Congress to enact when it extends all kinds of tax breaks into 2013. And the report confirms that the measure that would add the most to the deficit would be an extension of the Bush tax cuts.
 
2012-08-22 12:14:58 PM  
Wont't somebody think of the poor bankers that finance this brinkmanship.
I'll bet my life there is PROFIT, HUGE FARKING PROFIT for somebody(s), somewhere, somehow in this stupid charade.
 
2012-08-22 12:15:31 PM  

FlashHarry: explain how the administration is at fault here? this is 100 percent the fault of congress and its republican leaders.


Aside from Obama fighting his own party to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich the last time they should have expired?

If Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., is to be believed, President Obama is casting the upcoming House vote on the tax cut deal in very stark terms.

"The White House is putting on tremendous pressure, making phone calls," DeFazio said on CNN's Parker Spitzer. "The president's making phone calls saying that's the end of his presidency if he doesn't get this bad deal."


If you think the leadership of either party is anything but totally owned by the obscenely wealthy, you haven't been paying attention.
 
2012-08-22 12:16:45 PM  

BullBearMS: you haven't been paying attention.


WELL THANK GOODNESS YOU'RE HERE THEN
 
2012-08-22 12:17:49 PM  

BullBearMS: If you think the leadership of either party is anything but totally owned by the obscenely wealthy, you haven't been paying attention.


Yes yes, both sides are equally bad, so vote Republican. We know.
 
2012-08-22 12:18:29 PM  

snocone: Wont't somebody think of the poor bankers that finance this brinkmanship.
I'll bet my life there is PROFIT, HUGE FARKING PROFIT for somebody(s), somewhere, somehow in this stupid charade.


The last time they extended the tax cuts for the rich, they claimed that without extending them the "job creators" wouldn't be able to create jobs.

Haven't you noticed us creep back up to total employment since then?

This is about the rich legally dodging their fair share of taxes and both political parties looking for an excuse to make that happen again.
 
2012-08-22 12:26:29 PM  

BullBearMS: FlashHarry: explain how the administration is at fault here? this is 100 percent the fault of congress and its republican leaders.

Aside from Obama fighting his own party to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich the last time they should have expired?

If Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., is to be believed, President Obama is casting the upcoming House vote on the tax cut deal in very stark terms.

"The White House is putting on tremendous pressure, making phone calls," DeFazio said on CNN's Parker Spitzer. "The president's making phone calls saying that's the end of his presidency if he doesn't get this bad deal."

If you think the leadership of either party is anything but totally owned by the obscenely wealthy, you haven't been paying attention.


It would be so nice to see the real puppeteers outed.
Maybe they will hire more stupid than Ryan and spill some good beans.
Fat chance, I am sure it would be fatal.
 
2012-08-22 12:29:01 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: BullBearMS: If you think the leadership of either party is anything but totally owned by the obscenely wealthy, you haven't been paying attention.

Yes yes, both sides are equally bad, so vote Republican. We know.


Both sides intend to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich yet again and then slice the fark out of the social safety net programs.

This has been obvious for some time now.

Legislation to accomplish these goals will have no problem passing in the lame duck session of Congress, just like it did after the last elections.

The "fiscal cliff" is this years excuse for screwing over everyone who isn't rich, but nobody was supposed to bring it up until after the elections.

Last time it was the "job creators", but nobody is going to fall for that one again. We've seen how many jobs they created after the last time we extended the Bush tax cuts.
 
2012-08-22 12:30:04 PM  
Obama offered the Rethuglicans a 10 to 1 deal. For each tax increase, he would offset it would ten spending cuts.

They rejected it out of hand, drove the country to the brink and the result was a lowered credit rating and a near default on our obligations.

Fark the GOP.

Today's GOP is the greatest threat the United States has ever faced.
 
2012-08-22 12:35:22 PM  
I'm pretty sure that threatening harm (default of the United States) to a group of people in exchange for certain social, religious, economic, or political goals being met is terrorism.

WATERBOARD THE REPUBLICANS
 
2012-08-22 12:37:05 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Today's GOP is the greatest threat the United States has ever faced.


Imperial Japan has nothing on the crying orange guy from Ohio, amirite?

That nothing permanent has been done since 1993 is a bigger problem.
 
2012-08-22 12:40:58 PM  

BullBearMS: The "fiscal cliff" is this years excuse for screwing over everyone who isn't rich


On this, we agree.

I don't have a clue how to stop this train. Having the zombie eyed granny starver on the ticket hasn't changed their view that the Grand Bargain to slash 4 trillion in government programs in the middle of an epic slump is still great policy and even better politics. But don't worry. They'll ask millionaires to "pay a little more" so it's all good. I'm feeling more "confident" already.

Basically we have a choice between the Republican dystopian hellscape or the Democrats' long slow jobless recovery with even more insecurity for the poor and middle class. Or actually, it's more likely to be a "compromise" between the two. After all, these are the opening bids. Link
 
2012-08-22 12:45:08 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Obama offered the Rethuglicans a 10 to 1 deal. For each tax increase, he would offset it would ten spending cuts.

They rejected it out of hand, drove the country to the brink and the result was a lowered credit rating and a near default on our obligations.

Fark the GOP.

Today's GOP is the greatest threat the United States has ever faced.


Jury is still out untill we see the next three Supreme Justices.
That could be a game changer.

/hope so
 
2012-08-22 12:52:38 PM  

snocone: Jury is still out untill we see the next three Supreme Justices.
That could be a game changer.


Because SCOTUS has so much bearing on the budgetary stalemate on Capitol Hill..........
 
2012-08-22 12:54:21 PM  

hurdboy: snocone: Jury is still out untill we see the next three Supreme Justices.
That could be a game changer.

Because SCOTUS has so much bearing on the budgetary stalemate on Capitol Hill..........


Yes they will.
With Congress all farked, legislation is going to flow from the bench.

The legislation, it must flow.
 
2012-08-22 12:57:47 PM  

BullBearMS: Both sides intend to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich yet again and then slice the fark out of the social safety net programs.


I don't see Obama offering to extend the tax cuts again. The only reason he did it last time was to preserve unemployment benefits. That's not happening this year. The tax cuts will expire.
 
2012-08-22 01:05:27 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: I don't have a clue how to stop this train.


Although there are still some rank and file Dems, especially in the House, who care about people who aren't rich, as a whole we have a choice between the Republicans and the other Republicans when it comes to serving the interests of the obscenely wealthy.

Just look at the results of President Obama's bipartisan Debt Commission which released it's report right before the last lame duck Congress went into session.

Big shock. They wanted to cut taxes yet farther for the rich, disallow the most useful tax deductions for the middle class and slice the hell out of the social safety net programs for the poor. Mind you, that was the bipartisan consensus.

How, exactly, did a deficit-cutting commission become a commission whose first priority is cutting tax rates, with deficit reduction literally at the bottom of the list?

Actually, though, what the co-chairmen are proposing is a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases - tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class. They suggest eliminating tax breaks that, whatever you think of them, matter a lot to middle-class Americans - the deductibility of health benefits and mortgage interest - and using much of the revenue gained thereby, not to reduce the deficit, but to allow sharp reductions in both the top marginal tax rate and in the corporate tax rate.

It will take time to crunch the numbers here, but this proposal clearly represents a major transfer of income upward, from the middle class to a small minority of wealthy Americans. And what does any of this have to do with deficit reduction?

Let's turn next to Social Security. There were rumors beforehand that the commission would recommend a rise in the retirement age, and sure enough, that's what Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson do. They want the age at which Social Security becomes available to rise along with average life expectancy. Is that reasonable?

The answer is no, for a number of reasons - including the point that working until you're 69, which may sound doable for people with desk jobs, is a lot harder for the many Americans who still do physical labor.

But beyond that, the proposal seemingly ignores a crucial point: while average life expectancy is indeed rising, it's doing so mainly for high earners, precisely the people who need Social Security least. Life expectancy in the bottom half of the income distribution has barely inched up over the past three decades. So the Bowles-Simpson proposal is basically saying that janitors should be forced to work longer because these days corporate lawyers live to a ripe old age.


Just remember how popular talk of cutting Social Security was the last time a lame duck Congress was in session.

Both parties want to cut taxes for the rich and screw over everyone else. They just don't want to be held responsible for their actions, so they look for excuses like the "fiscal cliff" and then try to pass the legislation after the elections are safely past.
 
2012-08-22 01:15:01 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: BullBearMS: Both sides intend to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich yet again and then slice the fark out of the social safety net programs.

I don't see Obama offering to extend the tax cuts again. The only reason he did it last time was to preserve unemployment benefits. That's not happening this year. The tax cuts will expire.


Because right before an election would be a terrible time to keep the Republicans from screwing over the unemployed?

This President negotiates down from a position of strength better than any politician in our recent history. It is too late now to go back and ask why the President, why the wobbly Democratic leadership, whiffed on its chance to force John Boehner to put his money where his mouth was. In September Boehner said if he had no other option, of course he would vote to extend tax breaks only for the middle class.

So the President and the Democrats gave him another option, naturally. But didn't extending the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy became necessary to get Republican support for extending the jobless benefits? Nonsense.

Five times in the last two years, the Republicans have gone along with extending those jobless benefits, and they've done it without being bribed with tax cuts for the rich. Even now Boehner's September confession, and the GOP's unwillingness to take the blame for killing off jobless benefits, offered an alternative blueprint for this President:

Let the law expire as scheduled in 24 days. Let all the tax breaks go, and when the Republicans take over the House and try to pass them anew, if they somehow are not stopped in the Senate, veto anything that does not keep tax cuts for the middle class and unemployment benefits as the dog, and perks for the rich as the tail. The GOP is still terrified of being blamed for cutting off the unemployed. You take that fact and you break them with it.


I can't believe anyone would be willing to keep offering that lame ass excuse for Obama fighting his own party to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
 
2012-08-22 01:22:48 PM  

snocone: Yes they will.
With Congress all farked, legislation is going to flow from the bench.

The legislation, it must flow.


With a Roberts-led court? I'm skeptical. More likely? One of the justices dies, and there's a vacancy because whoever is in the minority in the Senate next Congress actually does filibuster the replacement's confirmation.
 
2012-08-22 01:24:11 PM  
Why are we broke? Romney paid his 13%
 
2012-08-22 01:56:05 PM  
What you mean Keynesian economics is true?

It will be funny to see the conservative filling up this thread attacking Democrats using Keynesian economic principals.
 
2012-08-22 01:56:54 PM  

Blues_X: The administration's main failing in this was simple: not giving the Republicans each and every thing they demanded.


Boner only got 98% of what he wanted.
 
2012-08-22 01:59:07 PM  

hurdboy: Who pass appropriations that never see the light of day in the Senate?


No one? The Bill that was passed in the House was voted down in the Senate in April. Its the House's turn now.
 
2012-08-22 02:01:37 PM  
johnryan51

Why are we broke? Romney paid his 13%



His 13 percent is more than you will pay in a life time.
 
2012-08-22 02:03:42 PM  
"Fiscal cliff" caused by the Congress, and the Administration, is worse for the economy than we thought

Yeah, anyone who thinks about it for more than a minute realizes this.
 
2012-08-22 02:06:32 PM  
You know, if we would just pay our taxes and stop buying so much shiat imported from other countries, all of our problems would go away.

I am trying to buy a new BBQ grill right now and the only brand that still makes them in the US is Canadian. Ten years ago I bought an inexpensive grill for $150 and it was made in the US. Now they all are. The same situation can be found across all non-military manufacturing. The huge hole in our budget is caused by un/underemployed workers not paying taxes. Get them working again and we can start turning around this deficit.
 
2012-08-22 02:06:58 PM  
Well since expenditures has exceeded revenue, we are due for a shock. We need to cut expenditures and increase revenue.
 
2012-08-22 02:07:20 PM  
tax the rich an extra 3% and give it directly to those making less than 80K for a family of four. that will boost the fark out of the economy.
 
2012-08-22 02:08:05 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Obama offered the Rethuglicans a 10 to 1 deal. For each tax increase, he would offset it would ten spending cuts.

They rejected it out of hand, drove the country to the brink and the result was a lowered credit rating and a near default on our obligations.

Fark the GOP.

Today's GOP is the greatest threat the United States has ever faced.


I think to be fair they are still only the second greatest threat the United States has ever faced - but a lot of GOP supporters still wave the flag of the greatest threat. I could also see an argument McCarthyism and the overreaction to the threat of communism might have been greater. Of course the GOP still seem to be accelerating, so maybe they can take that No 1 spot they so covet in the near future.
 
2012-08-22 02:08:21 PM  
FlashHarry

explain how the administration is at fault here? this is 100 percent the fault of congress and its republican leaders.


The U.S. government will run a deficit of $1.1 trillion in fiscal 2012 - how do you blame this on Republicans?
 
2012-08-22 02:09:45 PM  

BullBearMS: As far as the whole concept of the "fiscal cliff" goes. Our fiscal cliff is caused by the tax cuts. Extending the tax cuts will not fix them.


The "fiscal cliff" is an artifice created by Congress for political reasons. It isn't caused by tax cuts. Tax cuts will create deficits, which will be very helpful to get the economy going again.

However, if you want to increase taxes on the rich, make sure they are offset by further cuts to the less rich.
 
2012-08-22 02:09:54 PM  
So the CBO says fark the deficit..........
 
2012-08-22 02:10:22 PM  

Citrate1007: So the CBO says fark the deficit..........


They should.
 
2012-08-22 02:14:42 PM  

Citrate1007: So the CBO says fark the deficit..........


Yep lets keep farking that chicken. So when we can no longer keep up this unsustainable system, we can have a soviet style collapse. Cant wait.

/Its better to put off responsibility for as long as possible.
 
2012-08-22 02:14:46 PM  
You mean austerity measures are bad? But I was told we have a spending problem...
 
2012-08-22 02:18:44 PM  
Economic growth under this optimistic scenario would be modest in 2013 at 1.7 percent, with an 8.0 percent unemployment rate compared with 9.1 percent should the U.S. go over the fiscal cliff.

So if Obama is re-elected and Republicans can still effectively block legislation after November, we're doomed, just so the Republicans can blame Obama.
 
2012-08-22 02:21:04 PM  

SquiggelyGrounders: Yep lets keep farking that chicken. So when we can no longer keep up this unsustainable system, we can have a soviet style collapse. Cant wait.

/Its better to put off responsibility for as long as possible.


What part is unsustainable?
 
2012-08-22 02:23:38 PM  

Stile4aly: You mean austerity measures are bad? But I was told we have a spending problem...


Mitt has the fix; just stop spending money on poor people...weapons manufactures get a raise
 
2012-08-22 02:24:08 PM  

karnal: johnryan51

Why are we broke? Romney paid his 13%


His 13 percent is more than you will pay in a life time.


Oh he's rich so its ok. I'll just sit here and wait for the crumbs to fall from the 1% table. I'll pay my 30% because I won't make as much as him in my lifetime. No wonder the country is going to hell with nitwits like you.
 
2012-08-22 02:29:10 PM  

johnryan51: karnal: johnryan51

Why are we broke? Romney paid his 13%


His 13 percent is more than you will pay in a life time.

Oh he's rich so its ok. I'll just sit here and wait for the crumbs to fall from the 1% table. I'll pay my 30% because I won't make as much as him in my lifetime. No wonder the country is going to hell with nitwits like you.


Have we forgotten that Kerry paid an even lower tax rate than Romney when he had to release his tax returns during his run for the White House?

It's almost as if the obscenely wealthy have managed to rig the system so that they don't have to pay their fair share of taxes.
 
2012-08-22 02:33:50 PM  

BullBearMS: johnryan51: karnal: johnryan51

Why are we broke? Romney paid his 13%


His 13 percent is more than you will pay in a life time.

Oh he's rich so its ok. I'll just sit here and wait for the crumbs to fall from the 1% table. I'll pay my 30% because I won't make as much as him in my lifetime. No wonder the country is going to hell with nitwits like you.

Have we forgotten that Kerry paid an even lower tax rate than Romney when he had to release his tax returns during his run for the White House?

It's almost as if the obscenely wealthy have managed to rig the system so that they don't have to pay their fair share of taxes.


Kerry should be paying also. C'Mon people equal treatmemt for all!
 
2012-08-22 02:39:00 PM  

bartink: SquiggelyGrounders: Yep lets keep farking that chicken. So when we can no longer keep up this unsustainable system, we can have a soviet style collapse. Cant wait.

/Its better to put off responsibility for as long as possible.

What part is unsustainable?


The increase in the debt, especially under the Alternative Fiscal Baseline, which delaying these policies mimic.

Chart 9 in this report summarizes things very well (PDF warning)
 
2012-08-22 02:39:37 PM  
That's the whole point. Only by having deadlines with catastrophic consequences will Congress be moved to action.
 
2012-08-22 02:44:23 PM  

Stile4aly: You mean austerity measures are bad? But I was told we have a spending problem...


Both idelogies have their strong point and weak points. Continuing keynesian-type spending may help us out in the short-term but will likely have a large impact on our debt and future sustainability. Chopping our fingers to the bone and going with full blown austerity willl greatly impact us (especially the poor and middle-class) in the short term but will likely help the deficits and debts.

Likely the best solution is somewhere in the middle.
 
2012-08-22 02:46:52 PM  

HeadLever: bartink: SquiggelyGrounders: Yep lets keep farking that chicken. So when we can no longer keep up this unsustainable system, we can have a soviet style collapse. Cant wait.

/Its better to put off responsibility for as long as possible.

What part is unsustainable?

The increase in the debt, especially under the Alternative Fiscal Baseline, which delaying these policies mimic.

Chart 9 in this report summarizes things very well (PDF warning)


Chart 9 is discussing Medicare parts B and D, not the debt in general. We are currently selling 30 year treasury debt at a rate below what inflation will be over that period. The world is begging to give us money, we're just too dumb to take it.
 
2012-08-22 02:48:02 PM  

karnal: johnryan51

Why are we broke? Romney paid his 13%


His 13 percent is more than you will pay in a life time.


Bullshiat, karnal.

My 15+ percent costs me more period than Mitt Romney's 13 percent costs him in disposable income. I'm sure Mitty can spare another million or two than middle class and the poor can afford another thousand or two.
 
2012-08-22 02:51:21 PM  

HeadLever: Stile4aly: You mean austerity measures are bad? But I was told we have a spending problem...

Both idelogies have their strong point and weak points. Continuing keynesian-type spending may help us out in the short-term but will likely have a large impact on our debt and future sustainability. Chopping our fingers to the bone and going with full blown austerity willl greatly impact us (especially the poor and middle-class) in the short term but will likely help the deficits and debts.

Likely the best solution is somewhere in the middle.


The best solution is the Keynesian solution: countercyclical spending. The problem is that Reagan and GW Bush only learned the deficit spending part of the equation, not the part where you're supposed to raise taxes and revenues during times of growth to pay down the debt, as Clinton did in the 90s.
 
2012-08-22 02:51:55 PM  

madgonad: am trying to buy a new BBQ grill right now and the only brand that still makes them in the US is Canadian.


If you like pellet grills, try this

I also think Treager makes a few models in the US still as well, thought the most popular models are now made in China. :(
 
2012-08-22 02:53:10 PM  

HeadLever: The increase in the debt, especially under the Alternative Fiscal Baseline, which delaying these policies mimic.

Chart 9 in this report summarizes things very well (PDF warning)


So you either believe that the government will some day run out of money or that inflation is going to become unmanageable.

The first is clearly nonsense, since the government can simply create money with the click of a mouse. And I'd like to know why inflation is so low if we already have "too much debt".

Which is it?
 
2012-08-22 02:55:10 PM  

Stile4aly: Chart 9 is discussing Medicare parts B and D, not the debt in general.


wrong (maybe you are looking at the wrong graph):

endoftheamericandream.com

This chart shows all federal goverment spending (and revenues). While it does not show debt specifically, it does show the interest obligtion on that debt. As you can see, this is very unsustainable.
 
2012-08-22 02:58:41 PM  

Stile4aly: The best solution is the Keynesian solution: countercyclical spending.


That depends. If the slow growth continues, and we continue to rack up trillion dollar deficits, we will soon find ourselves unable to keep fiscally solvent. Obviously, we cannot let this happen. Overall, we need to continue to evaluate where we are at and where we need to go, and adhering to general statements like this can very well end up painting yourself into a corner you don't need to be in.
 
2012-08-22 03:02:31 PM  

HeadLever: This chart shows all federal goverment spending (and revenues). While it does not show debt specifically, it does show the interest obligtion on that debt. As you can see, this is very unsustainable.


Again, we can print money. How can it be unsustainable unless it leads to hyperinflation?
 
2012-08-22 03:04:48 PM  

bartink: So you either believe that the government will some day run out of money or that inflation is going to become unmanageable.


#1 - no.

#2 - not necessarily.

If we continue down this fiscal path, the debt load (and more specifically, the interest obligation) is going to really diminish the power of our monetary policy and will force us to commit more and more resources to fixing this problem. The longer we wait, the bigger problem we are going to have to fix. While inflation may be one of the few tools that we have to fight this (along with raising additional revenues and/or cutting spending), it will not alone fix this issue. Remember, financial markets will respond to us massivly increasing inflation. There are some very good example of this in the dust-bin of history, if you want to do a little research.
 
2012-08-22 03:06:29 PM  

bartink: Again, we can print money.


If you look at the graph, it is not valued on dollars. It is valued against GDP.
 
2012-08-22 03:10:12 PM  
This is where I always love to point out the idiocy of Keynesian stimulus, where the goal is to "spend money just to spend money". Before you jump on my throat, I agree that the government should go into debt (if necessary) to build productive things. Don't have the money for a new bridge, but the increased trade from the bridge will pay for it? Build it. Need to wean yourself off of foreign oil, but don't have the cash for green infrastructure? Build it.

But the demand side idea, where the solution of the problem is to go into debt to get money into the hands of the public is just completely idiotic. What happens when debt is too large and you can't do that anymore? Any "gains" from the stimulus are wiped away.

And going back to the article, the idea that going into debt for unproductive investments was ever a good idea is mind boggling. Let's go into debt to build bombs? Let's go into debt to keep the elderly alive? Let's go into debt to pay for welfare? How can anyone possibly think this is a good idea? I support many liberal causes, I support wealth redistribution, and I support all kinds of things bleeding hearts would love, but if you go into debt to pay for them, you are going to have a bad time.

Although I understand that the left is for raising taxes, and I agree with that, it seems like no one really understands that this problem gets worse and worse every dollar we go into debt besides the libertarians. I disagree with many things they believe in, but this one simple truism is the single most important thing anyone can currently understand about our political system.

Going into debt to fund unproductive activities destroys countries.
 
2012-08-22 03:10:47 PM  

Citrate1007: So the CBO says fark the deficit..........


Nope they don't. They just project what is likely to happen to the economy based on the best models of the time given assumptions about what politicians will do in the meantime, to give context to how much likely benefit or costs any given set of policies is going to have.

If you think being ignorant of the probable outcomes of potential economic policies are is a good thing, then attack the CBO, if you want a reasonable guess of the future situations you are choosing between, then you should see them as a good thing - of course having other (non biased) organizations doing the same calculation with alternative models would be even more beneficial.
 
2012-08-22 03:11:31 PM  

HeadLever: If we continue down this fiscal path, the debt load (and more specifically, the interest obligation) is going to really diminish the power of our monetary policy and will force us to commit more and more resources to fixing this problem. The longer we wait, the bigger problem we are going to have to fix. While inflation may be one of the few tools that we have to fight this (along with raising additional revenues and/or cutting spending), it will not alone fix this issue. Remember, financial markets will respond to us massivly increasing inflation. There are some very good example of this in the dust-bin of history, if you want to do a little research.


I agree that markets will respond to us massively increasing inflation. You already think we have a deficit problem, yet we don't have high inflation. This would seem to indicate that we have the capacity to create more money. How do you square your notion that we already have a deficit problem with the fact that we can still create money and don't have an inflation problem?

In other words, we don't have a deficit problem right now at all. There is no evidence of this.
 
2012-08-22 03:16:16 PM  

MattStafford: But the demand side idea, where the solution of the problem is to go into debt to get money into the hands of the public is just completely idiotic.


All money is government debt. If there is no government debt, there is no money in the hands of the public.

Where do you think money comes from?
 
2012-08-22 03:19:11 PM  

bartink: In other words, we don't have a deficit problem right now at all. There is no evidence of this.


Suppose you made 50,000/year, and we're 500,000 in debt. Banks are willing to lend you money at negative real rates, for every 100,000 you borrow, you only have to pay back 90,000. Do you think it is a good idea to continue borrowing money?
 
2012-08-22 03:20:16 PM  

bartink: How do you square your notion that we already have a deficit problem with the fact that we can still create money and don't have an inflation problem?


Right now we have very low interest rates which is helping to mask the interest of this debt. For example, the interest payment on our 15 Trillion in current debt is just about what it was back in 2007 and 2008. The problems are going to start when interest rates normalize and we have to roll over this debt (resets the interest). Add on to this if we keep tacking on trillion dollar deficits every year and this is going to get ugly in a hurry.

i2.cdn.turner.com
 
2012-08-22 03:20:18 PM  

bartink: MattStafford: But the demand side idea, where the solution of the problem is to go into debt to get money into the hands of the public is just completely idiotic.

All money is government debt. If there is no government debt, there is no money in the hands of the public.

Where do you think money comes from?


MMT is insanity, just so you know. Money is a representation of real wealth. Money is derived from actual production, not government fiat. If you derive it from government fiat, you are doomed to failure.
 
2012-08-22 03:22:29 PM  

MattStafford: But the demand side idea, where the solution of the problem is to go into debt to get money into the hands of the public is just completely idiotic.


You seem to be misunderstanding the argument.

There are many cyclical behaviors in economics. If, say, people aren't investing because they think the economy isn't doing too good, the economy suffers because it can't get investments. Which, in turn, causes people to be even more leery of investing. The one thing government can do that private enterprise will never do is act contrary to economic interests. The government can step in and invest - even when the market says it's a dumb idea to invest - and break that cycle before it hits a catastrophic point.

The question is not if the concept is wrong - because it's not - the question lies in where is it economically sound to do so and when it is morally sound to do so.

MattStafford: it seems like no one really understands that this problem gets worse and worse every dollar we go into debt besides the libertarians.


The idea, again, is not as simple as you make it out to be. The concept being argued is that sometimes it makes sense to go into debt now to allow you to stave it off later. You may take out a loan to go to college, under the assumption that you'll make 2-3 times the salary with a degree than without. That debt that you incur is an intelligent form of debt. Stimulus funds are nominally this form of debt as well.

The idea is that spending a bunch of money on - say - Cash for Clunkers is going to return more in tax revenues than we will spend.
 
2012-08-22 03:26:03 PM  

MattStafford: MMT is insanity, just so you know. Money is a representation of real wealth. Money is derived from actual production, not government fiat. If you derive it from government fiat, you are doomed to failure.


Money is not derived from actual production until that production is sold for money, which comes from the government in the form of government debt. You have it exactly backwards from what actually happens.

In fact, no one will be inclined to produce much of anything until the government has gone into debt to create the money in the first place.
 
2012-08-22 03:30:49 PM  

HeadLever: Right now we have very low interest rates which is helping to mask the interest of this debt. For example, the interest payment on our 15 Trillion in current debt is just about what it was back in 2007 and 2008. The problems are going to start when interest rates normalize and we have to roll over this debt (resets the interest). Add on to this if we keep tacking on trillion dollar deficits every year and this is going to get ugly in a hurry.


This is an odd argument with unemployment where it is and low aggregate demand. Clearly we need more money to be created so people will spend it. Inflation is only going to happen if the economy gets too hot. That isn't a concern right now. And if it becomes a concern, then we can raise taxes/cut spending and bring down the debt.
 
2012-08-22 03:31:29 PM  

HeadLever: [i2.cdn.turner.com image 475x286]


Also realize that the figures here are for the public debt and does not include the intragovernmental debt.
 
2012-08-22 03:35:56 PM  

sprawl15: The one thing government can do that private enterprise will never do is act contrary to economic interests. The government can step in and invest - even when the market says it's a dumb idea to invest - and break that cycle before it hits a catastrophic point.


Sure, invest. Invest in what is the question. If the government goes into debt during a downturn to invest in green energy, I'm fine with that. If the government goes into debt during a downturn to pay people to dig ditches and fill them back up, it's idiotic.

sprawl15: You may take out a loan to go to college, under the assumption that you'll make 2-3 times the salary with a degree than without. That debt that you incur is an intelligent form of debt. Stimulus funds are nominally this form of debt as well.

The idea is that spending a bunch of money on - say - Cash for Clunkers is going to return more in tax revenues than we will spend.


This is where I wonder if you read what I wrote. I said, rather bluntly, that going into debt for productive things is a good idea. If we need a bridge, go into debt to build the bridge. If we need green energy, go into debt to build green energy. If you need an education, go into debt to get an education. Keynesian stimulus ignores this "productive" part of the equation. Paul Krugman, the left's premier economist, actually advocates faking an alien invasion to increase government spending. With the exception of the technology we would gain (which is obviously a side concern to the man), we get nothing productive out of that investment. In fact, it bids up the price of capital, both human and physical, making it tougher for actual productive firms to get involved and started. It is strictly a bad idea.

Cash for clunkers is a great example of idiotic government spending. Once the program was over, demand for cars dropped. Any increase in production was only temporary. We went into debt for a temporary increase in production, a temporary increase in employment. Once the program was over, all of those benefits are lost. The only benefit was the environmental issues, which were not that great if my memory serves (the vast majority of trade ins were extremely inefficient trucks for just really inefficient trucks).
 
2012-08-22 03:36:32 PM  

bartink: SquiggelyGrounders: Yep lets keep farking that chicken. So when we can no longer keep up this unsustainable system, we can have a soviet style collapse. Cant wait.

/Its better to put off responsibility for as long as possible.

What part is unsustainable?


Spending more than we take in. Or was that not aserious question?
 
2012-08-22 03:41:40 PM  

bartink: . And if it becomes a concern, then we can raise taxes/cut spending and bring down the debt.


That statement is very problematic. We have very little abiltiy right now to do that I don't really expect that to change in the future. Once you start tacking on exponentially increasing interest costs to the spending side of the ledger, your ability is reduced even further. Just look at the distance between teh revenue line and total spending in that graph. This is a huge gap to make up. Add on to the fact that this raising of taxes and cutting of spending is the exact same 'fiscal cliff' scenario we are currently being told to fear.

Here is a little more detailed discussion on the matter

Just remember this is only dealing with the public debt side and not total debt.
 
2012-08-22 03:50:35 PM  

MattStafford: I'm fine with that.


Then you're in agreement with demand side economics.

MattStafford: If the government goes into debt during a downturn to pay people to dig ditches and fill them back up, it's idiotic.


There are cases where even this could be good policy. If people simply have no money, there's no way they're going to create an economy because they have nothing to spend and nothing to buy. This was the idea behind a lot of the new deal programs - you pay people to go build a bridge somewhere and they in turn take that money and invest it in their local economy. Supermarkets get that money through the worker, etc. This is why food stamps are generally one of the highest returns on government spending while tax cuts are one of the lowest - food stamps pretty much force reinvestment of that money into the economy.

MattStafford: I said, rather bluntly, that going into debt for productive things is a good idea.


I'm addressing your presumption that debt is - in and of itself - a bad thing. Debt for short term productive programs is very easy to see a value on, like the college education. But in some cases, programs that are not productive and will never be productive (in and of themselves) are still necessary.

Debt is secondary to purpose in government spending. Police departments don't generate revenue, and saying they have to be revenue neutral is obviously silly. That's because its purpose has nothing to do with debt, but function. One can, with enough effort, sit down and work out the economic benefit of having laws and enforcement, but that's again secondary. Same with many other government programs. The problem with debt comes when too much is accumulated and it grows out of control, and we just happen to be hitting that point now which taints discussion.

Debt is something to mitigate. Not eliminate. It's something that is necessary and essential to sound government function, not a tolerable evil.
 
2012-08-22 03:55:00 PM  

SquiggelyGrounders: bartink: SquiggelyGrounders: Yep lets keep farking that chicken. So when we can no longer keep up this unsustainable system, we can have a soviet style collapse. Cant wait.

/Its better to put off responsibility for as long as possible.

What part is unsustainable?

Spending more than we take in. Or was that not aserious question?



We have spent more than we take in in 60 of the past 72 years. Seems pretty sustainable to me.

Also, if you'd like to go back to 1950s-era tax rates, that would be fine with me too.
 
2012-08-22 03:56:30 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: tax the rich an extra 3% and give it directly to those making less than 80K for a family of four. that will boost the fark out of the economy.


Just like the "prebate" did in 2008, right? o.O

//And it probably wouldn't make up for the increase in rates, "Payroll Tax Hoilday" expiration
 
2012-08-22 04:03:32 PM  

ricewater_stool: Also, if you'd like to go back to 1950s-era tax rates, that would be fine with me too.


Even with that, we did not have a substantially higher revenue. Just pushing tax rates around is no gurantee of additional revenue. See Houser's Law for more discussion.

I am not saying it won't have an impact on revenue, but it may not be as large as many think.
 
2012-08-22 04:11:58 PM  

sprawl15: Debt is secondary to purpose in government spending.


Mostly agree. The issue becomes when the magnitude of said debt becomes so large that much of your goverment spending is diverted to interest obligations. If the CBO's Alternative Baseline Scenario does come true, we will see this interest cost surpass DoD, SS spending, and even Medicare/Medicaid spending.

You are right that we need to mitigate the debt. The sooner we do it, the less painful it will be. However, we don't need to eliminate it. Just get it (and its growth) down to managable levels.
 
2012-08-22 04:14:10 PM  

ricewater_stool: SquiggelyGrounders: bartink: SquiggelyGrounders: Yep lets keep farking that chicken. So when we can no longer keep up this unsustainable system, we can have a soviet style collapse. Cant wait.

/Its better to put off responsibility for as long as possible.

What part is unsustainable?

Spending more than we take in. Or was that not aserious question?


We have spent more than we take in in 60 of the past 72 years. Seems pretty sustainable to me.

Also, if you'd like to go back to 1950s-era tax rates, that would be fine with me too.


Just because we had done it for a long time doesnt mean its sustainable.
 
2012-08-22 04:14:45 PM  

ricewater_stool: SquiggelyGrounders: bartink: SquiggelyGrounders: Yep lets keep farking that chicken. So when we can no longer keep up this unsustainable system, we can have a soviet style collapse. Cant wait.

/Its better to put off responsibility for as long as possible.

What part is unsustainable?

Spending more than we take in. Or was that not aserious question?


We have spent more than we take in in 60 of the past 72 years. Seems pretty sustainable to me.

Also, if you'd like to go back to 1950s-era tax rates, that would be fine with me too.


That is fine with me as well.
 
2012-08-22 04:24:02 PM  

sprawl15: Then you're in agreement with demand side economics.


No. Both of those projects will increase supply, since they have an ROI greater than. We have a supply side problem, and any thing that increases supply is beneficial. If those projects did not increase supply, I would not support them.

>Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation.

From Wiki. Replace lowered taxes and reduced regulations with cheaper energy and better access to markets, and that is my argument.

sprawl15: There are cases where even this could be good policy.


No there aren't, and anyone who makes that claim is completely idiotic. Just think about it for a second.

sprawl15: If people simply have no money, there's no way they're going to create an economy because they have nothing to spend and nothing to buy.


Their problem isn't that they have no money, their problem is that they aren't producing anything that people want. Let them produce stuff that people want, and their problems are solved.

sprawl15: you pay people to go build a bridgedig a ditch somewhere and they in turn take that money and invest it in their local economy. Supermarkets get that money through the worker, etc.


And the supermarket buys more food from the farmer. And everything is roses. Until the government stops paying that dude to dig a ditch, so he no longer buys food from the supermarket, so the supermarket stops buying extra from the farmer, and everything sucks again.

sprawl15: But in some cases, programs that are not productive and will never be productive (in and of themselves) are still necessary.


No. No. No. No. If you are going into debt to pay for a program that is not productive, there is absolutely no economic benefit from the program. There are only two things debt should ever be used on: one time, extremely large purchases and productive investments. That is it. Full stop.

sprawl15: Police departments don't generate revenue, and saying they have to be revenue neutral is obviously silly. That's because its purpose has nothing to do with debt, but function.


If the police don't generate revenue, then you better pay for them via taxes, because paying for them through debt is a bad idea. Once you can no longer finance them through debt, you are forced to lay them off. How is that possibly a smart, long term plan?

sprawl15: Debt is something to mitigate. Not eliminate. It's something that is necessary and essential to sound government function, not a tolerable evil.


Debt is a useful tool, but should never be used to pay for current operating expenses. That just leads to bad news.
 
2012-08-22 04:30:35 PM  

SquiggelyGrounders: ricewater_stool: SquiggelyGrounders: bartink: SquiggelyGrounders: Yep lets keep farking that chicken. So when we can no longer keep up this unsustainable system, we can have a soviet style collapse. Cant wait.

/Its better to put off responsibility for as long as possible.

What part is unsustainable?

Spending more than we take in. Or was that not aserious question?


We have spent more than we take in in 60 of the past 72 years. Seems pretty sustainable to me.

Also, if you'd like to go back to 1950s-era tax rates, that would be fine with me too.

Just because we had done it for a long time doesnt mean its sustainable.



Doing something for a long time is pretty much the definition of sustainable.
 
2012-08-22 04:30:42 PM  

ricewater_stool: We have spent more than we take in in 60 of the past 72 years. Seems pretty sustainable to me.

Also, if you'd like to go back to 1950s-era tax rates, that would be fine with me too.


I'm sure you've seen how the debt has exploded over the past 40 years, particularly in the past ten. Just because something has lasted for 60 years doesn't mean it will last for another ten, particularly with exponential growth.

And I am fine with raising taxes. If we spend, we have to pay for it, not just put it on a credit card.
 
2012-08-22 04:39:06 PM  
Ah... now I see. THIS was totally worth having the global economy held hostage by idiot Republicans who, I might add, should still in my opinion be dragged out into the streets, doused in gasoline and set ablaze as an example to whomever might happen to come after.
 
2012-08-22 04:41:02 PM  

MattStafford: sprawl15: Debt is something to mitigate. Not eliminate. It's something that is necessary and essential to sound government function, not a tolerable evil.

Debt is a useful tool, but should never be used to pay for current operating expenses. That just leads to bad news.


Except when it should, like the college example.

You're sticking to generalized statements that conflict with your more insightful specific examples.

MattStafford: And the supermarket buys more food from the farmer. And everything is roses. Until the government stops paying that dude to dig a ditch, so he no longer buys food from the supermarket, so the supermarket stops buying extra from the farmer, and everything sucks again.


The idea is not that paying the ditch diggers in perpetuity is required, but rather that the cycle is 'jumpstarted' from a negative feedback loop to a positive feedback loop. The money flowing from person to person makes people more willing to invest which lets people create new business which makes people more willing to invest, etc. Once its in that cycle, losing the ditch diggers' jobs won't break it back.

Ideally.

MattStafford: No there aren't, and anyone who makes that claim is completely idiotic. Just think about it for a second.


Take the depths of the great depression. Anyone with money didn't want to spend it. Anyone without money couldn't do anything to get money. If the government paid some people to dig ditches and refill them, they could afford dinner. The supermarket could afford to exist. The farmers would have a buyer. Things would start moving again. Once the economy is chugging along, it's much easier for people to demand something useful instead of ditch digging, and it can shift gears much more smoothly.

MattStafford: If the police don't generate revenue, then you better pay for them via taxes, because paying for them through debt is a bad idea. Once you can no longer finance them through debt, you are forced to lay them off. How is that possibly a smart, long term plan?


I would argue that laying off police forces in an area is a worse plan than any amount of debt to sustain them. Keeping the law becomes pretty difficult when all you have are wishes.
 
2012-08-22 04:41:24 PM  

madgonad: You know, if we would just pay our taxes and stop buying so much shiat imported from other countries, all of our problems would go away.

I am trying to buy a new BBQ grill right now and the only brand that still makes them in the US is Canadian. Ten years ago I bought an inexpensive grill for $150 and it was made in the US. Now they all are. The same situation can be found across all non-military manufacturing. The huge hole in our budget is caused by un/underemployed workers not paying taxes. Get them working again and we can start turning around this deficit.


The decision to buy made-in-USA or made-in-China really isn't the consumer's decision to make. From one angle, it's the buyer for the store who makes that call; customers can buy what's in stock, go somewhere else, or do without.

Then again, it's the people running the grill company who decide where the grills are made. And heaven forbid that we tax job creators any more than we do now.
 
2012-08-22 04:43:29 PM  

ricewater_stool: SquiggelyGrounders: ricewater_stool: SquiggelyGrounders: bartink: SquiggelyGrounders: Yep lets keep farking that chicken. So when we can no longer keep up this unsustainable system, we can have a soviet style collapse. Cant wait.

/Its better to put off responsibility for as long as possible.

What part is unsustainable?

Spending more than we take in. Or was that not aserious question?


We have spent more than we take in in 60 of the past 72 years. Seems pretty sustainable to me.

Also, if you'd like to go back to 1950s-era tax rates, that would be fine with me too.

Just because we had done it for a long time doesnt mean its sustainable.


Doing something for a long time is pretty much the definition of sustainable.


Similar but not the same.
 
2012-08-22 04:48:21 PM  

MattStafford: ricewater_stool: We have spent more than we take in in 60 of the past 72 years. Seems pretty sustainable to me.

Also, if you'd like to go back to 1950s-era tax rates, that would be fine with me too.

I'm sure you've seen how the debt has exploded over the past 40 years, particularly in the past ten. Just because something has lasted for 60 years doesn't mean it will last for another ten, particularly with exponential growth.

And I am fine with raising taxes. If we spend, we have to pay for it, not just put it on a credit card.


So, which ones? Show your math.
 
2012-08-22 04:50:29 PM  
What gets me shaking my head and really fearing for the future of this country is when you get statements like this from the Federal Reserve:

A key ingredient of an economic recovery is a pickup in household spending supported by increased consumer debt. As the current economic recovery has struggled to take hold, household debt levels have grown little.

but yet you look at the household debt data and it looks like this:
www.thebasispoint.com

Building you entire economy on maximising consumer debt and credit is building your house with a deck of cards. You want to continue to exacerbate the boom and bust cycles and want the banks to own everything, please continue. If you want a sustainable path forward, we need a different way of doing things.

/Dave Ramsey, help us.
 
2012-08-22 05:34:13 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Economic growth under this optimistic scenario would be modest in 2013 at 1.7 percent, with an 8.0 percent unemployment rate compared with 9.1 percent should the U.S. go over the fiscal cliff.

So if Obama is re-elected and Republicans can still effectively block legislation after November, we're doomed, just so the Republicans can blame Obama.


Yep. The GOP already knows they're not getting into the Oval Office - they recognized that a year or so ago. Their big deal now is to keep folks angry at the White House so that voters won't pay attention to the fact that it's not just a Presidential election, but also a Congressional election, that's happening this year.

If the GOP can keep enough seats in Congress, they can continue to hold the country hostage while trying to blame their political terrorism on the White House. Four more years of threats, blocks, faux investigations, cloture, filibusters, committee railroading, and so on, while the middle class & poor starve and the rich get richer.

It's not just about keeping Obama in the White House, it's also about kicking out of Congress some of the worst elected officials we've had in years, just so we can get the country back on track.
 
2012-08-22 06:03:48 PM  
Odd how so many on my ignore list felt the need to quip something in this thread.
It's a farking convention, ferchissakes.
 
2012-08-22 06:06:03 PM  

whidbey: Odd how so many on my ignore list felt the need to quip something in this thread.


Odd that you needed to let us know about your ignore list.

smugabunch?
 
2012-08-22 06:55:25 PM  

sprawl15: Debt is a useful tool, but should never be used to pay for current operating expenses. That just leads to bad news.


You're willfully missing the point here. If I go into debt to go to school, this is a good thing. If I go into debt to play video games and buy pizza for four years, this is a bad thing.

sprawl15: The idea is not that paying the ditch diggers in perpetuity is required, but rather that the cycle is 'jumpstarted' from a negative feedback loop to a positive feedback loop. The money flowing from person to person makes people more willing to invest which lets people create new business which makes people more willing to invest, etc. Once its in that cycle, losing the ditch diggers' jobs won't break it back.


BUT IT DOESN'T WORK! Whatever positive impact the spending has is negated when the spending stops! I don't understand why you think it works it one direction, but not the other. Increase spending, economy does well. Decrease spending, economy does poorly. Doesn't that compute for you!?

If the government goes massively into debt to build a military base in the middle of nowhere, what happens? Well, it hires a lot of young people. Lots of people go into service jobs that are now created by all of these young people. Lots of people start supplying goods to the base. Arms manufacturers get a boost in demand. People start flocking to the area due to the increased spending that is going on as a result of all of this initial spending.

Now what happens when the government turns off the spigot?! Arms manufacturers see decreased demand and lay off people. Army lays off young people. Demand for services go down, so that sector takes a hit. Basically, the entire area is devastated. And you know why it was devastated? Because the entire thing was built on unsustainable debt. How is this difficult for you?

sprawl15: Take the depths of the great depression. Anyone with money didn't want to spend it. Anyone without money couldn't do anything to get money. If the government paid some people to dig ditches and refill them, they could afford dinner. The supermarket could afford to exist. The farmers would have a buyer. Things would start moving again. Once the economy is chugging along, it's much easier for people to demand something useful instead of ditch digging, and it can shift gears much more smoothly.


Why don't you understand that when the government stops spending, the economy stops chugging? If the government right now were to place an order for 10 billion doohickeys, that otherwise no one wanted, you know what would happen? The doohickey industry would explode! Things would be great. Doohickey factories popping up everywhere. Kids going to school for doohickey engineering. Doohickey parts suppliers popping up everywhere and doing great. And in addition, all of the people employed in the doohickey factories are buying services from other people. Those people have jobs, and everything is great.

UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T BUY DOOHICKEYS ANYMORE.

sprawl15: I would argue that laying off police forces in an area is a worse plan than any amount of debt to sustain them. Keeping the law becomes pretty difficult when all you have are wishes.


Well, if you pay for them on debt, eventually you can't afford them. You can't just magically make debt, someone needs to loan to you. And when you run out of people willing to loan to you, as several European countries are finding out, it doesn't matter what you think is the wisest course of action, you just are forced to cut costs.
 
2012-08-22 06:59:52 PM  

LibertyHiller: MattStafford: ricewater_stool: We have spent more than we take in in 60 of the past 72 years. Seems pretty sustainable to me.

Also, if you'd like to go back to 1950s-era tax rates, that would be fine with me too.

I'm sure you've seen how the debt has exploded over the past 40 years, particularly in the past ten. Just because something has lasted for 60 years doesn't mean it will last for another ten, particularly with exponential growth.

And I am fine with raising taxes. If we spend, we have to pay for it, not just put it on a credit card.

So, which ones? Show your math.


My math? Dude, I'm of the opinion that we're so far gone that I've become a Mayan. We're about to experience economic hardship that'll make the Great Depression look like a cake walk. There will be massive political unrest, absolutely massive. Arguing about math and what we're going to cut and what taxes we're going to raise is like asking how big of an umbrella you should get to protect yourself from a tidal wave.
 
2012-08-23 11:11:59 AM  

MattStafford: LibertyHiller: MattStafford: ricewater_stool: We have spent more than we take in in 60 of the past 72 years. Seems pretty sustainable to me.

Also, if you'd like to go back to 1950s-era tax rates, that would be fine with me too.

I'm sure you've seen how the debt has exploded over the past 40 years, particularly in the past ten. Just because something has lasted for 60 years doesn't mean it will last for another ten, particularly with exponential growth.

And I am fine with raising taxes. If we spend, we have to pay for it, not just put it on a credit card.

So, which ones? Show your math.

My math? Dude, I'm of the opinion that we're so far gone that I've become a Mayan. We're about to experience economic hardship that'll make the Great Depression look like a cake walk. There will be massive political unrest, absolutely massive. Arguing about math and what we're going to cut and what taxes we're going to raise is like asking how big of an umbrella you should get to protect yourself from a tidal wave.


And I assume that if this happens, you'll be in the corner, masturbating furiously.
 
Displayed 96 of 96 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