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.

(Reason Magazine)   Let's reason out Obama's "we don't have a spending problem" comment shall we?   (reason.com) divider line 154
    More: Obvious, President Obama, Jonathan Chait, Steve Benen, pragmatists, Robert Reich, Boehner, Rachel Maddow  
•       •       •

1533 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jan 2013 at 2:24 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-09 10:52:05 AM  
2002: The Iraq war will pay for itself

2002: "Deficits don't matter"

2003: Medicare part D

2007: Wait, the Iraq war didn't pay for itself?

2013: Obama has a spending problem.
 
2013-01-09 10:57:17 AM  
The truth irritates his majesty.
 
2013-01-09 10:57:22 AM  
If Washington had pegged federal government growth since 2000 to the rates of inflation and population growth, we would be spending well under $3 trillion today, and talking about what to do with the surplus.

$3 trillion. Hmm, where have I seen that number before...

i.imgur.com

Link
 
2013-01-09 11:02:32 AM  
Yes, a Republican president can start two unfunded wars and then cook the books so that the actual spending doesn't show on his budgets, but a Democrat president must be held to inflation plus growth.

F*ck yourselves.
 
2013-01-09 11:03:08 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: If Washington had pegged federal government growth since 2000 to the rates of inflation and population growth, we would be spending well under $3 trillion today, and talking about what to do with the surplus.

$3 trillion. Hmm, where have I seen that number before...

[i.imgur.com image 750x536]

Link


Another look:

www.tc.umn.edu

We may trust you again, Republicans, after you've given some indication that you've learned your lesson.  Pretending Bush didn't exist (and that you didn't vote for his policies) doesn't count.
 
2013-01-09 11:05:19 AM  
Reason.com = no
 
2013-01-09 11:09:42 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: The truth irritates his majesty.


are you high?
 
2013-01-09 11:17:20 AM  
"Let's reason out Obama's..."

I prefer to study it out, thank you very much.
 
2013-01-09 11:26:27 AM  
I love that the chart included with TFA shows the spending changes since 2001.  That's remarkably disingenuous.  Try showing a chart from 2009, you assclowns.
 
2013-01-09 11:30:43 AM  
Or New York magazine's Jonathan Chait: "There really isn't money to be cut everywhere....The spending cuts aren't there because they can't be found."

this is what democrats actually believe.
 
2013-01-09 11:32:10 AM  

SlothB77: Or New York magazine's Jonathan Chait: "There really isn't money to be cut everywhere....The spending cuts aren't there because they can't be found."

this is what democrats actually believe.


What spending cuts are the republicans in congress proposing?
 
2013-01-09 11:33:05 AM  
So...more tax cuts, then?
 
2013-01-09 11:38:59 AM  

ManateeGag: jehovahs witness protection: The truth irritates his majesty.

are you high?


Never attribute to drugs that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
 
2013-01-09 11:50:09 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: ManateeGag: jehovahs witness protection: The truth irritates his majesty.

are you high?

Never attribute to drugs that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.


Personally, I don't see why it has to be an either/or situation. I see "both" as an adequate answer.

I will agree that we, as a nation, spend too much. But the difference between liberals and conservatives is onion on what it is spent on. I, and most liberals, want to see money spent on research into green tech, further expansion of high speed internet, education programs from grade school on up to collegiate level, work training programs in the trade arts (a country is only as good and clean as it's best plumbers' ability), social safety nets, universal health care...

And conservatives want the capability to blow up the world, especially the brown parts, six times over. Oh, and tax cuts for people who aren't exactly starving.

So, it's a simple disagreement of onion, I guess.
 
2013-01-09 11:51:18 AM  
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

It's pretty clear from actually looking at the data that we have a massive income problem.  Tax receipts peaked in 2007, and that was only 4.5% above the previous peak in 2000.  Last year's revenue was only 86% of the government's revenue in 2000.  We have lost 14% of the total revenue to our government in 12 years.  During the same period, our GDP has grown almost 50%.  In other words, since the data also shows that before 2000, income was a fairly steady 18-20% of GDP, the problem is almost entirely revenue.  If receipts were still 20% of GDP, Federal revenue last year would have been approximately $3T, giving us a deficit of around $100B, or 9% of the actual deficit last year.

I am perfectly willing to accept spending cuts of $100B in exchange for restoring revenue to historical levels, which would erase the deficit.

Only a moron would look at the actual data and claim we have a spending problem.  We have a tax problem.
 
2013-01-09 11:51:53 AM  
I should have previewed and saw that my tablet auto corrected every time I used the word "opinion" to the word "onion." I am as yet unsure if that is my tablet making fun of me.
 
2013-01-09 11:53:07 AM  

James!: What spending cuts are the republicans in congress proposing?


They're pretty sure cutting spending on gay marriage, abortions, and "illegals" will save $14.4 kazillion dollars in the first year alone.
 
2013-01-09 11:55:08 AM  

BunkoSquad: James!: What spending cuts are the republicans in congress proposing?

They're pretty sure cutting spending on gay marriage, abortions, and "illegals" will save $14.4 kazillion dollars in the first year alone.


Let's also remember that Romney's budget would have doubled defense spending over the next 10 years, while cutting taxes, which would magically close the deficit.
 
2013-01-09 11:56:01 AM  
Obama needs to do his job.What, is he in it for, the paycheck? Is he even back from Hawaii, being the man about town in photo ops all around the town?I'd like to be on vacation too (actually rather be out chasing Amy Adams or some other hot babe,) but I have work to do.I thought about this when I was changing lanes on the freeway this morning.Congress got fat raises while the rest of us were trying to extract every cent out our bank accounts and wondering whether we would be surviving Christmas this past year!Would our checks bounce while the pols play their little reindeer games? Maybe the election season left Washington dazed and bewildered, the phantoms of superpacs and other donors in their heads.They need to get back to work!I won't be satisfied until they are going all the way to fix this deficit problem.I'm tired of the political dogma they spout, obviously cooked up in some boiler room where they act all powerful and mighty like forces of nature instead of the crooked little men they are.Obama and Boehner need to stop with the empty talk, stop smoking 200 cigarettes a day and solve this issue before it turns into an economic armageddon.
 
2013-01-09 11:57:20 AM  

GAT_00: Only a moron would look at the actual data and claim we have a spending problem.


Well, it's Republicans saying it so...I guess that sums it up.
 
2013-01-09 11:58:58 AM  

Rev.K: Yes, a Republican president can start two unfunded wars and then cook the books so that the actual spending doesn't show on his budgets, but a Democrat president must be held to inflation plus growth.

F*ck yourselves.


I know we haven't spent anything since 2007, but really, can't we at least pay down the balance owed for those wars?
 
2013-01-09 12:04:28 PM  

I_C_Weener: Rev.K: Yes, a Republican president can start two unfunded wars and then cook the books so that the actual spending doesn't show on his budgets, but a Democrat president must be held to inflation plus growth.

F*ck yourselves.

I know we haven't spent anything since 2007, but really, can't we at least pay down the balance owed for those wars?


yeah i'm all for rah-rah obama, but i don't see how the source of financial commitments has anything to do with the discussions of how to address those commitments going forward.
 
2013-01-09 12:04:43 PM  
It's not a spending problem, it's a future obligations problem.  There are remedies for this.  Raise retirement age, chained-CPI, increase means-testing, reduce medicare payments to doctors, increase taxes.

None of these are going to happen.  We're just going to stumble on yammering about welfare queens and cutting the fat.  You know how many people in Georgia get welfare?  4,000.
 
2013-01-09 12:12:50 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Obama needs to do his job.What, is he in it for, the paycheck? Is he even back from Hawaii, being the man about town in photo ops all around the town?I'd like to be on vacation too (actually rather be out chasing Amy Adams or some other hot babe,) but I have work to do.I thought about this when I was changing lanes on the freeway this morning.Congress got fat raises while the rest of us were trying to extract every cent out our bank accounts and wondering whether we would be surviving Christmas this past year!Would our checks bounce while the pols play their little reindeer games? Maybe the election season left Washington dazed and bewildered, the phantoms of superpacs and other donors in their heads.They need to get back to work!I won't be satisfied until they are going all the way to fix this deficit problem.I'm tired of the political dogma they spout, obviously cooked up in some boiler room where they act all powerful and mighty like forces of nature instead of the crooked little men they are.Obama and Boehner need to stop with the empty talk, stop smoking 200 cigarettes a day and solve this issue before it turns into an economic armageddon.


Bravo! Well played, sir.
 
2013-01-09 12:15:47 PM  

thomps: yeah i'm all for rah-rah obama, but i don't see how the source of financial commitments has anything to do with the discussions of how to address those commitments going forward.


I agree. I'm merely pointing out Reason's partisan hackery and Republican knob-slobbing.

It's because Democrats are in denial about the true cost of their (yes) ideological commitments.

That takes some kind of balls to spew that bullsh*t when America is drowning in the debt of a war that was supposed to "pay for itself".
 
2013-01-09 12:17:01 PM  

thomps: yeah i'm all for rah-rah obama, but i don't see how the source of financial commitments has anything to do with the discussions of how to address those commitments going forward.


I agree. I'm merely pointing out Reason's partisan hackery and Republican knob-slobbing.

It's because Democrats are in denial about the true cost of their (yes) ideological commitments.

It takes some kind of balls or monumental cognitive dissonance to say bullsh*t like that when the US is drowning in the debt of a war that was supposed to "pay for itself".
 
2013-01-09 12:17:57 PM  
We do have a spending problem...and it's a bipartisan problem.  Everything should be cut....including defense.
 
2013-01-09 12:20:25 PM  

Rev.K: thomps: yeah i'm all for rah-rah obama, but i don't see how the source of financial commitments has anything to do with the discussions of how to address those commitments going forward.

I agree. I'm merely pointing out Reason's partisan hackery and Republican knob-slobbing.

It's because Democrats are in denial about the true cost of their (yes) ideological commitments.

That takes some kind of balls to spew that bullsh*t when America is drowning in the debt of a war that was supposed to "pay for itself".


oh i think we can all agree that Reason and the republican debate-framing are a f*cking joke, but posting charts about outrageous spending commitments over the previous decade doesn't do much to counter the assertion that we have a spending problem.
 
2013-01-09 12:24:56 PM  

Doctor Funkenstein: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama needs to do his job.What, is he in it for, the paycheck? Is he even back from Hawaii, being the man about town in photo ops all around the town?I'd like to be on vacation too (actually rather be out chasing Amy Adams or some other hot babe,) but I have work to do.I thought about this when I was changing lanes on the freeway this morning.Congress got fat raises while the rest of us were trying to extract every cent out our bank accounts and wondering whether we would be surviving Christmas this past year!Would our checks bounce while the pols play their little reindeer games? Maybe the election season left Washington dazed and bewildered, the phantoms of superpacs and other donors in their heads.They need to get back to work!I won't be satisfied until they are going all the way to fix this deficit problem.I'm tired of the political dogma they spout, obviously cooked up in some boiler room where they act all powerful and mighty like forces of nature instead of the crooked little men they are.Obama and Boehner need to stop with the empty talk, stop smoking 200 cigarettes a day and solve this issue before it turns into an economic armageddon.

Bravo! Well played, sir.


Did anyone else find themselves humming "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" right then?  No, just me?
 
2013-01-09 12:27:22 PM  

ITGreen: Doctor Funkenstein: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama needs to do his job.What, is he in it for, the paycheck? Is he even back from Hawaii, being the man about town in photo ops all around the town?I'd like to be on vacation too (actually rather be out chasing Amy Adams or some other hot babe,) but I have work to do.I thought about this when I was changing lanes on the freeway this morning.Congress got fat raises while the rest of us were trying to extract every cent out our bank accounts and wondering whether we would be surviving Christmas this past year!Would our checks bounce while the pols play their little reindeer games? Maybe the election season left Washington dazed and bewildered, the phantoms of superpacs and other donors in their heads.They need to get back to work!I won't be satisfied until they are going all the way to fix this deficit problem.I'm tired of the political dogma they spout, obviously cooked up in some boiler room where they act all powerful and mighty like forces of nature instead of the crooked little men they are.Obama and Boehner need to stop with the empty talk, stop smoking 200 cigarettes a day and solve this issue before it turns into an economic armageddon.

Bravo! Well played, sir.

Did anyone else find themselves humming "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" right then?  No, just me?


i read it in the voice of that affleck insurance duck
 
2013-01-09 12:29:23 PM  

thomps: oh i think we can all agree that Reason and the republican debate-framing are a f*cking joke, but posting charts about outrageous spending commitments over the previous decade doesn't do much to counter the assertion that we have a spending problem.


There is also a very, very considerable revenue problem.

By Reason's own charts, expenditures are increasing and all Republicans want to do is lower taxes, i.e. the means to pay for those expenses.
 
2013-01-09 12:39:42 PM  

thomps: i read it in the voice of that affleck insurance duck


That is the best way to read it.
 
2013-01-09 02:21:54 PM  
The president's insistence that Washington doesn't have a spending problem, Mr. Boehner says, is predicated on the belief that massive federal deficits stem from what Mr. Obama called "a health-care problem."

This is basically 100% correct. Maybe someone can disagree with it, but the idea that you'd be "shocked" by it is amazing. Do people not pay attention to reality?
 
2013-01-09 02:26:15 PM  
Study Reason it out!
 
2013-01-09 02:26:17 PM  
If you're going to use the verb "reason" the way Reason uses it for its name, then I think I'll pass, thanks.
 
2013-01-09 02:26:54 PM  
Let's reason study out Obama's "we don't have a spending problem" comment shall we?

/"you idiot, Pfom!!, the site's not called study.com"
 
2013-01-09 02:27:10 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: If you're going to use the verb "reason" the way Reason uses it for its name, then I think I'll pass, thanks.


chickens everywhere thank you for your decision.
 
2013-01-09 02:27:13 PM  

Rev.K: Yes, a Republican president can start two unfunded wars and then cook the books so that the actual spending doesn't show on his budgets, but a Democrat president must be held to inflation plus growth.

F*ck yourselves.


Butthurt by the truth?
 
2013-01-09 02:27:49 PM  
If Washington had pegged federal government growth since 2000 to the rates of inflation and population growth, we...

...obviously wouldn't have been able to afford massive increases in defense spending, Medicare Part D, or DHS.
 
2013-01-09 02:28:03 PM  
Thanks, W.

You might not understand all the death and destruction but surely you and your chimp brain can understand the trillions of debt you ran up.

Wait, of course you understand. That's why you ran up all that debt in the first place. For you and your friends to profit on.

Thanks, W. A real patriot.
 
2013-01-09 02:29:44 PM  

DeltaPunch: "Let's reason out Obama's..."

I prefer to study it out, thank you very much.


Dammit - I knew I couldn't have been the first one to go there.
 
2013-01-09 02:31:08 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Obama needs to do his job.What, is he in it for, the paycheck? Is he even back from Hawaii, being the man about town in photo ops all around the town?I'd like to be on vacation too (actually rather be out chasing Amy Adams or some other hot babe,) but I have work to do.I thought about this when I was changing lanes on the freeway this morning.Congress got fat raises while the rest of us were trying to extract every cent out our bank accounts and wondering whether we would be surviving Christmas this past year!Would our checks bounce while the pols play their little reindeer games? Maybe the election season left Washington dazed and bewildered, the phantoms of superpacs and other donors in their heads.They need to get back to work!I won't be satisfied until they are going all the way to fix this deficit problem.I'm tired of the political dogma they spout, obviously cooked up in some boiler room where they act all powerful and mighty like forces of nature instead of the crooked little men they are.Obama and Boehner need to stop with the empty talk, stop smoking 200 cigarettes a day and solve this issue before it turns into an economic armageddon.


I think I got em all. Though I'm guessing "dazed and bewildered" was supposed to be "dazed and confused."
 
2013-01-09 02:31:41 PM  

Phony_Soldier: Butthurt by the truth?


What truth?

That the imbeciles at Reason are totally fine with trillions of unfunded Republican debt and then clutch their pearls when Obama raises the lowest tax rates in history?
 
2013-01-09 02:32:45 PM  

Teufelaffe: I think I got em all. Though I'm guessing "dazed and bewildered" was supposed to be "dazed and confused."


you missed at least "extract" and "are go[ing]"
 
2013-01-09 02:33:46 PM  
I'd say we have a very different sort of problem that is very difficult to discuss.
An Elephant in the room, if you will.
 
2013-01-09 02:34:53 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com


but lets keep blaming fartbama
 
2013-01-09 02:36:07 PM  
Good thing we aren't fighting 2 wars any more so we can finally make drastic cuts to the military budget right GOP?
 
2013-01-09 02:36:41 PM  

ManateeGag: jehovahs witness protection: The truth irritates his majesty.

are you high?


Yes, check his history. He's a longstanding anti-Obama wingnut.
 
2013-01-09 02:38:05 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: If Washington had pegged federal government growth since 2000 to the rates of inflation and population growth, we would be spending well under $3 trillion today, and talking about what to do with the surplus.

$3 trillion. Hmm, where have I seen that number before...

[i.imgur.com image 750x536]

Link


To be fair, reducing the yellow part just makes the grey part bigger, if not in exact proportion.

It's more a matter of how the yellow part is allocated than actually reducing it, which is why you won't see the deficit going down under EITHER party, just a change in allocation for policies one party or the other supports.
 
2013-01-09 02:38:13 PM  

thomps: Teufelaffe: I think I got em all. Though I'm guessing "dazed and bewildered" was supposed to be "dazed and confused."

you missed at least "extract" and "are go[ing]"


Whoa...
(also, Election)
 
2013-01-09 02:38:39 PM  

Ishidan: ManateeGag: jehovahs witness protection: The truth irritates his majesty.

are you high?

Yes, check his history. He's a longstanding anti-Obama wingnut.


At least he doesn't want Obama lynched like some other Farkers do.
 
2013-01-09 02:38:59 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: thomps: i read it in the voice of that affleck insurance duck

That is the best way to read it.


I assume you mean the Aflac duck, as voiced by Gilbert Gottfried? That's about right.
And holy crap, do we have another PocketNinja?
 
2013-01-09 02:39:25 PM  

ITGreen: thomps: Teufelaffe: I think I got em all. Though I'm guessing "dazed and bewildered" was supposed to be "dazed and confused."

you missed at least "extract" and "are go[ing]"

Whoa...
(also, Election)


and "Forces of Nature."  Most fun I've had with one comment all day.
 
2013-01-09 02:40:33 PM  
media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-09 02:41:42 PM  

Ishidan: AdolfOliverPanties: thomps: i read it in the voice of that affleck insurance duck

That is the best way to read it.

I assume you mean the Aflac duck, as voiced by Gilbert Gottfried? That's about right.
And holy crap, do we have another PocketNinja?


you assume wrong. and think more StopArrestingMe than Pocket Ninja
 
2013-01-09 02:41:52 PM  

Teufelaffe: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama needs to do his job.What, is he in it for, the paycheck? Is he even back from Hawaii, being the man about town in photo ops all around the town?I'd like to be on vacation too (actually rather be out chasing Amy Adams or some other hot babe,) but I have work to do.I thought about this when I was changing lanes on the freeway this morning.Congress got fat raises while the rest of us were trying to extract every cent out our bank accounts and wondering whether we would be surviving Christmas this past year!Would our checks bounce while the pols play their little reindeer games? Maybe the election season left Washington dazed and bewildered, the phantoms of superpacs and other donors in their heads.They need to get back to work!I won't be satisfied until they are going all the way to fix this deficit problem.I'm tired of the political dogma they spout, obviously cooked up in some boiler room where they act all powerful and mighty like forces of nature instead of the crooked little men they are.Obama and Boehner need to stop with the empty talk, stop smoking 200 cigarettes a day and solve this issue before it turns into an economic armageddon.

I think I got em all. Though I'm guessing "dazed and bewildered" was supposed to be "dazed and confused."


dammit! i didn't even notice. Kudos to Adolf for that.
 
2013-01-09 02:43:12 PM  

ITGreen: ITGreen: thomps: Teufelaffe: I think I got em all. Though I'm guessing "dazed and bewildered" was supposed to be "dazed and confused."

you missed at least "extract" and "are go[ing]"

Whoa...
(also, Election)

and "Forces of Nature."  Most fun I've had with one comment all day.


Sorry, strike Election.
 
2013-01-09 02:45:01 PM  
I specifically made it "dazed and bewildered" as I was told that StopArrestingMe would leave red herrings in his brilliant puzzle posts.

There are still a couple that have not been found, by the way.
 
2013-01-09 02:45:15 PM  

greenboy: Teufelaffe: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama needs to do his job.What, is he in it for, the paycheck? Is he even back from Hawaii, being the man about town in photo ops all around the town?I'd like to be on vacation too (actually rather be out chasing Amy Adams or some other hot babe,) but I have work to do.I thought about this when I was changing lanes on the freeway this morning.Congress got fat raises while the rest of us were trying to extract every cent out our bank accounts and wondering whether we would be surviving Christmas this past year!Would our checks bounce while the pols play their little reindeer games? Maybe the election season left Washington dazed and bewildered, the phantoms of superpacs and other donors in their heads.They need to get back to work!I won't be satisfied until they are going all the way to fix this deficit problem.I'm tired of the political dogma they spout, obviously cooked up in some boiler room where they act all powerful and mighty like forces of nature instead of the crooked little men they are.Obama and Boehner need to stop with the empty talk, stop smoking 200 cigarettes a day and solve this issue before it turns into an economic armageddon.

I think I got em all. Though I'm guessing "dazed and bewildered" was supposed to be "dazed and confused."

dammit! i didn't even notice. Kudos to Adolf for that.

 
2013-01-09 02:45:38 PM  

thomps: ITGreen: Doctor Funkenstein: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama needs to do his job.What, is he in it for, the paycheck? Is he even back from Hawaii, being the man about town in photo ops all around the town?I'd like to be on vacation too (actually rather be out chasing Amy Adams or some other hot babe,) but I have work to do.I thought about this when I was changing lanes on the freeway this morning.Congress got fat raises while the rest of us were trying to extract every cent out our bank accounts and wondering whether we would be surviving Christmas this past year!Would our checks bounce while the pols play their little reindeer games? Maybe the election season left Washington dazed and bewildered, the phantoms of superpacs and other donors in their heads.They need to get back to work!I won't be satisfied until they are going all the way to fix this deficit problem.I'm tired of the political dogma they spout, obviously cooked up in some boiler room where they act all powerful and mighty like forces of nature instead of the crooked little men they are.Obama and Boehner need to stop with the empty talk, stop smoking 200 cigarettes a day and solve this issue before it turns into an economic armageddon.

Bravo! Well played, sir.

Did anyone else find themselves humming "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" right then?  No, just me?

i read it in the voice of that affleck insurance duck


Really? I read that, and Yakkity Sax started playing in my mind.
 
2013-01-09 02:46:22 PM  

Lumpmoose: We may trust you again, Republicans, after you've given some indication that you've learned your lesson. Pretending Bush didn't exist (and that you didn't vote for his policies) doesn't count.


Especially when you nominate Presidential Candidates who propose an extra $2 trillion in defense spending and huge tax cuts, as Romney did.

"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due."

-- Dick Cheney


Reaganomics brought about our modern debt crisis. Before you'll ever be trusted again, you need to disavow Reagan's policies and come up with a better gameplan than "Reaganomics On Steroids".
 
2013-01-09 02:50:22 PM  
From a previous thread:


Here are four options - Spend a ton, but tax relatively little; Spend very little, tax very little; spend a ton, tax a ton; spend very little, tax a ton.

The outcomes of the four options:

1. Very fast growing economy, but will slow (recession) once spending and taxes fall into line.
2. Faster growing and sustainable economy, but unequal distribution of that economy's wealth.
3. Slower growing and sustainable economy, but more equal distribution of that economy's wealth.
4. Very slow growing economy, but will pick up rapidly once spending and taxes fall into line.

Obviously, I think we would all agree that option three is the best. Many on the right would say that option two is the best. What I am trying to convince people of is that option one is the worst. We have been using option number one now for about thirty years, and every time the recession occurs, we fight it off with more deficit spending. And in all fairness, this policy was pioneered by Reagan. Eventually, the system breaks, and we can't fight the recession anymore. We are extremely close to that point, and people on both sides are not understanding how serious it is for us to go from option one to option two or three (or in between) as quickly as possible.
 
2013-01-09 02:51:56 PM  
Are we using actual reason, or Reason.com?
 
2013-01-09 02:53:08 PM  

Teufelaffe: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama needs to do his job.What, is he in it for, the paycheck? Is he even back from Hawaii, being the man about town in photo ops all around the town?I'd like to be on vacation too (actually rather be out chasing Amy Adams or some other hot babe,) but I have work to do.I thought about this when I was changing lanes on the freeway this morning.Congress got fat raises while the rest of us were trying to extract every cent out our bank accounts and wondering whether we would be surviving Christmas this past year!Would our checks bounce while the pols play their little reindeer games? Maybe the election season left Washington dazed and bewildered, the phantoms of superpacs and other donors in their heads.They need to get back to work!I won't be satisfied until they are go/going all the way to fix this deficit problem.I'm tired of the political dogma they spout, obviously cooked up in some boiler room where they act all powerful and mighty like forces of nature instead of the crooked little men they are.Obama and Boehner need to stop with the empty talk, stop smoking 200 cigarettes a day and solve this issue before it turns into an economic armageddon.

 
2013-01-09 02:53:28 PM  
Also, to everyone in this thread:

Sure, this is Bush's fault. He spent a shiat ton. But now that Obama has taken office, you can't just say: well it was Bush that started spending all that money, so now we don't have to cut it. Sure, blame Bush for it, but you still have to accept that we have a spending problem.
 
2013-01-09 02:54:34 PM  
I thought we had a tax cut and loophole problem.
 
2013-01-09 02:55:27 PM  

Fart_Machine: I thought we had a tax cut and loophole problem.


We do...but it's easy to just blame PBS and Planned Parenthood for our budget problems.
 
2013-01-09 02:56:37 PM  

ltdanman44: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x680]


but lets keep blaming fartbama


I noticed how the time line ends at Bush. What about Obama's bar graph?
 
2013-01-09 02:58:29 PM  

MattStafford: Also, to everyone in this thread:

Sure, this is Bush's fault. He spent a shiat ton. But now that Obama has taken office, you can't just say: well it was Bush that started spending all that money, so now we don't have to cut it. Sure, blame Bush for it, but you still have to accept that we have a spending problem.


Raise taxes, cut the military, end the drug war, end massive industry subsidies and shift focus to ground-level jobs programs. Wipe hands on farking pants. If there is a spending problem it is purely in military and policing.
 
2013-01-09 03:00:35 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Raise taxes, cut the military, end the drug war, end massive industry subsidies and shift focus to ground-level jobs programs. Wipe hands on farking pants. If there is a spending problem it is purely in military and policing.


I'm entirely fine with those options, but we would still be running a deficit, and we would then have to deal with all of the former employees of the MIC and Drug War who are now unemployed, and all of those people who their jobs supported (think service sector and retail).
 
2013-01-09 03:02:06 PM  

MattStafford: A Dark Evil Omen: Raise taxes, cut the military, end the drug war, end massive industry subsidies and shift focus to ground-level jobs programs. Wipe hands on farking pants. If there is a spending problem it is purely in military and policing.

I'm entirely fine with those options, but we would still be running a deficit, and we would then have to deal with all of the former employees of the MIC and Drug War who are now unemployed, and all of those people who their jobs supported (think service sector and retail).


So what cuts do you propose that will not lead to any job losses?
 
2013-01-09 03:03:53 PM  

MattStafford: Sure, this is Bush's fault. He spent a shiat ton. But now that Obama has taken office, you can't just say: well it was Bush that started spending all that money, so now we don't have to cut it. Sure, blame Bush for it, but you still have to accept that we have a spending problem.


You're missing the point -- the people complaining about Obama spending too much money were completely silent when Bush was doing the same thing. So either they don't really care about money at all and are looking to justify their hatred of Obama, or they're so blind for their love of Bush they forgive him for doing the same things as Obama.
 
2013-01-09 03:05:20 PM  

MattStafford: A Dark Evil Omen: Raise taxes, cut the military, end the drug war, end massive industry subsidies and shift focus to ground-level jobs programs. Wipe hands on farking pants. If there is a spending problem it is purely in military and policing.

I'm entirely fine with those options, but we would still be running a deficit, and we would then have to deal with all of the former employees of the MIC and Drug War who are now unemployed, and all of those people who their jobs supported (think service sector and retail).


Citation needed. Challenge: Actually focusing on creating real work and real wealth instead of sandbox adventures and burning pot plants would in short order significantly improve the economy and, in slightly longer order, tax receipts. You want more savings? Scrap Medicare, Medicaid and the patchwork of other healthcare programs in favor of a unified single-payer program.
 
2013-01-09 03:05:36 PM  

MrEricSir: MattStafford: Sure, this is Bush's fault. He spent a shiat ton. But now that Obama has taken office, you can't just say: well it was Bush that started spending all that money, so now we don't have to cut it. Sure, blame Bush for it, but you still have to accept that we have a spending problem.

You're missing the point -- the people complaining about Obama spending too much money were completely silent when Bush was doing the same thing. So either they don't really care about money at all and are looking to justify their hatred of Obama, or they're so blind for their love of Bush they forgive him for doing the same things as Obama.


Why can't it be both?
 
2013-01-09 03:05:45 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So what cuts do you propose that will not lead to any job losses?


There aren't any cuts you can make that won't result in job losses. We're farked.

If I was in charge, this would be my solution - immediately repudiate all debts, private and public. Make every creditor 50% whole with freshly printed currency. Never spend beyond what you take in again, with the exception of extreme circumstances, or very specific infrastructure projects (along the lines of the Hoover Dam).
 
2013-01-09 03:06:40 PM  

MattStafford: Also, to everyone in this thread:

Sure, this is Bush's fault. He spent a shiat ton. But now that Obama has taken office, you can't just say: well it was Bush that started spending all that money, so now we don't have to cut it. Sure, blame Bush for it, but you still have to accept that we have a spending problem.


I don't think anyone here thinks that we can't do for some budget cuts. What many people are pointing out is that a majority of our deficit is due to policies implemented before obama became president. Despite this, people look at the deficit as a whole and say that obama is a socialist and ruining america with entitlements and bailouts and other derp which actually account for very little of our overall spending. Keep in mind that we ARE trying to get out of the 2 wars, but we still have to pay for them, so that money is not going to go away. You also can't cut many of the social programs for fear of running the country into another recession.
I have seen time and time again on this site that people have a good grasp of things that can be done to fix the country (ignore all the idiots). We see the common sense and say that we need better tiered tax rates, removal of corporate loopholes, removal of SS ceiling.
You do those things, and we are heading in the right direction. Unfortunately, when things like the tax holiday expire (which means that the gov't is giving out less money == spending less), people freak out b/c they say OBAMA IS TAKING OUR MONEYZ! I think the most serious problem we have is in educating the common person on what exactly is happening with taxes and spending as opposed to Glen Beck and Limbaugh.
 
2013-01-09 03:08:13 PM  

MrEricSir: You're missing the point -- the people complaining about Obama spending too much money were completely silent when Bush was doing the same thing. So either they don't really care about money at all and are looking to justify their hatred of Obama, or they're so blind for their love of Bush they forgive him for doing the same things as Obama.


Well, except for those crazy libertarians. But they don't count.

Either way, if someone gets you both him and you into a serious problem, and he comes to you and says, "hey, we gotta serious problem here", the best course of action would probably be to fix that problem, not to make fun of him/blame him for getting you into that problem. Although I'm not saying we shouldn't blame them, but there are more pressing matters that everyone in this thread apparently would prefer to ignore.
 
2013-01-09 03:08:34 PM  

MattStafford: .

If I was in charge, this would be my solution - immediately repudiate all debts, private and public. Make every creditor 50% whole with freshly printed currency. Never spend beyond what you take in again, with the exception of extreme circumstances, or very specific infrastructure projects (along the lines of the Hoover Dam).


s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-01-09 03:10:23 PM  

greenboy: entitlements and bailouts and other derp which actually account for very little of our overall spending.


I would suggest you check a breakdown of where our spending actually goes.

greenboy: I have seen time and time again on this site that people have a good grasp of things that can be done to fix the country (ignore all the idiots).


Unfortunately, we can't fix this country. 30 years of deficit spending has ruined it (for the next few decades, at least)
 
2013-01-09 03:11:07 PM  

MattStafford: If I was in charge, this would be my solution - immediately repudiate all debts, private and public.


So basically you want us to default?

Thank God you AREN'T in charge.
 
2013-01-09 03:12:41 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: .

If I was in charge, this would be my solution - immediately repudiate all debts, private and public. Make every creditor 50% whole with freshly printed currency. Never spend beyond what you take in again, with the exception of extreme circumstances, or very specific infrastructure projects (along the lines of the Hoover Dam).

[s3.amazonaws.com image 552x360]


Drastic times call for drastic measures. Better than having biyearly congressional crises where we shut down the country to achieve half a percent of deficit reduction until the whole thing collapses. Rip that band aid off at once and start over on a sustainable path.
 
2013-01-09 03:14:06 PM  

Mrtraveler01: So basically you want us to default?

Thank God you AREN'T in charge.


Umm, we're going to default anyway via inflation, unless we get our spending/revenue under control. I'm just being open about it.
 
2013-01-09 03:14:36 PM  
I keep forgetting Reason lacks exactly that.

I think all Reason articles should have Ironic tag from now on.
 
2013-01-09 03:16:45 PM  

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: So basically you want us to default?

Thank God you AREN'T in charge.

Umm, we're going to default anyway via inflation, unless we get our spending/revenue under control. I'm just being open about it.


Never have I seen four words put together to so succinctly state that the person who wrote them has no idea what they're talking about or even what those words mean.
 
2013-01-09 03:16:46 PM  

MattStafford: Umm, we're going to default anyway via inflation


Because inflation is such a huge problem at the moment.

An inflation rate of 1.8% will cripple our nation in no time!
 
2013-01-09 03:17:25 PM  

MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: .

If I was in charge, this would be my solution - immediately repudiate all debts, private and public. Make every creditor 50% whole with freshly printed currency. Never spend beyond what you take in again, with the exception of extreme circumstances, or very specific infrastructure projects (along the lines of the Hoover Dam).

[s3.amazonaws.com image 552x360]

Drastic times call for drastic measures. Better than having biyearly congressional crises where we shut down the country to achieve half a percent of deficit reduction until the whole thing collapses. Rip that band aid off at once and start over on a sustainable path.


Destroying global civilization certainly is drastic.
 
2013-01-09 03:19:03 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: So basically you want us to default?

Thank God you AREN'T in charge.

Umm, we're going to default anyway via inflation, unless we get our spending/revenue under control. I'm just being open about it.

Never have I seen four words put together to so succinctly state that the person who wrote them has no idea what they're talking about or even what those words mean.


Let's give them the benefit of the doubt...they probably know what "anyway" means.
 
2013-01-09 03:20:03 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Never have I seen four words put together to so succinctly state that the person who wrote them has no idea what they're talking about or even what those words mean.


Suppose one country owed another country 500 dollars, and there were a total of 500 dollars in the economy. What would you call it if they just printed 500 dollars and gave them to that country? Each dollar is now worth 50% less. They didn't technically default, but they might as well have.
 
2013-01-09 03:20:15 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: .

If I was in charge, this would be my solution - immediately repudiate all debts, private and public. Make every creditor 50% whole with freshly printed currency. Never spend beyond what you take in again, with the exception of extreme circumstances, or very specific infrastructure projects (along the lines of the Hoover Dam).

[s3.amazonaws.com image 552x360]

Drastic times call for drastic measures. Better than having biyearly congressional crises where we shut down the country to achieve half a percent of deficit reduction until the whole thing collapses. Rip that band aid off at once and start over on a sustainable path.

Destroying global civilization certainly is drastic.


It wouldn't destroy global civilization. It would just destroy our economy and completely obliterate our credit rating to those of Greece.

No big, right?
 
2013-01-09 03:21:03 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Because inflation is such a huge problem at the moment.

An inflation rate of 1.8% will cripple our nation in no time!


Did I say we're currently experiencing inflation? No. But with the Federal Reserve buying both Treasury debt and MBS with freshly printed currency, it certainly looks like that will be the route we are going to take.
 
2013-01-09 03:21:03 PM  

MattStafford: A Dark Evil Omen: Never have I seen four words put together to so succinctly state that the person who wrote them has no idea what they're talking about or even what those words mean.

Suppose one country owed another country 500 dollars, and there were a total of 500 dollars in the economy. What would you call it if they just printed 500 dollars and gave them to that country? Each dollar is now worth 50% less. They didn't technically default, but they might as well have.


If you think inflation is a problem right now, then it's safe to say that you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2013-01-09 03:21:24 PM  

MattStafford: Well, except for those crazy libertarians. But they don't count.


They count about as much as Lyndon LaRouche, for what it's worth.
 
2013-01-09 03:21:42 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Destroying global civilization certainly is drastic.


Maybe, maybe not.
 
2013-01-09 03:22:31 PM  

Mrtraveler01: If you think inflation is a problem right now, then it's safe to say that you have no idea what you're talking about.


Did I say that? Please quote me where I said inflation is a problem.
 
2013-01-09 03:23:12 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: .

If I was in charge, this would be my solution - immediately repudiate all debts, private and public. Make every creditor 50% whole with freshly printed currency. Never spend beyond what you take in again, with the exception of extreme circumstances, or very specific infrastructure projects (along the lines of the Hoover Dam).

[s3.amazonaws.com image 552x360]

Drastic times call for drastic measures. Better than having biyearly congressional crises where we shut down the country to achieve half a percent of deficit reduction until the whole thing collapses. Rip that band aid off at once and start over on a sustainable path.

Destroying global civilization certainly is drastic.

It wouldn't destroy global civilization. It would just destroy our economy and completely obliterate our credit rating to those of Greece.

No big, right?


And destroy every business in the US and a significant portion of those elsewhere in the world, touching off widespread famine, warfare and general mayhem.
 
2013-01-09 03:23:30 PM  

Mrtraveler01: It wouldn't destroy global civilization. It would just destroy our economy and completely obliterate our credit rating to those of Greece.

No big, right?


Well, at the very least we have nuclear tipped ICBMs, so people would be less unhappy with our default than they will be when Greece defaults.
 
2013-01-09 03:24:10 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: And destroy every business in the US and a significant portion of those elsewhere in the world, touching off widespread famine, warfare and general mayhem.


I have news for you, that's happening anyway.
 
2013-01-09 03:24:23 PM  

MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: Destroying global civilization certainly is drastic.

Maybe, maybe not.


You're special.
 
2013-01-09 03:24:26 PM  

MattStafford: A Dark Evil Omen: Never have I seen four words put together to so succinctly state that the person who wrote them has no idea what they're talking about or even what those words mean.

Suppose one country owed another country 500 dollars, and there were a total of 500 dollars in the economy. What would you call it if they just printed 500 dollars and gave them to that country? Each dollar is now worth 50% less. They didn't technically default, but they might as well have.


They didn't "technically" default because they didn't "default". They also didn't default without the scare quotes. That is not default by any metric. Furthermore, that is not caused by inflation, that causes inflation. Are you an alien? Do you not perceive linear time the same way as us human wormbabies?
 
2013-01-09 03:26:39 PM  

MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: And destroy every business in the US and a significant portion of those elsewhere in the world, touching off widespread famine, warfare and general mayhem.

I have news for you, that's happening anyway.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-09 03:27:23 PM  

Shadowknight: I should have previewed and saw that my tablet auto corrected every time I used the word "opinion" to the word "onion." I am as yet unsure if that is my tablet making fun of me.


If your tablet was making fun of you, it would have autocorrected 'opinion' to 'potato'
 
2013-01-09 03:36:47 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: They didn't "technically" default because they didn't "default". They also didn't default without the scare quotes. That is not default by any metric. Furthermore, that is not caused by inflation, that causes inflation. Are you an alien? Do you not perceive linear time the same way as us human wormbabies?


Before the money printing, the second country was expecting to buy 500 real dollars worth of goods once the debt was repaid. After the money printing and debt repayment, they are now able to only buy 250 real dollars worth of goods. That is a default at least by my metric.
 
2013-01-09 03:37:48 PM  

MattStafford: That is a default at least by my metric.


When you make up your own definitions for words, its amazingly easy to have they mean what you want them to mean.
 
2013-01-09 03:38:53 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: And destroy every business in the US and a significant portion of those elsewhere in the world, touching off widespread famine, warfare and general mayhem.

I have news for you, that's happening anyway.


Make fun of me all you want. All I know is that the following chart doesn't have a happy landing:

creditwritedowns.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com
 
2013-01-09 03:39:22 PM  

MattStafford: A Dark Evil Omen: They didn't "technically" default because they didn't "default". They also didn't default without the scare quotes. That is not default by any metric. Furthermore, that is not caused by inflation, that causes inflation. Are you an alien? Do you not perceive linear time the same way as us human wormbabies?

Before the money printing, the second country was expecting to buy 500 real dollars worth of goods once the debt was repaid. After the money printing and debt repayment, they are now able to only buy 250 real dollars worth of goods. That is a default at least by my metric.


Also, how about the fact that the second country knowingly and willingly decided to invest its money in the currency of the first country, a country which has a fiat currency. They knew, full and well, that their investment was subject to the inflation of the invested currency. It's part of the deal.
 
2013-01-09 03:39:42 PM  

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: If you think inflation is a problem right now, then it's safe to say that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Did I say that? Please quote me where I said inflation is a problem.


"Umm, we're going to default anyway via inflation"

I want to get in on this too. It looks so much fun.
 
2013-01-09 03:39:46 PM  

DamnYankees: When you make up your own definitions for words, its amazingly easy to have they mean what you want them to mean.


What would you suggest calling a situation where you owe someone 500 real dollars, but through currency manipulation repay them with only 250 real dollars?
 
2013-01-09 03:39:50 PM  

MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: And destroy every business in the US and a significant portion of those elsewhere in the world, touching off widespread famine, warfare and general mayhem.

I have news for you, that's happening anyway.

Make fun of me all you want. All I know is that the following chart doesn't have a happy landing:

[creditwritedowns.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com image 800x595]


You're a prepper I bet.
 
2013-01-09 03:40:19 PM  

MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: And destroy every business in the US and a significant portion of those elsewhere in the world, touching off widespread famine, warfare and general mayhem.

I have news for you, that's happening anyway.

Make fun of me all you want. All I know is that the following chart doesn't have a happy landing:

[creditwritedowns.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com image 800x595]


Why are you using a chart which was prepared exclusively for Charlie Minter. Are you him?
 
2013-01-09 03:40:37 PM  

Gr8GooglyMoogly: MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: If you think inflation is a problem right now, then it's safe to say that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Did I say that? Please quote me where I said inflation is a problem.

"Umm, we're going to default anyway via inflation"

I want to get in on this too. It looks so much fun.


We're going to = future. Problem right now = present.
 
2013-01-09 03:40:55 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: When you make up your own definitions for words, its amazingly easy to have they mean what you want them to mean.

What would you suggest calling a situation where you owe someone 500 real dollars, but through currency manipulation repay them with only 250 real dollars?


Inflation.
 
2013-01-09 03:46:36 PM  

MattStafford: Gr8GooglyMoogly: MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: If you think inflation is a problem right now, then it's safe to say that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Did I say that? Please quote me where I said inflation is a problem.

"Umm, we're going to default anyway via inflation"

I want to get in on this too. It looks so much fun.

We're going to = future. Problem right now = present.


So, no current problem exists. But, in your mind you believe that it will someday exist we should do the worst possible thing ever for our economy. And yet you will still argue that you never said inflation was a problem. That is some mighty fine hair-splitting.

Besides, YOU said to quote you where you said inflation is a problem.

I'm starting to think that successful troll was successful at this point.

/I fall for it every time.
//EVERY time.
 
2013-01-09 03:48:58 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: You're a prepper I bet.


Outside of some investments in precious metals, nah. I'm probably not going to make it very long, but I accept that fact. At least I'll die knowing I got it right.
 
2013-01-09 03:49:53 PM  

DamnYankees: Why are you using a chart which was prepared exclusively for Charlie Minter. Are you him?


GIS total credit market debt as percent of gdp 2012

Fourth image
 
2013-01-09 03:50:29 PM  

DamnYankees: Inflation.


Fine, call it inflation. It's default by another name.
 
2013-01-09 03:51:16 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: Inflation.

Fine, call it inflation. It's default by another name.


So its like default in every way, except that its something else which isn't default.

Helpful.
 
2013-01-09 03:57:00 PM  

Sagus: ltdanman44: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x680]


but lets keep blaming fartbama

I noticed how the time line ends at Bush. What about Obama's bar graph?


6 trillion in debt before office 16 trillion current so add another 10 trillion. My point being this debt is both parties fault, and it will not be solved unless both parties cooperate. Romney was in line to add another 3 trillion in defense spending, if he was elected.

I agree entitlement spending is out of control. But we should also cut from defense spending. America cannot afford to be the police of the world anymore
 
2013-01-09 04:03:21 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Obama needs to do his job.What, is he in it for, the paycheck? Is he even back from Hawaii, being the man about town in photo ops all around the town?I'd like to be on vacation too (actually rather be out chasing Amy Adams or some other hot babe,) but I have work to do.I thought about this when I was changing lanes on the freeway this morning.Congress got fat raises while the rest of us were trying to extract every cent out our bank accounts and wondering whether we would be surviving Christmas this past year!Would our checks bounce while the pols play their little reindeer games? Maybe the election season left Washington dazed and bewildered, the phantoms of superpacs and other donors in their heads.They need to get back to work!I won't be satisfied until they are going all the way to fix this deficit problem.I'm tired of the political dogma they spout, obviously cooked up in some boiler room where they act all powerful and mighty like forces of nature instead of the crooked little men they are.Obama and Boehner need to stop with the empty talk, stop smoking 200 cigarettes a day and solve this issue before it turns into an economic armageddon.


Did I miss any?
 
2013-01-09 04:05:30 PM  
The problem isn't spending, it's that the middle class is dying. We have a lot more people needing public assistance so we're spending a lot, but because we have a lot more people needing public assistance we're not bringing in the tax revenue we need.
 
2013-01-09 04:07:54 PM  

MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: So what cuts do you propose that will not lead to any job losses?

There aren't any cuts you can make that won't result in job losses. We're farked.

If I was in charge, this would be my solution - immediately repudiate all debts, private and public. Make every creditor 50% whole with freshly printed currency. Never spend beyond what you take in again, with the exception of extreme circumstances, or very specific infrastructure projects (along the lines of the Hoover Dam).


So, trash the world's reserve currency?  Good thing you aren't in charge.
 
2013-01-09 04:08:45 PM  

Gr8GooglyMoogly: So, no current problem exists. But, in your mind you believe that it will someday exist we should do the worst possible thing ever for our economy. And yet you will still argue that you never said inflation was a problem. That is some mighty fine hair-splitting.


I said that our current actions are putting us on a path where inflation will be extremely damaging. Inflation currently is minimal. These are contradictory statements in anyway.
 
2013-01-09 04:09:55 PM  

DamnYankees: So its like default in every way, except that its something else which isn't default.

Helpful.


I mean, I loan you money, you pay me back less than I expected to receive. From my perspective, you defaulted on that loan. Arguing otherwise is just semantics.
 
2013-01-09 04:10:09 PM  

MattStafford: I said that our current actions are putting us on a path where inflation will be extremely damaging.


In other words, you're saying what inflation hawks have always been saying for decades even though none of their predictions have ever come true.
 
2013-01-09 04:11:37 PM  

MattStafford: I mean, I loan you money, you pay me back less than I expected to receive.


This is not what would happen if we paid off debts by printing money. You would be paid exactly the nominal amount you own.

MattStafford: From my perspective, you defaulted on that loan.


Why do you think people care about your perspective on the meaning of words?
 
2013-01-09 04:11:44 PM  

MattStafford: A Dark Evil Omen: Never have I seen four words put together to so succinctly state that the person who wrote them has no idea what they're talking about or even what those words mean.

Suppose one country owed another country 500 dollars, and there were a total of 500 dollars in the economy. What would you call it if they just printed 500 dollars and gave them to that country? Each dollar is now worth 50% less. They didn't technically default, but they might as well have.


Wow. Just wow.
 
2013-01-09 04:18:33 PM  
It follows the same reasoning as most, "I don't have a ??? problem" statements.
 
MFL
2013-01-09 04:22:57 PM  
13 fiscal realities. Read them with an open mind....you might actually learn something.

1. This year, the federal government will spend at least $3.62 trillion, an increase of almost $92 billion from last year. Of that amount, we will borrow $941 billion, or 26 percent.

2. Our deficit this year is almost equal to the entire federal budget in 1985. If we add in emergency expenditures (that always happen) we are looking at the 5th straight year we've had a deficit over $1 trillion dollars.

3. Our debt currently exceeds 102 percent of GDP, if one considers both debt held by the public and intragovernmental debt (such as the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds), so we now owe more than the value of all goods and services produced in this country over the course of a year.

4. It's much as if your credit-card bills exceeded your entire pre-tax salary.

5. The debt burden means that economic growth will be lower in the future. Countries with a debt ratio above 90 percent of GDP have median growth rates 1 percent lower than countries with a lower debt, and average growth rates nearly 4 percent lower. (Hence Obama's new economy we've been living through)

6. If economic growth stays as slow as it has been lately, but spending stays high, our debt-to-GDP ratio will get bigger, slowing economic growth further and creating a devilish sequence of cause and effect.

7. In 2010, millionaires and billionaires in America earned $840 billion. At these levels, even confiscating all of their income would not cover the post-fiscal-cliff-deal 2013 budget deficit, leaving a shortfall of almost $100 billion.

8. If you wanted to go after the debt, you would have to confiscate their entire wealth, estimated at roughly $11 trillion according to the Census Bureau, and you would still fall well short. You could only do this once, and you would wreck the economy.

9. The C.B.O. estimated that in order to simply pay for then-projected spending, we would have to raise both the corporate tax rate and the top individual tax rate to 88 percent, raise the rate for middle-income workers to 63 percent, and raise the rate for low-income Americans to 25 percent. (Does anyone outside of Paul Krugman think that's a good idea?)

10. That means the only real solution must be on the spending side of the equation. Yet, we must recognize that there is no easy or painless way to cut spending to the degree it needs to be cut.

11. In 2011, we had a fight over the Continuing Resolution funding the government. After a near government shutdown, Congress and the president promised to do something about the deficit and overspending.

12. A few months later, we had a crisis over the debt ceiling. Congress and the president promised to do something about the deficit and overspending. .

13. Two weeks ago, we almost fell off the fiscal cliff. Congress and the president promised to do something about the deficit and overspending.

Does anyone see a pattern here?

We are not going to tax our way out of debt.
We are not going to grow our way out of debt.
We are not going to get out of debt by trimming "fraud, waste, and abuse".
We are not going to get out of debt with the gutless fish in the senate refusing to pass a budget for 5 years and running.

The only way we fix this thing is to radically reduce our government expenditures and get them back in line with what our GDP can realistically handle. Obama has shown absolutley no interest in doing this. He talks, but he doesn't walk. He cares only about redistibuting a dwindling amount of assets to the mob that voted for him.

Barack Obama is not Lincoln. He is Nero.

/ty MT
 
2013-01-09 04:25:21 PM  

MFL: 13 fiscal realities.


Nice NRO copy-pasta.
 
2013-01-09 04:26:19 PM  

MFL: The only way we fix this thing is to radically reduce our government expenditures and get them back in line with what our GDP can realistically handle.


As well as raise taxes.

I'm fine with cutting spending. But only a moron would think that is the only thing we have to do to pay off our debt.
 
2013-01-09 04:27:08 PM  

DamnYankees: MattStafford: I said that our current actions are putting us on a path where inflation will be extremely damaging.

In other words, you're saying what inflation hawks have always been saying for decades even though none of their predictions have ever come true.


The problem is that under the CBO Alternative Baseline model, it will be one of the only ways left to attempt to get the debt under control a decade or two into the future. If we can get ourselves off the path shown in this model, great. However, that is definately the path we are currently headed down.

theeconomiccollapseblog.com
 
2013-01-09 04:31:41 PM  

Mrtraveler01: MFL: The only way we fix this thing is to radically reduce our government expenditures and get them back in line with what our GDP can realistically handle.

As well as raise taxes.

I'm fine with cutting spending. But only a moron would think that is the only thing we have to do to pay off our debt.


That is correct. Revenue is about 16% of GDP currently. We need to get that back up to 18% to 19%.
 
2013-01-09 04:43:24 PM  

HeadLever: Mrtraveler01: MFL: The only way we fix this thing is to radically reduce our government expenditures and get them back in line with what our GDP can realistically handle.

As well as raise taxes.

I'm fine with cutting spending. But only a moron would think that is the only thing we have to do to pay off our debt.

That is correct. Revenue is about 16% of GDP currently. We need to get that back up to 18% to 19%.


I love the argument that raising taxes on the wealthy won't do enough to solve our deficits, so why bother. But cutting planned parenthood and PBS... now THERE'S an idea!
 
2013-01-09 04:49:43 PM  

theknuckler_33:
I love the argument that raising taxes on the wealthy won't do enough to solve our deficits, so why bother. But cutting planned parenthood and PBS... now THERE'S an idea!


My take is that we need to do both. Cut the fluff first, reform entitlements and also get revenue back up where it needs to be. Of course I am not popular with the rigth or left, either.

/WWIkeD?
 
2013-01-09 05:10:18 PM  

HeadLever: theknuckler_33:
I love the argument that raising taxes on the wealthy won't do enough to solve our deficits, so why bother. But cutting planned parenthood and PBS... now THERE'S an idea!

My take is that we need to do both. Cut the fluff first, reform entitlements and also get revenue back up where it needs to be. Of course I am not popular with the rigth or left, either.

/WWIkeD?


Except that women's financial solvency is directly tied to their ability to not get pregnant. As much as the Right hates abortion, PP is the cheapest, most prevalent way for women to get access to birth control, especially if they're poor. Cutting funding for pp will only lead to more unwanted babies (when it doesn't lead to more of those despised abortions) and therefore more women and children in poverty. It's simple math.
 
2013-01-09 05:27:04 PM  
I love how most people in this thread read it as:

"Obama says, 'I don't have a spending problem,' when we all know he does and Bush didn't."

and then tried to make it a Obama-good-Bush-bad argument.
 
2013-01-09 05:33:43 PM  
Of course, buried deep in the article, missed by everyone amidst all the graphs and witty posts by OliverPanties, was this little line:

If this quote is accurate,

This wasn't a quote by Obama. It was a quote ATTRIBUTED to Obama by Boehner. Nobody heard Obama say it except somebody who has a lot to gain IF Obama really said something like this. IF he said it, that's one thing...but if he didn't, all this speculation is just hot air and blather.
 
2013-01-09 05:36:41 PM  

MrEricSir: You're missing the point -- the people complaining about Obama spending too much money were completely silent when Bush was doing the same thing. So either they don't really care about money at all and are looking to justify their hatred of Obama, or they're so blind for their love of Bush they forgive him for doing the same things as Obama.


Can you find me a Reason article lauding Bush for his spending rates? I can find many criticizing him for it.
 
2013-01-09 05:41:52 PM  

MattStafford: From a previous thread:


Here are four options - Spend a ton, but tax relatively little; Spend very little, tax very little; spend a ton, tax a ton; spend very little, tax a ton.

The outcomes of the four options:

1. Very fast growing economy, but will slow (recession) once spending and taxes fall into line.
2. Faster growing and sustainable economy, but unequal distribution of that economy's wealth.
3. Slower growing and sustainable economy, but more equal distribution of that economy's wealth.
4. Very slow growing economy, but will pick up rapidly once spending and taxes fall into line.

Obviously, I think we would all agree that option three is the best. Many on the right would say that option two is the best. What I am trying to convince people of is that option one is the worst. We have been using option number one now for about thirty years, and every time the recession occurs, we fight it off with more deficit spending. And in all fairness, this policy was pioneered by Reagan. Eventually, the system breaks, and we can't fight the recession anymore. We are extremely close to that point, and people on both sides are not understanding how serious it is for us to go from option one to option two or three (or in between) as quickly as possible.


Every time you start flapping your gums about your "four options," I picture Greg Kinnear in Little Miss Sunshine."
 
2013-01-09 05:48:57 PM  

BMulligan: MattStafford: From a previous thread:


Here are four options - Spend a ton, but tax relatively little; Spend very little, tax very little; spend a ton, tax a ton; spend very little, tax a ton.

The outcomes of the four options:

1. Very fast growing economy, but will slow (recession) once spending and taxes fall into line.
2. Faster growing and sustainable economy, but unequal distribution of that economy's wealth.
3. Slower growing and sustainable economy, but more equal distribution of that economy's wealth.
4. Very slow growing economy, but will pick up rapidly once spending and taxes fall into line.

Obviously, I think we would all agree that option three is the best. Many on the right would say that option two is the best. What I am trying to convince people of is that option one is the worst. We have been using option number one now for about thirty years, and every time the recession occurs, we fight it off with more deficit spending. And in all fairness, this policy was pioneered by Reagan. Eventually, the system breaks, and we can't fight the recession anymore. We are extremely close to that point, and people on both sides are not understanding how serious it is for us to go from option one to option two or three (or in between) as quickly as possible.

Every time you start flapping your gums about your "four options," I picture Greg Kinnear in Little Miss Sunshine."


He did a fantastic job in that role IMHO.
 
2013-01-09 06:37:25 PM  

MFL: 13 fiscal realities distortions. Read them with an open mind....you might actually learn something.

1. This year, the federal government will spend at least $3.62 trillion, an increase of almost $92 billion from last year. Of that amount, we will borrow $941 billion, or 26 percent.

2. Our deficit this year is almost equal to the entire federal budget in 1985. If we add in emergency expenditures (that always happen) we are looking at the 5th straight year we've had a deficit over $1 trillion dollars.


Comparing 1985 dollars to 2012 dollars. $1 in 1985 is worth $2.14 today according to inflation calculators (and I checked a couple). So the federal budget in 1985, which was $946B, was actually $1.9T. So yes, our spending has almost doubled, but our deficit is not "greater than the entire budget in 1985"


3. Our debt currently exceeds 102 percent of GDP, if one considers both debt held by the public and intragovernmental debt (such as the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds), so we now owe more than the value of all goods and services produced in this country over the course of a year.

4. It's much as if your credit-card bills exceeded your entire pre-tax salary.


No you poltroon, it's as if your credit card BALANCE exceeded your entire pre-tax salary. Your BILLS are for interest, as long as you can afford to pay your interest and then some, you can pay off your debt.

Also, that's basically one item split into two.

Anyway, as for the rest of that dribble, it's obvious we need to BOTH cut spending and raise taxes to balance the budget. Let's start with our biggest expense - the military. And put taxes back where they were before Bush. OK? OK. Glad we solved that.
 
2013-01-09 07:26:00 PM  

BMulligan: MattStafford: From a previous thread:


Here are four options - Spend a ton, but tax relatively little; Spend very little, tax very little; spend a ton, tax a ton; spend very little, tax a ton.

The outcomes of the four options:

1. Very fast growing economy, but will slow (recession) once spending and taxes fall into line.
2. Faster growing and sustainable economy, but unequal distribution of that economy's wealth.
3. Slower growing and sustainable economy, but more equal distribution of that economy's wealth.
4. Very slow growing economy, but will pick up rapidly once spending and taxes fall into line.

Obviously, I think we would all agree that option three is the best. Many on the right would say that option two is the best. What I am trying to convince people of is that option one is the worst. We have been using option number one now for about thirty years, and every time the recession occurs, we fight it off with more deficit spending. And in all fairness, this policy was pioneered by Reagan. Eventually, the system breaks, and we can't fight the recession anymore. We are extremely close to that point, and people on both sides are not understanding how serious it is for us to go from option one to option two or three (or in between) as quickly as possible.

Every time you start flapping your gums about your "four options," I picture Greg Kinnear in Little Miss Sunshine."


My apologies, I missed the part of the post where you offered a fifth solution. Or explained why any of those situations wouldn't result in what I have explained
 
2013-01-09 08:25:08 PM  

DemonEater: MFL: 13 fiscal realities distortions. Read them with an open mind....you might actually learn something.

1. This year, the federal government will spend at least $3.62 trillion, an increase of almost $92 billion from last year. Of that amount, we will borrow $941 billion, or 26 percent.

2. Our deficit this year is almost equal to the entire federal budget in 1985. If we add in emergency expenditures (that always happen) we are looking at the 5th straight year we've had a deficit over $1 trillion dollars.


Comparing 1985 dollars to 2012 dollars. $1 in 1985 is worth $2.14 today according to inflation calculators (and I checked a couple). So the federal budget in 1985, which was $946B, was actually $1.9T. So yes, our spending has almost doubled, but our deficit is not "greater than the entire budget in 1985"


3. Our debt currently exceeds 102 percent of GDP, if one considers both debt held by the public and intragovernmental debt (such as the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds), so we now owe more than the value of all goods and services produced in this country over the course of a year.

4. It's much as if your credit-card bills exceeded your entire pre-tax salary.


No you poltroon, it's as if your credit card BALANCE exceeded your entire pre-tax salary. Your BILLS are for interest, as long as you can afford to pay your interest and then some, you can pay off your debt.

Also, that's basically one item split into two.

Anyway, as for the rest of that dribble, it's obvious we need to BOTH cut spending and raise taxes to balance the budget. Let's start with our biggest expense - the military. And put taxes back where they were before Bush. OK? OK. Glad we solved that.


Also, his argument really kind of hinges on the idea that high debt slows economic growth, and the only support he gives is a correlation between the two.

There's a pretty damn obvious mechanism for slow growth to cause an increase in public debt, but there's damn little to support a substatial causative effect in the other direction - and without that, the argument that we can't grow our way out of the deficit is in serious trouble.
 
2013-01-09 09:47:48 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: $3 trillion. Hmm, where have I seen that number before...

[i.imgur.com image 750x536]

Link


Beautiful chart. Kudos for posting that!
 
2013-01-09 10:04:32 PM  

MFL: 13 fiscal realities. Read them with an open mind....you might actually learn something.

4. It's much as if your credit-card bills balance exceeded your entire pre-tax salary.

5. The debt burden means that economic growth will be lower in the future. Countries with a debt ratio above 90 percent of GDP have median growth rates 1 percent lower than countries with a lower debt, and average growth rates nearly 4 percent lower. (Hence Obama's new economy we've been living through)

6. If economic growth stays as slow as it has been lately, but spending stays high, our debt-to-GDP ratio will get bigger, slowing economic growth further and creating a devilish sequence of cause and effect.

7. In 2010, millionaires and billionaires in America earned $840 billion. At these levels, even confiscating all of their income would not cover the post-fiscal-cliff-deal 2013 budget deficit, leaving a shortfall of almost $100 billion.

8. If you wanted to go after the debt, you would have to confiscate their entire wealth, estimated at roughly $11 trillion according to the Census Bureau, and you would still fall well short. You could only do this once, and you would wreck the economy.



Nicely done. unfortunately, nobody's listening and Obama is in fact, the U.S. version of Nero. Left alone he would increase spending and fiddle with raising taxes while the economy is going downhill.
We cannot tax our way out of this mess we have to cut spending.

i think some politicians are realizing that they have no political future with this kind of debt. They'll be willing to make big political sacrifices now to make spending cuts happen. Obama has zero leverage with these people.
 
2013-01-09 10:22:10 PM  
Any Federal spending over about 19% of GDP is a problem. That is historically what is taken in revenue wise, no matter what the tax rates are. Any more than that and you run a deficit. I think we touched 18% a few times around 1999 on accident, but aside from that the last 30+ years have been higher than 20%. That is a a spending problem.
 
2013-01-09 10:47:30 PM  
Oh, and put me in the "Come on Obama, not even military spending?" camp.
 
2013-01-09 10:53:36 PM  

GAT_00: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

It's pretty clear from actually looking at the data that we have a massive income problem.  Tax receipts peaked in 2007, and that was only 4.5% above the previous peak in 2000.  Last year's revenue was only 86% of the government's revenue in 2000.  We have lost 14% of the total revenue to our government in 12 years.  During the same period, our GDP has grown almost 50%.  In other words, since the data also shows that before 2000, income was a fairly steady 18-20% of GDP, the problem is almost entirely revenue.  If receipts were still 20% of GDP, Federal revenue last year would have been approximately $3T, giving us a deficit of around $100B, or 9% of the actual deficit last year.

I am perfectly willing to accept spending cuts of $100B in exchange for restoring revenue to historical levels, which would erase the deficit.

Only a moron would look at the actual data and claim we have a spending problem.  We have a tax problem.


People like you are what is wrong with this country. We quite clearly have a spending and entitlement problem, but you are too blind/stupid/partisan to see or acknowledge it.

We should also raise taxes (clinton era tax rates, anyone?), but that doesn't mean we don't need to curb spending as well.
 
2013-01-09 11:02:32 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: MattStafford: Also, to everyone in this thread:

Sure, this is Bush's fault. He spent a shiat ton. But now that Obama has taken office, you can't just say: well it was Bush that started spending all that money, so now we don't have to cut it. Sure, blame Bush for it, but you still have to accept that we have a spending problem.

Raise taxes, cut the military, end the drug war, end massive industry subsidies and shift focus to ground-level jobs programs. Wipe hands on farking pants. If there is a spending problem it is purely in military and policing.


Or non-discretionary, or other, or Medicaid, all of which have grown enormously on an inflation adjusted basis, as pointed out clearly in TFA.

Do you libs just clap your hands over your ears and shout LALALALA whenever anybody points out facts that are inconvenient?
 
2013-01-09 11:06:19 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: .

If I was in charge, this would be my solution - immediately repudiate all debts, private and public. Make every creditor 50% whole with freshly printed currency. Never spend beyond what you take in again, with the exception of extreme circumstances, or very specific infrastructure projects (along the lines of the Hoover Dam).


I never thought I'd agree with PFQ so much, but this.

WTF Matt Stafford? You seem so reasonable and pragmatic and then go off the rails with a crazy debt repudiation plan.
 
2013-01-09 11:37:43 PM  

Mrtraveler01: MFL: The only way we fix this thing is to radically reduce our government expenditures and get them back in line with what our GDP can realistically handle.

As well as raise taxes.

I'm fine with cutting spending. But only a moron would think that is the only thing we have to do to pay off our debt.


clane:No your dead wrong, all you do is spend less, i know it is a crazy wild thing but yes spend less and stop taking money out of our hands to give away to friends and special interest groups among a million other things.
 
2013-01-10 12:44:17 AM  
Interestingly, nobody DID notice that all this is merely speculation based on something Obama MAY have said. It's all predicated on whether or not you can believe Boehner quoted him accurately or not.

Apparently, everyone here does. Believe Boehner, I mean. Which is odd, because I wouldn't believe him if he declared in front of ten thousand witnesses that the sun would rise in the East at dawn. Yet everyone seems to willingly accept him at face value when he says "You know, Obama said to me in complete privacy the other day when nobody was around to hear 'I don't think we have a spending problem.'"

And even if it was true, Obama didn't say "We don't have a spending problem." He just said he didn't think we had a spending problem. Did he follow that up with "...what we really have is an allocation problem"? We'll never know, because you're relying on JOHN BOEHNER as your source. Study that one out.
 
2013-01-10 03:37:17 AM  

ManRay: Any Federal spending over about 19% of GDP is a problem. That is historically what is taken in revenue wise, no matter what the tax rates are. Any more than that and you run a deficit.


That's a good thing. If you have / want a growing economy, you should be running deficits in the long run. There's a good reason that pretty much every country in the world does it.
 
2013-01-10 06:33:46 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: WTF Matt Stafford? You seem so reasonable and pragmatic and then go off the rails with a crazy debt repudiation plan.


I know, right? I'd be pretty good at keeping us out of these kind of messes, but if you put me in charge after we're up shiat creek? Wildcard, biatches.

The pain is going to come - debt repudiation would have the pain all at once, our current course will drag the pain out for decades. Comes down to a matter of preference, I guess.
 
2013-01-10 10:52:23 AM  

Skyrmion: ManRay: Any Federal spending over about 19% of GDP is a problem. That is historically what is taken in revenue wise, no matter what the tax rates are. Any more than that and you run a deficit.

That's a good thing. If you have / want a growing economy, you should be running deficits in the long run. There's a good reason that pretty much every country in the world does it.


You both are 1/2 right. Running deficits is not necessarily a bad thing. Remember also that inflation will decrease the real value of the national debt principal. In effect, this is a yearly decrease in the debt. So long as the long term deficits do not increase the debt principal any more than inflation eats it away, you have no real incrase in the value of debt. Because of this fact, you can have deficits that are 1% to maybe 2% of GDP and still be on a sustainable fiscal path. The problem we have now is that deficits have been 6% to 10% of GDP for about 5 years now. Worse yet, there is no end in sight for these high deficits until we get our fiscal house in order.
 
Displayed 154 of 154 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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