Finally Boehner is be rational, clean debt ceiling increase being voted on

[QuantumPion]

Obama had no intentions of cutting any spending.

Nah I'm sure Obama would love to cut defense spending 90% if he could.

 

[fskimospy]

Nah I'm sure Obama would love to cut defense spending 90% if he could.

Then why is his budget request higher for the military than Bush's last one?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Spending increases naturally because America grows naturally. More people + same spending per person (or even slightly more efficient spending per person = growth in the amount of dollars spent. Happily, those new workers also have jobs and pay greater tax revenue. Increasing government spending at the rate of the growth of America is like getting a raise each year to keep up with inflation - it's not really a raise at all, it's just adjusting to the cost of living, and if it didn't happen you would effectively be taking a pay cut each year.

Now, there are separate arguments for what can be accomplished by having more government spending relative to this 'natural' growth rate, and for raising the overall rate of taxation. But the baseline should be that government is always growing in absolute terms simply because America is always growing in absolute terms.

U.S. population growth rate has actually been declining the past 8 years and current annual growth rate is .72%....which if it remains steady will be a 7.2% increase in population over the next 10 years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/30/population-growth-rate_n_4520485.html

Spending is expected to grow significantly in the next 10+ years and far exceed projected population growth.

Spending growth far exceeds population growth. Again...what are trying to accomplish by increasing both spending and taxes?

 

[DominionSeraph]

That's not even a good straw man. You can do better.

It's pretty obvious he was operating on, "I have no idea what you're saying, but you don't seem to be agreeing with me so I'll assume you're saying the opposite, so I'll just keep repeating what I said."

Thanks for calling the president slow

"'The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.'
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/debtlimit.asp#dqxs5fR3lCgLpLkI.99"

Ctrl-F and search for the word "budget" in that.

You don't get it, but you keep typing...

 

[berzerker60]

Spending growth far exceeds population growth. Again...what are trying to accomplish by increasing both spending and taxes?

That gets to the second part of my answer, the stuff beyond population growth. You have to take them separately, though, because they're separate issues.

During times where the economy is lacking demand, government spending can directly buy things, or much better, can buy things like roads and bridges that employ citizens, who then have money to spend on other things, driving up demand. That's why we should be spending a lot while lack of demand is hurting our economy.

We should not be raising taxes right now, actually, for exactly the reasons above, but we should be raising them as the economy improves, especially for those at the top who are paying historically very low top rates and for whom marginal losses via taxation won't materially impact their lives. As the economy improves and the temporary infrastructure spending decreases, this will help pay down the accumulated debt-to-GDP percentage that actually matters long-term.

Cutting spending now is the exact opposite of what we should be doing, as it just makes the problem of sufficient demand even worse, just like it did leading into the Great Depression, when exactly the same arguments for austerity were put into effect and make things much, much worse. Raising taxes on money that would be spent in the economy (ie by those not immediately investing it in stocks, but rather buying food, clothing, etc.) is also the exact opposite of what we should be doing now. But all of this is short-term policy until the economy improves - then it reverses. Of course, if/when it does reverse and we get surpluses again, we'll only hear "we collected too much money, we need tax cuts to give it back!" rather than actually following through on deficit/debt reduction like the GOP says they want now that it's a Democratic president.

 

[BUnit1701]

So you're agreeing with me. It's deciding to pay the bill that you already ran up. Thanks!

Thats one way to describe it. I prefer to think of it as spending money we dont have.

 

[BUnit1701]

I really wish this were the case. Sadly Obama has not gone as far as he should have in ramping up spending to deal with the economic crisis. It's one of the biggest issues I've had with his presidency.

Fucking shit, how many trillions do you think we have to hand over to the Wall St banks before the economy recovers?!?!?!

 

[Incorruptible]

Fucking shit, how many trillions do you think we have to hand over to the Wall St banks before the economy recovers?!?!?!

For liberals there is no limit to spending other peoples money.

 

[IronWing]

What would we be trying to accomplish by increasing both spending and taxes?

We need to raise taxes more than we raise spending. We could cut spending but we're not very good at that so raising taxes appears to be the only remaining way to address the deficit.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That gets to the second part of my answer, the stuff beyond population growth. You have to take them separately, though, because they're separate issues.

During times where the economy is lacking demand, government spending can directly buy things, or much better, can buy things like roads and bridges that employ citizens, who then have money to spend on other things, driving up demand. That's why we should be spending a lot while lack of demand is hurting our economy.

We should not be raising taxes right now, actually, for exactly the reasons above, but we should be raising them as the economy improves, especially for those at the top who are paying historically very low top rates and for whom marginal losses via taxation won't materially impact their lives. As the economy improves and the temporary infrastructure spending decreases, this will help pay down the accumulated debt-to-GDP percentage that actually matters long-term.

Cutting spending now is the exact opposite of what we should be doing, as it just makes the problem of sufficient demand even worse, just like it did leading into the Great Depression, when exactly the same arguments for austerity were put into effect and make things much, much worse. Raising taxes on money that would be spent in the economy (ie by those not immediately investing it in stocks, but rather buying food, clothing, etc.) is also the exact opposite of what we should be doing now. But all of this is short-term policy until the economy improves - then it reverses. Of course, if/when it does reverse and we get surpluses again, we'll only hear "we collected too much money, we need tax cuts to give it back!" rather than actually following through on deficit/debt reduction like the GOP says they want now that it's a Democratic president.

I think we agree in concept. However, the dramatic increase in spending the last few years did give us short-term benefit on one hand and long-term adverse impact on the other which will significantly exasperate our national debt issues especially if/when interest rates go higher. The stimulus essentially sacrificed a portion of our future GDP growth. I believe that solid economic growth requires good spending, not more spending per se. It's disappointing that so little of the stimulus package actually went to improve infrastructure.

Tax hikes essentially do the same thing as spending cuts during a recovery...it hampers economic growth. Yet Democrats seek tax hikes at every opportunity while complaining that they need more "stimulus" money to spend to help growth. That's pure bullshit in my opinion....if you truly want economic growth, you don't constantly pursue increased taxation. Nothing hurts an economy more than taking money out of the private sector during times of low growth.

And when the economy eventually improves, I highly doubt Republicans will agree to tax increases...or that Democrats will start insisting on spending cuts to reduce deficits. Leopards don't change their spots.

 

[werepossum]

No, failure to raise the debt ceiling is like deciding not to pay the bill after enjoying the meal. The money is already spent. Folks who would rather not raise the debt ceiling are simply out to stiff the creditors.

Nope. It's possible to not spend money even after it is budgeted. That's like me saying that since I had decided to buy a boat before Obama skyrocketed the cost of my health insurance, I should take out a loan I cannot afford to pay back.

That gets back to chucky's post, quoted at the top of the page. Part of why people hate congress but love their comgressperson is that they bring home the bacon. No one wants to cut spending and only the dems want to raise taxes - on other people.

We're screwed.

Pretty much. Although I think generally when people say they approve of their Congresscritter, what they really mean is that said critter hasn't pissed them off. Few people really pay attention to what their particular Congresscritter does. Hell, most people cannot even name them.

 

[werepossum]

That gets to the second part of my answer, the stuff beyond population growth. You have to take them separately, though, because they're separate issues.

During times where the economy is lacking demand, government spending can directly buy things, or much better, can buy things like roads and bridges that employ citizens, who then have money to spend on other things, driving up demand. That's why we should be spending a lot while lack of demand is hurting our economy.

We should not be raising taxes right now, actually, for exactly the reasons above, but we should be raising them as the economy improves, especially for those at the top who are paying historically very low top rates and for whom marginal losses via taxation won't materially impact their lives. As the economy improves and the temporary infrastructure spending decreases, this will help pay down the accumulated debt-to-GDP percentage that actually matters long-term.

Cutting spending now is the exact opposite of what we should be doing, as it just makes the problem of sufficient demand even worse, just like it did leading into the Great Depression, when exactly the same arguments for austerity were put into effect and make things much, much worse. Raising taxes on money that would be spent in the economy (ie by those not immediately investing it in stocks, but rather buying food, clothing, etc.) is also the exact opposite of what we should be doing now. But all of this is short-term policy until the economy improves - then it reverses. Of course, if/when it does reverse and we get surpluses again, we'll only hear "we collected too much money, we need tax cuts to give it back!" rather than actually following through on deficit/debt reduction like the GOP says they want now that it's a Democratic president.

The problem with spending a lot during recessions is that it becomes the new baseline. We've seen that with Stimulus Rex, the Giant That Could (if it hadn't been too small). Baseline budgeting is how D.C. operates, and no matter how much we spend, failure to spend that much and more next year will be fought as a draconian cut. The only thing that changes is that during good times, those who want government to be ever larger change the term from "stimulus" to "investment". Besides that, stimuli are good for stopping the bleeding by giving everyone some breathing room and ending the attempts to get ahead of a falling economy with layoffs and production cuts, but lousy for actually building an economy. As FDR saw, government spending can give the illusion of a healthy economy, but as soon as that spending goes away so does that economic activity. We avoided the crash after World War II only because we had invested in production capability rather than consumption (which was cut with the rationing) at a time when much of the world had been severely damaged and needed someone with excess production capacity.

 

[werepossum]

I think we agree in concept. However, the dramatic increase in spending the last few years did give us short-term benefit on one hand and long-term adverse impact on the other which will significantly exasperate our national debt issues especially if/when interest rates go higher. The stimulus essentially sacrificed a portion of our future GDP growth. I believe that solid economic growth requires good spending, not more spending per se. It's disappointing that so little of the stimulus package actually went to improve infrastructure.

Tax hikes essentially do the same thing as spending cuts during a recovery...it hampers economic growth. Yet Democrats seek tax hikes at every opportunity while complaining that they need more "stimulus" money to spend to help growth. That's pure bullshit in my opinion....if you truly want economic growth, you don't constantly pursue increased taxation. Nothing hurts an economy more than taking money out of the private sector during times of low growth.

And when the economy eventually improves, I highly doubt Republicans will agree to tax increases...or that Democrats will start insisting on spending cuts to reduce deficits. Leopards don't change their spots.

Very well said. We have a shortage of production, not consumption. Unfortunately we have built a set of rules that greatly discourage new production in this nation, so tax cuts to the producers, our traditional engine starter, no longer work. Take less from the producers today and they'll either invest it in the stock market or bonds, invest in new production off shore, or invest in more automation domestically which while a good thing in principle, adds to unemployment.

 

[Vic]

Very well said. We have a shortage of production, not consumption. Unfortunately we have built a set of rules that greatly discourage new production in this nation, so tax cuts to the producers, our traditional engine starter, no longer work. Take less from the producers today and they'll either invest it in the stock market or bonds, invest in new production off shore, or invest in more automation domestically which while a good thing in principle, adds to unemployment.

This is exactly the problem.

 

[fskimospy]

Very well said. We have a shortage of production, not consumption. Unfortunately we have built a set of rules that greatly discourage new production in this nation, so tax cuts to the producers, our traditional engine starter, no longer work. Take less from the producers today and they'll either invest it in the stock market or bonds, invest in new production off shore, or invest in more automation domestically which while a good thing in principle, adds to unemployment.

Actually this is the exact opposite of our problem. The data clearly shows we do not have a shortage of production, we have a shortage of demand (consumption). Not only do businesses themselves when asked overwhelmingly say that it is insufficient sales (consumption/demand) that is driving their decisions not to invest in more capacity, economics tells us that we are not supply constrained.

A lack of production with constant demand would lead to inflation as we would have too many customers chasing too few goods. Instead, we have what borders on deflation. That indicates too many goods chasing not enough consumers. ie: increasing production won't help.

 

[ivwshane]

Nope. It's possible to not spend money even after it is budgeted. That's like me saying that since I had decided to buy a boat before Obama skyrocketed the cost of my health insurance, I should take out a loan I cannot afford to pay it back.

Wrong on both counts. For starters the president is required to spend the money congress has budgeted, it's a law congress passed under Nixon when he would just refuse to fund things he didn't like. Raising the debt ceiling is only about paying the bills, not raising the debt ceiling doesn't cut spending one bit, period! In fact it puts the US in default which actually causes our spending/bills to be even higher.

This is a common misunderstanding that the right has and no matter how many times it's explained to them they still don't get it. A simple search of the term debt ceiling on any reference site will confirm the terms meaning.

 

[berzerker60]

...tax cuts to the producers, our traditional engine starter, no longer work. Take less from the producers today and they'll either invest it in the stock market or bonds, invest in new production off shore, or invest in more automation domestically which while a good thing in principle, adds to unemployment.

I absolutely agree with this.

We have a shortage of production, not consumption. Unfortunately we have built a set of rules that greatly discourage new production in this nation, so

And quite disagree with this, for basically the reasons eskimospy stated.

This is the real problem with income inequality. Sure, I have philosophical objections to it, but they don't really matter for policy, because who cares about my philosophy. The problem is that when income is concentrated at the top, there's no one to buy the goods being produced, because the top 1% really only need so many cars and houses and textiles and foodstuffs no matter how much money have have. The result is a lack of demand and oversupply of production. That's the rational, economic argument for progressive taxation - not just the moral/ethical arguments, but the arguments centered on the importance of having a middle class for having a strong economy that benefits everyone. People were still rich back when top marginal rates were above 90%, but they weren't the only ones whose spending was needed to drive the economy.

Because the argument always comes out: There are obviously limits to this. Literal equality is both impossible and morally awful too. But high progressive taxation has been the case at points in American history, has worked very well during such points in the country's economic history, and continues to work very well today for economies of other nations that employ such tax systems.

There are things I swallow that I philosophically support but actually oppose because the evidence doesn't support it - for example, my gut sure makes me wish the death penalty actually worked as a deterrant. I sure wish more economic conservatives would be willing to more seriously consider the real-world, historical consequences of austerity vs. progressive taxation, even if you dislike the overall ideas of socialism.

 

[BUnit1701]

Wrong on both counts. For starters the president is required to spend the money congress has budgeted, it's a law congress passed under Nixon when he would just refuse to fund things he didn't like. Raising the debt ceiling is only about paying the bills, not raising the debt ceiling doesn't cut spending one bit, period! In fact it puts the US in default which actually causes our spending/bills to be even higher.

This is a common misunderstanding that the right has and no matter how many times it's explained to them they still don't get it. A simple search of the term debt ceiling on any reference site will confirm the terms meaning.

This is a common misunderstanding that the left has. It only costs us more if we dont pay on the previous loans which we have plenty of tax revenues to cover. There are no non-payment penalties for other spending.

 

[fskimospy]

This is a common misunderstanding that the left has. It only costs us more if we dont pay on the previous loans which we have plenty of tax revenues to cover. There are no non-payment penalties for other spending.

Who are you trying to fool? If you know an entity that is defaulting on large numbers of its legal obligations just so it can service it's debt are you going to consider it as good a lending risk as you did before? Of course not.

The US would pay a long term price for that after we get out of this liquidity trap.

 

[ivwshane]

This is a common misunderstanding that the left has. It only costs us more if we dont pay on the previous loans which we have plenty of tax revenues to cover. There are no non-payment penalties for other spending.

Sorry, your right wing masters have lied to you again, your kool aide is poisoned. While what you say is true temporarily, it isn't something that if it happened indefinitely or for a long period of time tax revenues wouldn't cover all of the bills. As I pointed out, the debt we didn't pay wouldn't just disappear and as eskimospy pointed out our credit worthiness would be downgraded and would cause many other issues.

But please, keep telling yourself that there is no penalty for not paying our bills, it makes it easier for others to know who to ignore.

 

[Matt1970]

People were still rich back when top marginal rates were above 90%, but they weren't the only ones whose spending was needed to drive the economy.

Because the argument always comes out: There are obviously limits to this. Literal equality is both impossible and morally awful too. But high progressive taxation has been the case at points in American history, has worked very well during such points in the country's economic history, and continues to work very well today for economies of other nations that employ such tax systems.

First off, what successful first world nation currently has a 90% tax bracket? Second, it was a different era back when we had higher tax brackets. You could make a living right out of high school working in a factory as all the money stayed here in the US. Now people will trample you to death to save $50 on a flat screen made overseas. Third, when we did have those higher tax brackets we still had poverty and still ran deficits. Someone opened up the heads of the left and filled them with the gobbledygook that the rich having money is bad. It's much better for the poor and middle class to have it so then can go buy cheap imported crap and send the money overseas.

 

[Moonbeam]

First off, what successful first world nation currently has a 90% tax bracket? Second, it was a different era back when we had higher tax brackets. You could make a living right out of high school working in a factory as all the money stayed here in the US. Now people will trample you to death to save $50 on a flat screen made overseas. Third, when we did have those higher tax brackets we still had poverty and still ran deficits. Someone opened up the heads of the left and filled them with the gobbledygook that the rich having money is bad. It's much better for the poor and middle class to have it so then can go buy cheap imported crap and send the money overseas.

Here we see the contempt the left supposedly have for the rich in its real form, contempt of the conservative brain for the undeserving, those who are undiciplined and lack moral vigor, those, who are perceived as not standing on their own too feet, the great masses of the American slime who did not learn to knuckle under to the demands of an authoritarian father and humiliated by him, stand on their own two feet. These are the brain sick who believe that all those who are weak and lacking in resources are that way because of personal ethical failure to earn what they make, all the takers, who take and take and take. These are those who have no compassion that isn't connected to a stick, who will kick you when you are down to drive you to succeed, the ones that throw the weak in the deep end and seceretly delight as they drown. The is the Nazi ethic of the authoritarian, the worship of the Fatherland of genetic purity, where the weak are culled so the strong can assert themselves with pride and moral righteousness, the honor the father and the fatherland puppeteers.

 

[berzerker60]

First off, what successful first world nation currently has a 90% tax bracket? Second, it was a different era back when we had higher tax brackets. You could make a living right out of high school working in a factory as all the money stayed here in the US. Now people will trample you to death to save $50 on a flat screen made overseas. Third, when we did have those higher tax brackets we still had poverty and still ran deficits. Someone opened up the heads of the left and filled them with the gobbledygook that the rich having money is bad. It's much better for the poor and middle class to have it so then can go buy cheap imported crap and send the money overseas.

A better measure is how many successful first world nations have a higher effective tax rate at the top - that washes out noise over how many brackets you have, etc.

http://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-highest-effective-personal-tax-rates-2013-1
For someone earning $300k/yr in USD

The US is the 53rd highest, meaning 52 other countries have a higher top effective rate, including basically all of Europe, Canada, Japan, China - basically everyone BUT some of the third world.

 

[Matt1970]

You want to show how successful a 90% tax rate would be by showing me a graph with the highest rate being 45%. Lets start at the top of your graph. France has the highest effective rate on there but rank 24th in per capita GDP. Next is Belgium with ranks 19th. Third is Italy which ranks 30th. Is that the kid os success we can look forward to with more income redistribution?

 

[Matt1970]

Nah I'm sure Obama would love to cut defense spending 90% if he could.

Except he proved that to not be true by going on the doom and gloom tour after a paltry 5% cut.