CBO: Trillion dollar deficits through 2017.

[BoberFett]

Obviously, if some of these occur and not others the result will be in between. The useful information here is that we know what we need to do to control the deficit in the near term: not do anything different than what the current law provides, including allowing laws that are set to expire to do so.

- wolf

So basically all we have to do to fix the problem is jack up everybody's tax rates, ensure that the AMT now hits the top 10% with their greedy $80k+ per year, and stop paying doctors?

Where's the downside? :awe:

 

[BoberFett]

You're terrible at this.

If by "this" you mean "distorting facts" then you're right, I don't pretend to be anywhere as good at is as a "liberal." You've got so much more practice.

 

[Genx87]

To put this in some perspective, by 2017, annual interest payments on the debt would begin to rival and soon exceed what Washington will be spending on Medicaid, the state-federal healthcare program for the poor and disabled.

Nothing to see here folks, move along, and lets keep deficit spending our way into prosperity.

 

[fskimospy]

Nothing to see here folks, move along, and lets keep deficit spending our way into prosperity.

You know that the overwhelming majority of that interest would be going back into the pockets of Americans, right? ie: not a net loss for the country.

 

[woolfe9999]

So basically all we have to do to fix the problem is jack up everybody's tax rates, ensure that the AMT now hits the top 10% with their greedy $80k+ per year, and stop paying doctors?

Where's the downside? :awe:

What else would you have us do? Every deficit reduction scenario will hurt people. It all depends on making choices about who gets hurt the most. If you truly want deficit reduction, then complaining about how it gets done is counter-productive. The fact that some people complain about every method is precisely why we have the deficit we have.

 

[fskimospy]

If by "this" you mean "distorting facts" then you're right, I don't pretend to be anywhere as good at is as a "liberal." You've got so much more practice.

You forget your medication today or something?

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm still kind of annoyed that we talk about a 200 billion dollar deficit as if its acceptable.

It's all relative though. "$200 billion" will always sound like a ton of money to you and me. What matters is its size relative to that of the total economy. Honestly a $200 billion deficit isn't that much in total economic terms. I'd like to see it at or very close to balanced, but $200 billion is ~80% less deficit than we have now and it would be a big relief to see it drop to that level.

 

[Ausm]

We just need to raise taxes on the 1%, have them pay their fair share you know! Clearly, that's the problem, not spending.

</idiot liberal mode>

Learn 2 Read.

ASAP

 

[Ausm]

What's awesome is that you consider the "Bush tax cuts" the same as "not taxing the rich". Perhaps you need to go read some?

No amount of spin and liberal "logic" is going to fix the problem: spending rises faster than the economy can grow. No amount of taxation can fix that in the long run. Spending MUST be brought in line with the growth rate of the economy.

When the Bush tax cuts expire then the go back to what the used to be a I don't think this will make the rich destitute.

 

[Genx87]

You know that the overwhelming majority of that interest would be going back into the pockets of Americans, right? ie: not a net loss for the country.

It is loss for the budget. How do we expect to ever achieve some semblence of balance in the budget when interest payments are chewing up more and more of it all the while medicare and SS are set for detonation over the same time period?

 

[fskimospy]

It is loss for the budget. How do we expect to ever achieve some semblence of balance in the budget when interest payments are chewing up more and more of it all the while medicare and SS are set for detonation over the same time period?

Just saying that it's not like those interest payments are money out the door, it is money directly into Americans' pockets because we owe our debt mostly to ourselves.

 

[Genx87]

Just saying that it's not like those interest payments are money out the door, it is money directly into Americans' pockets because we owe our debt mostly to ourselves.

I understand that but it is a cycle down the toilet we should not look to jump into imo. How do we expect to fund the govt if interest payments is eating more and more of the budget?

 

[Atreus21]

It's all relative though. "$200 billion" will always sound like a ton of money to you and me. What matters is its size relative to that of the total economy. Honestly a $200 billion deficit isn't that much in total economic terms. I'd like to see it at or very close to balanced, but $200 billion is ~80% less deficit than we have now and it would be a big relief to see it drop to that level.

Unless my arithmetic is wrong, it still means we're adding to the total debt. And that bugs me.

Yes, 200 billion is much closer to where we need to be, but I sometimes get the feeling that people think minor or even moderate deficits are the norm, the default, and that surpluses are a damned near utopian aspiration.

 

[PokerGuy]

Then quote it from the article. It's very simple. You can shut me up right now by showing me the quote from the article that backs up your assertion that not taxing the wealthy is a primary driver for the deficit.

He was caught blatantly lying, then tries to pass it off as something else. Par for the course. :thumbsdown:

Tax cuts for "the rich" are not even remotely close to being a "primary driver" for the deficits, no matter what twisted liberal logic one tries to apply. The complete package of tax cuts, which include cuts at all levels don't amount to much compared to the total deficits. If you take the portion of the Bush tax cuts that apply to "the rich", depending on how you define rich, is an even smaller portion.

"Sir, you're $20,000 in credit card debt". "It's that $100 I gave to that one guy, that's the primary driver! I don't need to cut spending!".

 

[BoberFett]

What else would you have us do? Every deficit reduction scenario will hurt people. It all depends on making choices about who gets hurt the most. If you truly want deficit reduction, then complaining about how it gets done is counter-productive. The fact that some people complain about every method is precisely why we have the deficit we have.

There is no good answer. We got ourselves in this mess through shortsightedness and greed on all sides. It's going to be a painful recovery and anyone who says otherwise is lying to you. I doubt we have the will in this country to put up with some temporary pain for long term health. We're going to continue spending ourselves into oblivion.

 

[zinfamous]

We just need to raise taxes on the 1%, have them pay their fair share you know! Clearly, that's the problem, not spending.

</idiot liberal mode>

"liberals" support both solutions, in tandem.

you seem to to think that absence of revenue is some type of solution?

intredesting...

 

[PokerGuy]

Unless my arithmetic is wrong, it still means we're adding to the total debt. And that bugs me.

It should bother anyone who's capable of basic math. Even a $1 deficit means that you're not only still in the hole, you're still digging further down into the hole, just at a slower pace. You haven't even stopped digging yet, let alone find a way to climb out.

Only a fool (liberal) would think that kind of behavior is sustainable.

 

[PokerGuy]

"liberals" support both solutions, in tandem.

No, they don't. They pretend to want a two pronged approach, yet they just want to raise taxes, not cut spending. Please show me a plan where liberals actually show a REDUCTION in the amount of spending. Not a reduced rate of growth, not a cut of future planned spending, not borrowing from some other surplus or accounting flim flam or other 'baselining' tricks. An actual reduction.

you seem to to think that absence of revenue is some type of solution?

intredesting...

No, I think reigning in the expanse of government spending is the key to recovery. Curtail waste and spending.

 

[momeNt]

There is no good answer. We got ourselves in this mess through shortsightedness and greed on all sides. It's going to be a painful recovery and anyone who says otherwise is lying to you. I doubt we have the will in this country to put up with some temporary pain for long term health. We're going to continue spending ourselves into oblivion.

Self inflicted no, nobody will vote someone in office that will change the course, we will get the status quo, but what the entire country doesn't realize is that this long drawn out recession is the pain for actually keeping this mucked up system alive. The big banks and the fed know that American won't ever do anything to change the system because their fear of the unknown trumps just about any pain we endure to keep the system going.

Short of complete disaster where people aren't eating, we won't see change.

 

[fskimospy]

It should bother anyone who's capable of basic math. Even a $1 deficit means that you're not only still in the hole, you're still digging further down into the hole, just at a slower pace. You haven't even stopped digging yet, let alone find a way to climb out.

Only a fool (liberal) would think that kind of behavior is sustainable.

Of course $1 deficits would be sustainable, as would much larger deficits than that. You would have to be a complete moron to think otherwise.

 

[BoberFett]

"liberals" support both solutions, in tandem.

you seem to to think that absence of revenue is some type of solution?

intredesting...

And that's fine, however the tax cuts for the rich have already been shown to be a small part of the total deficit. So even we raise taxes on the 1% and very, very, very optimistically get $100B out of them, you still need to come up with $900B in cuts. No matter how you slice it that's going to hurt.

 

[fskimospy]

And that's fine, however the tax cuts for the rich have already been shown to be a small part of the total deficit. So even we raise taxes on the 1% and very, very, very optimistically get $100B out of them, you still need to come up with $900B in cuts. No matter how you slice it that's going to hurt.

No you don't. Even a cursory reading of the CBO report would show you that is false.

 

[hal2kilo]

No, they don't. They pretend to want a two pronged approach, yet they just want to raise taxes, not cut spending. Please show me a plan where liberals actually show a REDUCTION in the amount of spending. Not a reduced rate of growth, not a cut of future planned spending, not borrowing from some other surplus or accounting flim flam or other 'baselining' tricks. An actual reduction.



No, I think reigning in the expanse of government spending is the key to recovery. Curtail waste and spending.

Don't tell me you think the Ryan (GOP) plan even begins to significantly reduce the deficit.

 

[PokerGuy]

Of course $1 deficits would be sustainable, as would much larger deficits than that. You would have to be a complete moron to think otherwise.

Apparently you not only fail at logic, you fail at basic math. Yes, we have a credit card with a very high limit, so we can just keep adding to the running balance.... but no matter how you turn it, at some point you will reach the limit unless you start paying off more than what you charge. We're doing the opposite, we keep charging more and more, in addition to the balance we're already carrying. That's something you can do temporarily, but it's not ultimately sustainable.

 

[PokerGuy]

Don't tell me you think the Ryan (GOP) plan even begins to significantly reduce the deficit.

Did I mention the Ryan plan anywhere in my posts? No? I didn't think so. Nobody in washington is serious about cutting spending. Liberals are not only not serious about cutting, they think more spending is perfectly fine (see eskimo as an example of such lunacy).