So basically taxes are going to go back to what they were before the Bush cuts, right? That sounds awesome, is there some other part I'm missing?
We may see a coup for house speaker given all the fracturing going on now within the Republican party itself these days. Beohner's position has been weakened over this whole mess and we very well could see Eric Cantor taking over as speaker.
I should have asked for January third off work, so that I could keep myself glued to C-SPAN all day, because selecting the next Speaker has the potential to be amazing. (I can't be the only one who finds C-SPAN to be gripping entertainment, right?)You're not the only one, no.
I believe Obama wants to go over the fiscal cliff in order to further his agenda. He's going to try to blame the upcoming recession on the Republicans. Perhaps more sinister than that, however, is his plan to use the economic turmoil to enact even more leftist legislation.
You make very ****ty posts.
I'm expecting a TARP replay, where violent market backlash scares the Republican-controlled House into doing what it is told.When TARP was passed in 2008, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
I believe [Swazi Spring is] an alt.If he is, he isn't showing as such in the admin panel.
When TARP was passed in 2008, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
I believe Obama wants to go over the fiscal cliff in order to further his agenda. He's going to try to blame the upcoming recession on the Republicans. Perhaps more sinister than that, however, is his plan to use the economic turmoil to enact even more leftist legislation.
its so confusing i havent a clue what this thread is about after 2 ****ing pages.
its so confusing i havent a clue what this thread is about after 2 ****ing pages.
its so confusing i havent a clue what this thread is about after 2 ****ing pages.
What, you don't get news up in Alaska? =)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/fiscal-cliff/biden-mcconnell-continue-cliff-talks-as-clock-winds-down/2012/12/31/66c044e2-534d-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html
I believe [Swazi Spring is] an alt.If he is, he isn't showing as such in the admin panel.
Speaking of things that got tabled for way too long, the farm bill expires tonight, so if you're in the United States and you've got milk or cheese to buy, today is probably the day to do it. Just FYI.
Quote from: BlueFlamesSpeaking of things that got tabled for way too long, the farm bill expires tonight, so if you're in the United States and you've got milk or cheese to buy, today is probably the day to do it. Just FYI.
What is so important about this farm bill that disastrous things would happen to milk and cheese when it no longer is in effect?
Wow, we're so dependent on overspending that cutting our deficit will cause serious economic damage. Isn't that nice.
Wow, we're so dependent on overspending that cutting our deficit will cause serious economic damage. Isn't that nice.
That causal relationship isn't nearly as clear as you appear to think it is. It may as well be the opposite.
I believe Obama wants to go over the fiscal cliff in order to further his agenda. He's going to try to blame the upcoming recession on the Republicans. Perhaps more sinister than that, however, is his plan to use the economic turmoil to enact even more leftist legislation.
I think your tinfoil hat might be a bit too tight mate, it's constricting blood flow to your brain.
that's what "solved" means to the government.
[image snip]
I just thought this was funny and related
If this was the budget of a head of household...
I can argue with the math because that math is not even wrong, it came from someone's fart. More to the point I think I saw that kind of pic with a previous US budget "crisis" and if I'm not mistaken the values were just copypasted.If the math isn't wrong, and the values were correct for a previous budget crisis (in which case the current budget is even worse), then why are you arguing with it?
In real terms, the deficit will now be only reduced by 150 billion dollars. Considering that current deficits run at 1 trillion, considering that 400 billion of those are compensated by growth and inflation alone and considering that your economy is still suffering a slump (thus with a huge slump in revenues wrt potential GDP and so on), it's not a bad deal at all.This presumes that the calculated figures for growth and inflation are accurate, which is another discussion. But the point of that clipping is that the long-term trend of spending more money than we have needs to be reversed. Judging by the amount of political hay that was made to even get this far, the chances are not favorable for a good long-term solution.
More even to the point, the problem of the fiscal cliff was precisely that it THREATENED to SOLVE the deficit too fast. Get it now? The problem isn't the deficit, it's the austerity of too much tax hikes that could damage the economy that they have just avoided.The budget problem cannot be solved with tax hikes. Great Britain is learning this, France is learning it, as are California, Illinois, Maryland, and undoubtedly several more jurisdictions that I'm not aware of offhand. What is needed are spending cuts.
Excuse the tautology, but a state is not a household. It is subject to different economic forces and has different economic needs and goals. It functions on a different scale and has a totally different set of tools at its disposal. Hence, equating a state's finances with a household's finances is fatuous.That's a rather glib statement. It's true that a state is not a household, but a state is not immune from the laws of economic reality. It has to work with income and debt just like any other financial entity. It certainly has more tools, and more powerful tools at its disposal, and these tools may allow it to postpone the day of financial reckoning, but it cannot be avoided. Sooner or later the household is going to find that there are no more credit cards to charge; and sooner or later the US is going to find that there are no more countries or banks to lend it money.
Excuse the tautology, but a state is not a household. It is subject to different economic forces and has different economic needs and goals. It functions on a different scale and has a totally different set of tools at its disposal. Hence, equating a state's finances with a household's finances is fatuous.That's a rather glib statement. It's true that a state is not a household, but a state is not immune from the laws of economic reality. It has to work with income and debt just like any other financial entity. It certainly has more tools, and more powerful tools at its disposal, and these tools may allow it to postpone the day of financial reckoning, but it cannot be avoided. Sooner or later the household is going to find that there are no more credit cards to charge; and sooner or later the US is going to find that there are no more countries or banks to lend it money.
QuoteMore even to the point, the problem of the fiscal cliff was precisely that it THREATENED to SOLVE the deficit too fast. Get it now? The problem isn't the deficit, it's the austerity of too much tax hikes that could damage the economy that they have just avoided.
The budget problem cannot be solved with tax hikes.
Setting aside the fact that the fiscal cliff wouldn't have completely solved the deficit, the notion that the deficit shouldn't be solved too fast is rather strange. If the solution is going to be painful whether it happens in the short term or the long term, it's better to do it now when the consequences will be less severe and more predictable.
Because of the different (not expanded, but different) economic tool set that a state has, compared to a household, the state exists in an entirely different economic reality. It can continuously borrow money, because it borrows money from entities that print money.
QuoteBecause of the different (not expanded, but different) economic tool set that a state has, compared to a household, the state exists in an entirely different economic reality. It can continuously borrow money, because it borrows money from entities that print money.
Because printing more money solves everything! Isn't that right Zimbabwe?
A creditor government wants incoming interest payments to be greater than the devaluation of their currency supply.
And now I fully grasp why you repost fatuous, irrelevant crap from Facebook.
I'll stop myself there, lest you again have trouble with the length of the paragraph.
Skipped the relevant points entirely, again. Good job. :yes:
Skipped the fact I'm not involved in this discussion other than to make jokes
Easy with the snide remarks there myte.
the internet. serious business.
I can argue with the math because that math is not even wrong, it came from someone's fart. More to the point I think I saw that kind of pic with a previous US budget "crisis" and if I'm not mistaken the values were just copypasted.If the math isn't wrong, and the values were correct for a previous budget crisis (in which case the current budget is even worse), then why are you arguing with it?
QuoteIn real terms, the deficit will now be only reduced by 150 billion dollars. Considering that current deficits run at 1 trillion, considering that 400 billion of those are compensated by growth and inflation alone and considering that your economy is still suffering a slump (thus with a huge slump in revenues wrt potential GDP and so on), it's not a bad deal at all.This presumes that the calculated figures for growth and inflation are accurate, which is another discussion. But the point of that clipping is that the long-term trend of spending more money than we have needs to be reversed. Judging by the amount of political hay that was made to even get this far, the chances are not favorable for a good long-term solution.
The budget problem cannot be solved with tax hikes. Great Britain is learning this, France is learning it, as are California, Illinois, Maryland, and undoubtedly several more jurisdictions that I'm not aware of offhand. What is needed are spending cuts.
Setting aside the fact that the fiscal cliff wouldn't have completely solved the deficit, the notion that the deficit shouldn't be solved too fast is rather strange. If the solution is going to be painful whether it happens in the short term or the long term, it's better to do it now when the consequences will be less severe and more predictable.
That's a rather glib statement. It's true that a state is not a household, but a state is not immune from the laws of economic reality. It has to work with income and debt just like any other financial entity. It certainly has more tools, and more powerful tools at its disposal, and these tools may allow it to postpone the day of financial reckoning, but it cannot be avoided. Sooner or later the household is going to find that there are no more credit cards to charge; and sooner or later the US is going to find that there are no more countries or banks to lend it money.
Because of the different (not expanded, but different) economic tool set that a state has, compared to a household, the state exists in an entirely different economic reality. It can continuously borrow money, because it borrows money from entities that print money. A household with a true deficit problem is one that has total debt increasing month-on-month, without an end in the very near, very visible future, because they are going to hit a borrowing limit, imposed upon it from the outside, based on how able they are to repay their total debt. A state with a true deficit problem is one that has begun to borrow at a pace that is beyond that which other states are willing to produce more currency to be loaned. One is based on a risk assessment made by a bank, while the other is based on an assessment of inflation, made by another government. A creditor bank wants all of its money back, plus interest. A creditor government wants incoming interest payments to be greater than the devaluation of their currency supply.You say that the state and the household deal with different economic realities but then you go on to discuss the tools the state has. That's a bait-and-switch. I'm trying to point out to you that the economic reality depends on the math of the situation. And the math is the same whether you are a household or a state or a company. All the tools in the world cannot change that. They may postpone it, or they may disguise it, but they cannot avoid it.
As long as the United States does not borrow too quickly (and there is no sign that we are anywhere near that point), you'll find that it is quite capable of borrowing forever. With two brief exceptions in the 1920's and late 1990's, the United States has been borrowing money for a century. A household doing that would be rendered unable to pay for even its basic needs, and would likely be jailed by its creditors. A state doing that can ascend to and maintain its position as the most prosperous nation on Earth. States and households are simply different kinds of economic actors, dealing with different economic realities, and it is, again, fatuous to equate the two.
We all use heuristic devices, like analogies, to simplify complex problems, in an effort toDeathfun's post wasn't an analogy. It was an explanation of the debt problem in simplified terms -- even though those simplified terms were merely dividing the numbers in question by 100 million. Here is the same chart using the latest numbers from fiscal year 2012:bettermore quickly find a solution. The problem is that you can take that too far, as you do when you equate a state's budget to a household budget. It's because you're utilizing this oversimplified heuristic model that you don't see why too much austerity might present a larger problem than ongoing deficits.
Federal revenue: $2,469,000,000,000
Federal expenditures: $3,796,000,000,000
New debt: $1,327,000,000,000
Current national debt: $16,429,000,000,000
Fiscal cliff spending cuts: $15,000,000,000Family income: $24,690
Family expenses: $37,960
New credit card debt: $13,270
Outstanding credit card debt: $164,290
Total budget cuts so far: $1,500You talk about Europe's failure of austerity, as though they've attempted to solely raise taxes, which is simply not the case. Greece has attempted to do almost exactly what the United States would have done, had the budget sequester gone into place. They slashed spending across the board in an effort to reduce their deficit, but in the process destroyed so many jobs in the Greek economy that tax income plummeted, and their deficit worsened.No, I said nothing about Europe's failure of austerity; I said "the budget problem cannot be solved with tax hikes" and that several jurisdictions were learning this. What I meant to imply -- and perhaps I should have made this explicit -- is that raising tax rates has caused tax revenues to fall in all of those jurisdictions. In California for example, the passage of Proposition 30, which was supposed to raise $6 billion, instead led to a $1 billion shortfall. In Maryland and the UK, hiking the millionaire's tax caused millionaires to move elsewhere.
It's also worth pointing out, since you seem to be on an anti-tax kick, that over the last half-century, the United States economy has boomed in the wake of increases in the income tax rate and faltered, following decreases in the income tax rate. I'll be the first to say that correlation does not imply causation, and my aim with that statement is neither to imply that tax cuts put a halt on economic growth, nor that tax increases automatically improve the economy. It does, however, indicate that modest increases in the income tax rate are not a threat to the economy.A tax cut, by definition, is not a spending program. But if you reread my posts, you will see that I'm not on an anti-tax kick -- at least not in this thread. I'm on a "what works" kick. And right now, any consideration of "what works" must consider spending cuts. Balancing the budget requires examining both revenue and expenses.
With respect to the United States' deficit, remember that two largest spending programs of the Bush administration were not the wars or the bailouts, but the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and the effect of those cuts has been steadily growing over time. Those (and their extension in 2011) have been, by an order of magnitude over everything but the wars (the tax cuts were only $300 billion more expensive than the wars), the single largest item between our current position and restoring the Clinton-era budget surplus. (The CBO periodically does estimates of legislative impacts on a January, 2001 baseline, such as this recent estimate (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/06-07-ChangesSince2001Baseline.pdf). The war numbers came from the Congressional Research Service (http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33110_20100716.pdf).)
He's actually voided his right to post on this topic at all as far as I'm concerned. Jokes are fine in their place but when they show no attempt to understand the situation at hand, they're basically spam.Actually, deathfun's original "joke" post showed the most understanding of the situation of anyone in the thread. It's a shame he's not backing up the image with a well-reasoned post, because he's actually correct.
They were "correct" for a completely irrelevant and different crisis. So in that sense, they are more a source of disinformation than information. IOW, they are fatuous right now.They were correct (without scare quotes) in the past, but for the current crisis, they've merely understated the problem. I've provided correct figures above.
"Even get this far" is the kind of quote in here that establishes you are just not getting the problem. The fiscal cliff crisis was not an effort to curtail the deficit. It was an effort to not curtail it too fast. Had they done nothing, the deficit would plunge faster than it is right now. The reason why you don't solve your debt problem with "Austerity Serioussssnesssss (tm)" should be obvious to anyone who is paying the minimal attention to the events in Europe. If you curtail the deficit too fast you actually damage the economy and then you end up the fiscal year with a *greater* deficit than otherwise due to the GDP dive. Every economist knows this, only the Very Serious Pundits hired by Fox news and other crazy outlets pretend they do not know the Earth is round and try to dumb us down.I can only assume you're psychologically projecting, because this paragraph reveals your utter ignorance of the situation. The fiscal cliff was self-imposed by Congress in order to blackmail itself into solving the problem by a certain date. But instead of solving it, the current deal just kicks the can down the road another two months. And the reason the current deal was implemented was not out of any noble effort not to curtail the deficit too fast, but rather out of the baser motivation to avoid the political consequences from the fiscal cliff. Despite the political consequences, the "fiscal cliff" would have been a step in the right direction.
Again another demonstration of complete unawareness of events. GB is trying to solve the deficit *too fast* with tax hikes but also spending cuts. They are performing exactly the Austerity solution. What they are ending up with is a recessionary spiral that is worsening the problem. Worsening.Please make an attempt to read and understand what I wrote before posting such a ridiculous statement. Start with my response to BlueFlames above.
Be aware that your indictment of "strangeness" is so far-off of what is the economic consensus it's not even funny.Ooh, another fallacy! This one is the Appeal to Authority. I wonder how many more you'll end up posting before you ragequit?
Here's a simple reasoning: you don't cut the deficit too fast when your economy is in a slump. You cut your deficits when the economy is booming.This is the ideal strategy, yes. Unfortunately, the best opportunity to pay down the national debt in the 90s and 2000s has come and gone. Even though now is not the ideal time, the US can not affort to postpone what must be done.
You say that the state and the household deal with different economic realities but then you go on to discuss the tools the state has. That's a bait-and-switch.
I'm trying to point out to you that the economic reality depends on the math of the situation. And the math is the same whether you are a household or a state or a company. All the tools in the world cannot change that. They may postpone it, or they may disguise it, but they cannot avoid it.
Deathfun's post wasn't an analogy.
A state can sustain deficit spending indefinately
“The ‘race to the bottom’ for currencies is being won by the USD,” Mr. Land said, referring to the U.S. dollar by its symbol.
“Quantitative easing packages have the world expecting long term weakness in USD and are looking to park money in equity markets and gold.”
speaking of ridiculous notions...QuoteA state can sustain deficit spending indefinately
debt is debt. doesn't matter if you are a person or a state. the bill comes due. at the end of the day, the ONLY options are to raise money to pay the debt or tell the people owed to **** off, they aren't getting it from us.