It remains about the debt

[PhDeac]

The problem, I think, is encapsulated by the Mittster:

"HALPERIN: You have a plan, as you said, over a number of years, to reduce spending dramatically. Why not in the first year, if you’re elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you’d like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly?

ROMNEY: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course. What you do is you make adjustments on a basis that show, in the first year, actions that over time get you to a balanced budget."

Right now, the patient needs medicine. The patient does not need medicine for all time. But discourse generally stays on the level of asking if the medicine itself is intrinsically good or bad, and not on diagnosing the patient.

Well said. I'll add to the metaphor that it seems like for most major illnesses, the medicine isn't just one thing, it is several medications, a cocktail administered in a specific manner over a set amount of time. Saying "Yet all he wants to talk about is raising 50 billion in taxes to solve a much more massive problem. It's so sad its funny" is ridiculous because $50B is a very good start. We have to use a lot of different strategies to manage the debt problem.

 

[Spot the Wonder]

Per the CBO's review of Ryan's budget, federal revenues would double over the next 10 years from 2.4 trillion to 4.6 trillion. Or do you just refer to the CBO when it supports your world view?

I think you're mistaken, if you're using this report. The CBO did not calculate those numbers.

Page 1

The amounts of revenues and spending to be used in these calculations for 2012 through 2022 were provided by Chairman Ryan and his staff. The amounts for 2023 through 2050 were calculated by CBO on the basis of growth rates, percentages of gross domestic product (GDP), or other formulas specified by Chairman Ryan and his staff.

Page 3

For each of the fiscal years 2012 to 2022, Chairman Ryan and his staff specified amounts of total revenues and spending for major categories of the federal budget. For 2022, total revenues were set at $4,601 billion

Page 5

In the Chairman’s specifications, revenues are fixed at 19 percent of GDP starting in 2025. That amount is well below revenues projected under the baseline scenario and just slightly above revenues assumed under the alternative fiscal scenario.

They're using numbers provided by (made up by) Ryan and his staff. There is no blueprint on how to acheive that revenue.

 

[DeaconSig]

Tuffalo is fucking killing it on this thread.

 

[DeacMan]

The problem, I think, is encapsulated by the Mittster:

"HALPERIN: You have a plan, as you said, over a number of years, to reduce spending dramatically. Why not in the first year, if you’re elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you’d like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly?

ROMNEY: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course. What you do is you make adjustments on a basis that show, in the first year, actions that over time get you to a balanced budget."

Right now, the patient needs medicine. The patient does not need medicine for all time. But discourse generally stays on the level of asking if the medicine itself is intrinsically good or bad, and not on diagnosing the patient.

Very, very fair, but I'd use a different analogy. No one is proclaiming we cut off a leg tomorrow to cure our weight problem. But we aren't even having a serious discussion despite what is staring us in the face.

The patient is not in need of medicine. The patient is massively overweight, smokes, drinks, doesn't exercise, eats jelly donuts at every meal and is developing hyper tension and diabetes. He looks in the mirror and knows just how bad things have gotten. He knows something has to be done. But his wife is fat as shit, his kids are fat as shit and his next door neighbors all look worse than him as well. The right thing to do would be to start exercising and make chances to his diet and habits that he intends to sustain so he can get healthy over time. While recognizing all the risks and talking a big game - the solution the patient has decided he will follow, however, just shuffles the existing cards in the deck. Afterall, none of his friends or family will really support his efforts since they all look just as bad or worse than him. So it's easier to just stay a similar course. So he changes to low tar cigs but ends up smoking more of them, switches to light beer but drinks more of them, claims he's ready to start exercising "tomorrow" every night and orders an extra plate of pasta and a big piece of cake each dinner so he's "carbed up" for his big exercise kickoff that never happens. And all the while his conditions are getting worse and worse and are costing him more and more to contain.

Consider that Ryan had the courage to put one of the third rails of politics on the table. The President immediately called him an "extremist". Guys like RJ lambaste him from the rafters. That isn't extreme. It's courageous. What is extreme is to propose NOTHING.

 

[RJKarl]

Obama has made a proposal. Ryan's plan is extreme on many levels. Hell, even the Catholic Church (not exactly a liberal group) calls the Ryan plan "immoral".

 

[PhDeac]

Obama has proposed raising taxes. That is a third rail issue. Why is proposing raising taxes NOTHING while proposing to cut social spending "courageous".

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

I think your analogy builds in a lot of false specificity. Let's just look at the guy's smoking habit. It seems like our boy needs some nicotene gum...

 

[Spot the Wonder]

Consider that Ryan had the courage to put one of the third rails of politics on the table. The President immediately called him an "extremist". Guys like RJ lambaste him from the rafters. That isn't extreme. It's courageous. What is extreme is to propose NOTHING.

It's not courageous for a Republican to propose gutting social programs, it's par for the course. Wake me up when Ryan proposes increased taxes. THAT would be courageous.

I'm still wondering if the CBO report that I posted was the one you were referencing. I've thought it might also be this one, which is a little older:

The path for revenues as a percentage of GDP was specified by Chairman Ryan’s staff. The path rises steadily from about 15 percent of GDP in 2010 to 19 percent in 2028
and remains at that level thereafter. There were no specifications of particular revenue provisions that would generate that path.

emphasis added

 

[TR1982]

And that is also an argument for letting the Fed take the lead on stabilization, but to do that I think we'd need to change its mandate to NGDP targeting instead of its fake dual mandate on inflation and unemployment.

Why would we ever do that? The unemployment mandate is bad enough. It's not like the money supply is some lever you can pull to make the economy do whatever you want. The money supply is not a real economic variable. It has at most an ephemeral effect on real economic variables in the long run. Targeting nominal GDP is pointless, you can make it whatever you want by inflating or deflating, and by doing so you sacrifice price stability.

Keynesian theory is nice from a pedagogical standpoint, but the economy is a little more nuanced than aggregate supply and aggregate demand. Achieving some arbitrary target number might make for some nice article in the Wall Street Journal, but this isn't some abstract game we're playing where we try to make the numbers as close to where we want them as possible. We want real growth. That comes from the real economy, not the Federal Reserve.

 

[DeacMan]

I think your analogy builds in a lot of false specificity. Let's just look at the guy's smoking habit. It seems like our boy needs some nicotene gum...

I agree. He does. But alas he is paralyzed from even thinking about such an action for reasons that totally baffle the average guy on the street.

 

[DeacMan]

Obama has proposed raising taxes. That is a third rail issue. Why is proposing raising taxes NOTHING while proposing to cut social spending "courageous".

He hasn't proposed raising taxes generally at all. He's proposed lowering the corporate rate - like everyone else on the planet - and eliminating deductions for ubber rich people. That takes NO courage. And it's a gimmick - which he knows. It's an incredibly popular idea. 70% of the population supports it. It impacts no one on these boards for instance. The only reason I oppose the idea is because it is totally meaningless and an obvious charade. You want to raise revenues, have some balls and tell every American they will have to pay more over time. Why? Because that is the truth.

 

[DeacMan]

It's not courageous for a Republican to propose gutting social programs, it's par for the course. Wake me up when Ryan proposes increased taxes. THAT would be courageous.

I'm still wondering if the CBO report that I posted was the one you were referencing. I've thought it might also be this one, which is a little older:



emphasis added

You want to fix the fat man, you have to fix social programs. That is going to be painful by definition. That is why it is courageous. Because it is incredibly UNPOPULAR. It is also the friggin' truth. Long term we have to deal with these issues.

 

[RJKarl]

EVERYONE here has said there has to changes and cuts in social programs ALONG with revenue INCREASES not decreases. There also needs to be infrastructure spending.

It's abjectly delusional to think we can cut taxes and make any headway with the deficits.

 

[Spot the Wonder]

You want to fix the fat man, you have to fix social programs. That is going to be painful by definition. That is why it is courageous. Because it is incredibly UNPOPULAR. It is also the friggin' truth. Long term we have to deal with these issues.

Fixing them and gutting them are 2 different things. You want to narrow the deficit you have to do three things

Health spending down
Military spending down
Taxes up

Your boy only wants to do one, and he then relies on magic beans to grow federal revenue. It is, at it's very core, intellectually dishonest.

 

[DeacMan]

EVERYONE here has said there has to changes and cuts in social programs ALONG with revenue INCREASES not decreases. There also needs to be infrastructure spending.

It's abjectly delusional to think we can cut taxes and make any headway with the deficits.

And it is even more abjectly delusional to think you can raise 47 billion a year in revenue, make no meaningful spending reforms whatsoever and make any headway with the deficits. It's even more intellectually retarded.

 

[PhDeac]

Fixing them and gutting them are 2 different things. You want to narrow the deficit you have to do three things

Health spending down
Military spending down
Taxes up

Your boy only wants to do one, and he then relies on magic beans to grow federal revenue. It is, at it's very core, intellectually dishonest.

The Republican playbook:

Step 1: Cut taxes
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profits
Step 4: More revenues

Repeat

 

[RJKarl]

And it is even more abjectly delusional to think you can raise 47 billion a year in revenue, make no meaningful spending reforms whatsoever and make any headway with the deficits. It's even more intellectually retarded.

You REFUSE to READ. This is at least the THIRD time I've said there has to be cuts and changes in spending.

Just ONCE in TWENTY years I'd like to see you say,"I was wrong for saying you are "intellectually retarded", because you have said over and over there needs to be cuts changes in spending. I ignored that you did. I was wrong to do so."

I won't hold my breath.

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

The government has got to have more revenue quick. There just isn't any other answer if we want to live in a civilized society. Anyone who denies that wants everyone to live in the stone age where everyone killed the next human and consumed them.

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

Why would we ever do that? The unemployment mandate is bad enough. It's not like the money supply is some lever you can pull to make the economy do whatever you want. The money supply is not a real economic variable. It has at most an ephemeral effect on real economic variables in the long run. Targeting nominal GDP is pointless, you can make it whatever you want by inflating or deflating, and by doing so you sacrifice price stability.

Keynesian theory is nice from a pedagogical standpoint, but the economy is a little more nuanced than aggregate supply and aggregate demand. Achieving some arbitrary target number might make for some nice article in the Wall Street Journal, but this isn't some abstract game we're playing where we try to make the numbers as close to where we want them as possible. We want real growth. That comes from the real economy, not the Federal Reserve.

You'd want to do that if you thought the Fed, being independent and more easily able to change its course, was a better tool for stabilization than the discretionary budget and/or automatic stabilizers like unemployment insurance.

 

[TR1982]

You'd want to do that if you thought the Fed, being independent and more easily able to change its course, was a better tool for stabilization than the discretionary budget and/or automatic stabilizers like unemployment insurance.

That's stabilization. The economy is not unstable right now. It's just burdened by a lot of debt. Just because unemployment is high that doesn't mean the economy isn't stable.