CBO: Trillion dollar deficits through 2017.

[BoberFett]

Even if that were true, you do realize that money would be invested elsewhere in the economy if the .gov wasn't borrowing it, don't you? And we haven't even gotten into the inflationary policy we must have due to the high borrowing and a ton of other issues with our debt.

Living above your means for an extended period of time always results in a net loss.

Not to mention, who does he think is earning that interest? The poor and middle class with their massive investment portofolios? Or the wealthy?

Government borrowing is just another way to shift wealth to the top, and here we have eskimospy defending it.

Of course he doesn't even seem to understand basic English, so I can't say I'm surprised at his complete lack of understanding that the system he hates is the same one he loves.

 

[Darwin333]

In any case I hardly see how this is 'news'. I think most of us already knew that until the economy turns around in a very big way we are going to be running trillion dollar deficits. I.e., this is completely expected. The revenue from tax increases is just not there, either from a math standpoint or a politically feasible one. And the necessary cuts in spending are also political impossible. 'Rock' meet 'hard place'.
Fern

Bingo.

I do not believe that we will solve this problem until we actually hit the wall which, when you consider the political realities you just spoke of, is a mathematical certainty.

 

[soulcougher73]

In other words, you can't because that's not what it says.

Tax cuts for the wealthy are just a small portion of the tax cuts overall. You inflated that into a "primary driver."

You're a pathetic troll and a liar. But I guess that's what to expect from partisan hacks like you.

LOL Sorry, just laughing at you calling someone else a partisan hack.

 

[BoberFett]

LOL Sorry, just laughing at you calling someone else a partisan hack.

I may be ideological to a fault, but I don't have a party that I support at all costs like many in this forum seem to do. I guess when you have nothing else going for you, clinging to a group is one way to make yourself feel better about your sad life.

 

[Fern]

Even if that were true, you do realize that money would be invested elsewhere in the economy if the .gov wasn't borrowing it, don't you?
-snip-

Yup.

And I recall (particularly) during discussion of the stimulus package and the additional govt borrowing required many economists warned of the likely economic problems caused by the govt sucking up all that capital leaving less to be invested in the economy/businesses.

I'd like to see that issue revisited with some studies analyzing it's impact.

Fern

 

[Darwin333]

Not to mention, who does he think is earning that interest? The poor and middle class with their massive investment portofolios? Or the wealthy?

Government borrowing is just another way to shift wealth to the top, and here we have eskimospy defending it.

Of course he doesn't even seem to understand basic English, so I can't say I'm surprised at his complete lack of understanding that the system he hates is the same one he loves.

Here lately it isn't really shifting wealth, its just been a vehicle to protect wealth and since a good portion of our borrowing is from outside of the country it shifts a lot of wealth to the top somewhere else.

What is really hitting the lower/middle class in the shorts is the monetary policy we are forced into due to the insanely high borrowing at least in the near term. In the mid/long term all of this "false GDP" must be pulled out of the economy and the way we are going it won't be by choice. When that happens it won't be pretty.

Heck, just for fun figure what our interest payment would be today if we were paying historical norms on bonds.

 

[Fern]

Bingo.

I do not believe that we will solve this problem until we actually hit the wall which, when you consider the political realities you just spoke of, is a mathematical certainty.

Agreed 100%.

The only way out of this I can see is some new technological develop, like PC's and the internet were, that greatly increased productivity and wealth/GDP. But I know of nothing on the horizon. Computers were in development decades before blossoming. I know of nothing comparable.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Yup.

And I recall (particularly) during discussion of the stimulus package and the additional govt borrowing required many economists warned of the likely economic problems caused by the govt sucking up all that capital leaving less to be invested in the economy/businesses.

I'd like to see that issue revisited with some studies analyzing it's impact.

Fern

You are talking about what is known as 'crowding out'. In a depressed economy such as ours for all intents and purposes that does not exist. Investment was not happening elsewhere, which was the whole problem. There is lots written on this, I'm sure you can find it.

 

[fskimospy]

Not to mention, who does he think is earning that interest? The poor and middle class with their massive investment portofolios? Or the wealthy?

Government borrowing is just another way to shift wealth to the top, and here we have eskimospy defending it.

Of course he doesn't even seem to understand basic English, so I can't say I'm surprised at his complete lack of understanding that the system he hates is the same one he loves.

You realize that interest rates on that debt are at historic lows, right? The rich are earning shit on this investment. That has been covered many times on here, not sure how you missed it.

 

[fskimospy]

Now who needs to read more carefully?

You're the one who mentioned the "rich", and ONLY the rich in your post I responded to.

Fern

Nice job on the selective edit there, brotha

 

[Darwin333]

Pentagon.

:whiste:

Cut the ENTIRE DOD by half (not gonna happen but I'll play), thats only a $350B cut. Still got a long way to go...

 

[fskimospy]

In my original post I misspoke, I was thinking of the bush tax cuts as a whole, not just what was commonly referred to as those for the rich. I believe they should be repealed in their entirety, as they were enormously foolish public policy.

 

[Darwin333]

You realize that interest rates on that debt are at historic lows, right? The rich are earning shit on this investment. That has been covered many times on here, not sure how you missed it.

You do realize that we don't actually pay off our debt don't you? We perpetually roll it over paying only the interest and to make it worse the entirety of our existing debt rolls over roughly every 4 years. That means if rates go up today that all of our existing debt will be at the higher rate in 4 years.

Its kind of like arguing that an ARM is a great home loan because interest rates are at historical lows. It might seem great right now but when the interest rates go up (and the "historically low" part means they will), not so much.

 

[Darwin333]

In my original post I misspoke, I was thinking of the bush tax cuts as a whole, not just what was commonly referred to as those for the rich. I believe they should be repealed in their entirety, as they were enormously foolish public policy.

Even if it means that your party loses power in both houses and the executive for the next few election cycles?

 

[fskimospy]

You do realize that we don't actually pay off our debt don't you? We perpetually roll it over paying only the interest and to make it worse the entirety of our existing debt rolls over roughly every 4 years. That means if rates go up today that all of our existing debt will be at the higher rate in 4 years.

Its kind of like arguing that an ARM is a great home loan because interest rates are at historical lows. It might seem great right now but when the interest rates go up (and the "historically low" part means they will), not so much.

Untrue, that was under old issuance schedules. Treasury has been gradually extending the length of bonds issued, the average rollover will soon surpass six years and is still climbing. Loans at such low rates are an incredible deal as they have frequently dipped into negative returns for investors. Basically free money for the govt.

 

[BoberFett]

Agreed 100%.

The only way out of this I can see is some new technological develop, like PC's and the internet were, that greatly increased productivity and wealth/GDP. But I know of nothing on the horizon. Computers were in development decades before blossoming. I know of nothing comparable.

Fern

Alternative energy (of any kind, solar, wind, nuclear) might be our only hope. At least we could stop exporting hundreds of billions to the middle east.

 

[BoberFett]

In my original post I misspoke, I was thinking of the bush tax cuts as a whole, not just what was commonly referred to as those for the rich. I believe they should be repealed in their entirety, as they were enormously foolish public policy.

/facepalm

Thanks for owning up to it though.

And I agree, the tax cuts as a whole were foolish and merely served to prop up a broken system, making things worse in the long run. The bubble should have burst a decade ago, instead we reinflated it into the housing market and FUBARed the whole situation.

 

[juiio]

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.

Most new debt is bought, directly or indirectly, by the Federal Reserve. That is not a good thing.

 

[fskimospy]

Even if it means that your party loses power in both houses and the executive for the next few election cycles?

I don't think that would happen. Let them expire after you win this year and replace their effect with fiscal stimulus for a year or two at max. The economy will be doing well by the midterms and this will be forgotten. Even if the republicans try more foolish debt cutting measures you can veto them until the economy is on better footing, then you can join them in cutting the debt.

Responsible policy is usually rewarded, which is why we should oppose deficit cutting measures in the short term. Europe is a perfect example of the failure of austerity.

 

[momeNt]

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>

What's awesome is that in this thread the CBO specifically mentions not taxing the rich as one of the primary drivers of this debt going forth.

Gotta read some, brotha.

Please read posts more carefully before responding in the future.

The CBO's report speaks for all of the Bush tax cuts, not simply the tax cuts for the wealthy. My post also spoke of the Bush tax cuts as a whole, as I consider many people making much less than $250,000 to be quite wealthy. Regardless of what I think however, the CBO report was quite clear.

According to figures supplied by the CBO, the cost of these tax cuts start at north of $200 billion per year, rising to nearly $300 billion per year by 2022. Considering the scope of deficits going forward, this would represent anywhere from about 20% of total deficits up to 50% of deficits or more. Furthermore, by themselves these tax cuts represent a 'program' with one of the single largest impacts on the deficit. Not only are they larger than any other revenue measures by a factor of 200-300%, but they dwarf nearly all spending reduction programs as well.

By any rational estimate that is a 'primary driver'.

It's clear politics in some form or another is your job, tons of diversion, changing what you said, what you meant, and obfuscation.

Just own it and move on. You provide pretty rational commentary, no sense in wasting your time defending a statement where you got a little bit away from your regular posting pattern. Just +1 for Bober and get em next thread.


edit: nvm I'm a slow quoter and apparently it's been owned.

 

[Darwin333]

Agreed 100%.

The only way out of this I can see is some new technological develop, like PC's and the internet were, that greatly increased productivity and wealth/GDP. But I know of nothing on the horizon. Computers were in development decades before blossoming. I know of nothing comparable.

Fern

I think the problem goes well beyond that. Take our current expenditures on health care (both personal and .gov), its cost has been increasing at 9% a year for quite a while. You are great with numbers, even if you take inflation into account what does 9% a year turn into in another 20 years? 30? Then realize the complexity of that one single issue and how it plays out in the reality of our politics.

Then realize that healthcare is only one of the pieces of our budget/debt issues.

 

[Darwin333]

I don't think that would happen. Let them expire after you win this year and replace their effect with fiscal stimulus for a year or two at max. The economy will be doing well by the midterms and this will be forgotten. Even if the republicans try more foolish debt cutting measures you can veto them until the economy is on better footing, then you can join them in cutting the debt.

Responsible policy is usually rewarded, which is why we should oppose deficit cutting measures in the short term. Europe is a perfect example of the failure of austerity.

You didn't really answer the question and I disagree with your statement about "responsible policy is usually rewarding". The reason we have so much irresponsible policy is because it is usually rewarded by the sheeple who really don't give two fucks about tomorrow. They care only about today. I bet if I looked I would find a plethora of posts made by you citing this during the payroll tax cut extension ordeal.

Concerning Europe, not sure if you have noticed but Europe is going down in flames because they have lived far beyond their means for far too long, it is not due to any reduction in spending. They tried to cheat the math, and for a while they did, but eventually the math always wins.

 

[fskimospy]

You didn't really answer the question and I disagree with your statement about "responsible policy is usually rewarding". The reason we have so much irresponsible policy is because it is usually rewarded by the sheeple who really don't give two fucks about tomorrow. They care only about today. I bet if I looked I would find a plethora of posts made by you citing this during the payroll tax cut extension ordeal.

Concerning Europe, not sure if you have noticed but Europe is going down in flames because they have lived far beyond their means for far too long, it is not due to any reduction in spending. They tried to cheat the math, and for a while they did, but eventually the math always wins.

Responsible policy is rewarded over a long enough time frame, like the several years between elections. People can also be rewarded for irresponsible policy, but that's a different issue.

European woes do not stem from overspending generally. As mentioned in a number of other threads, debt yields of other countries with similar debt/GDP ratios that retained their own currency were fine. It was the foolish quasi gold standard of the euro that caused these problems. As for austerity, look at the GDP and debt projections before and after their cuts. Then tell me if austerity works in a depression.

 

[Darwin333]

Alternative energy (of any kind, solar, wind, nuclear) might be our only hope. At least we could stop exporting hundreds of billions to the middle east.

China has already kicked our ass in that arena so what else ya got?

 

[Darwin333]

Responsible policy is rewarded over a long enough time frame, like the several years between elections. People can also be rewarded for irresponsible policy, but that's a different issue.

In US politics? Bullshit.

European woes do not stem from overspending generally. As mentioned in a number of other threads, debt yields of other countries with similar debt/GDP ratios that retained their own currency were fine. It was the foolish quasi gold standard of the euro that caused these problems. As for austerity, look at the GDP and debt projections before and after their cuts. Then tell me if austerity works in a depression.

First of all, it wasn't the austerity that fucked them it was the increased cost of their debt, both existing and new. It is a classic example of what I was talking about in a previous post, borrowing fucktons of money with an adjustable interest rate that you never intend on actually paying off.

Frankly, you should be on your knees thanking the heavens that Europe is in the way it is right now because that, and nothing else, is what is allowing us to continue our absurd borrowing. They are the hooker with aids and we are the hooker with herpes and there ain't no clean hookers out there.

I do agree that it is never a good idea to give up sovereign control of your money supply and I have stated that numerous times here. However, what you are truly implying is that every last nation on Earth can eat a hamburger today on credit and pay it back with 3/4 of a hamburger at some point in the future and we never ever run out of hamburgers.

You are implying a mathematical impossibility. That every nation and person on this planet can simultaneously grow their economy with borrowed money, pay interest with inflated currency, and never run out of resources. It might work for the next 10 years but eventually it must come to an end, it is a mathematical fact. Or is it only us and Europe you wish this for and we accomplish it on the backs of the rest of the Earth? That has worked so far but it is also running out of steam, perhaps you have an idea to stroke the flames a bit?

Math always wins.