GDP numbers in. They are ugly (1.3%)

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,029
4,653
126
Right here. There is NOTHING in the vote about 18% spending.
...
ProfJohn said:
Even if you remove the 18% of GDP part it would still be a good bill.
So, in one post you say there is nothing about 18% and in the next post you say there is a 18% part to remove.

Which is it? Guess what, it is the part that I was correct about.

Second falsehood. There is NO 5% cut in anything they are voting for. Nothing!
The 5% is the result of the balanced budget that will be voted for. It isn't exactly 5%, but I didn't feel like getting into details (it was someone else's number anyways). How do we get the balanced budget without the cut? The only ways are cut or tax. Either they are voting to cut (5% ish) or they are voting to tax. Clearly you wouldn't support them if it was a vote to tax. So, then it is a vote to cut.

In other words, what is spending now, what will it be after they get their balanced budget (assuming it is EVENTUALLY ratified)?
 
Last edited:

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
They are NOT voting to cut spending by 5%.

They are voting to create a mechanism that will get us a 5% cut long term.
Stop being an idiot.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Which is why this bill is useless. The balanced budget part will never occur. The caps will be ignored (just like the current debt cap kept getting moved over the years) and the cuts are miniscule.

That is why I want a better bill:
1) Give us hard cuts NOW not some committee that might recommend cuts that might or might not pass.
2) Give us $10 trillion or more in long term cuts (medicare mostly).
3) Raise SS income cutoff to cover 90% of income (where Reagan wanted it but he forgot to have the cutoff change with time to keep it at 90%) so SS is fixed forever.
4) Raise the debt ceiling to a realistic level so we can stop squabbling.

I'll settle for #4 now and #1-#3 later though. Too bad the house voted that down overwhelmingly.

There's no way to get $10 trillion in cuts, and certainly not primarily from Medicare.

Medicare is primarily funded by payroll withholdings and premiums paid by those wanting coverage (in Part B).

Medicare is funded primarily from three sources: payroll tax
contributions (40%), general revenues (39%), and beneficiary
premiums (12%) (Figure 5).

http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-04-2.pdf

So, only 39% comes from the General Fund (the one with the $14 trillion debt).

The total Medicare spending number in that link above is higher than what I see reported by the CBO. Even so, at 39% spending from the General Fund it is less than $200 billion per year. Even if it were all cut, you couldn't total anywhere near $10 trillion over 10 yrs.

But you're right, we need hard cuts NOW. Nothing Congress is currently considering will prevent a downgrade of our debt.

According to the credit rating agencies, we need $4 trillion in debt reduction over the next 10 yrs. As the information in my thread (hard Facts, Tough Choices) demonstrates, it's impossible to get there without the kind of tough choices that cause politicians to lose reelection. I'm very pessimistic.

The poll of CEO's I linked above shows that they are also very pessimistic (about a lot of stuff, not just the US govt's budget etc).

Fern
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,029
4,653
126
Even if it were all cut, you couldn't total anywhere near $10 trillion over 10 yrs.
I said nothing about 10 years. Yes, 10 years is tradition. But we can do better than tradition here.

The wars ending will help. So would many other revisions (pensions, veterans benefits, pork, etc). But many cuts aren't long-term spending problems. Our problem isn't the $14T debt, it is the looming $50T in obligations.
 
Last edited:

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,345
32,967
136
Look at it this way. Say you have a small business importing and selling widgets. You've done well, and now you have a corporate net worth of $2 million and a cash surplus of $500,000 to which you are adding $50,000 a year after paying your current expenses of $500,000 per year. This makes a pretty successful but not atypical small business. You have several things you'd like to do - buy your own building, expand operations to get a bigger share of the widget market, start a factory building your own widgets, expand into the whatzit market. Maybe even hire some more help to cut your own hours down to sixty hours per week and your bookkeeper doesn't have to clean the kitchen. After taxes you expect a suitable employee to run you another $40,000.

Now say you know for a fact that a new tax hike, regulation, or health care benefit is going to cost you another $25,000. Obviously you're not going to do any of the things you'd LIKE to do, because this new expense is going to cost you half your profit. In fact, you'll probably look for ways to cut costs or even contemplate selling or closing your business. Your annual return on investment is already at a measly 2%; now that's getting cut in half. You'd be better off loaning your money to the federal government and not working at all. So far, this should be beyond argument by even the dimmest bulb.

Now comes the speculative part, the part where the fear comes in. Say your President has said that under his energy plan, your energy costs would "necessarily skyrocket." Can he implement this? If so, does that mean that your $25,000 energy bill jumps by $5,000, or $10,000, or $25,000, or $100,000? Say your President has passed new health care entitlements, but much of the bill merely empowers federal regulatory agencies and your health insurance carrier cannot tell you how much this will escalate your costs. Will your $50,000 health insurance costs rise by $5,000, or $10,000, or $25,000, or $100,000? Will you have to drop company-provided health insurance altogether? If so, will that cost you your best employees to larger companies? Say your President has said that he thinks we should have mandatory health insurance for all employees, even part timers. Will he implement it? What will it cost you to provide health insurance for the ten college students that pull orders at night?

It should be readily apparent that a medium to small business is a delicate thing. You don't have divisions to sell off, or factories to move overseas, if additional costs are forced on you. You don't want to lay off employees because D.C. mandates employer-provided dog-sitting or child empowerment classes - you know these people, you know their families, they are your friends. So if you have any fears that the President or Congress is going to slap new costs on you, you sit on your profits, hoping to build as big a pile as possible to that you can weather whatever comes your way. Or at the least, have the resources for an orderly shut-down, trying to save something of your life's work, if government or larger competitors or a crashing economy forces you to close the doors.

And all these fears are on top of the normal fears about the economy and the competition, all the things that Congress and the President cannot control.
And Obama never passed any legislation to affect energy, did he? He passed a healthcare bill that conveniently got blamed for increases in health insurance, when health insurance has been rising at the same rate for the past 10 years or more.

Meanwhile, companies large and small have been sitting on that cash because there is no incentive to get that money moving back into our economy (reinvest it or lose a lot of it to taxes). The business in your example could have hired an extra employee for the last two years.

It is really fucking simple. Give businesses a tax break for every job they create. Unfortunately, there is no demand. Businesses aren't hiring for that one simple reason. Mom and pop stores aren't going out of business because of taxes or regulations or government interference, they are going out of business because nobody in their right mind is paying the stupid tax (buying from a middleman for whatever markup) when they can get the same shit from their computer chair.

And forget manufacturing. Even if you removed all taxes and regulations, US businesses would never be able to compete with overseas labor costs.

That leaves us with IP development. But once again, because there is no incentive to create jobs domestically, businesses are off shoring that shit, too. Why hire 1 engineer to design something right the first time when you can hire 10 for less to design it just good enough to last past the warranty?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
And Obama never passed any legislation to affect energy, did he? He passed a healthcare bill that conveniently got blamed for increases in health insurance, when health insurance has been rising at the same rate for the past 10 years or more.

Meanwhile, companies large and small have been sitting on that cash because there is no incentive to get that money moving back into our economy (reinvest it or lose a lot of it to taxes). The business in your example could have hired an extra employee for the last two years.

It is really fucking simple. Give businesses a tax break for every job they create. Unfortunately, there is no demand. Businesses aren't hiring for that one simple reason. Mom and pop stores aren't going out of business because of taxes or regulations or government interference, they are going out of business because nobody in their right mind is paying the stupid tax (buying from a middleman for whatever markup) when they can get the same shit from their computer chair.

And forget manufacturing. Even if you removed all taxes and regulations, US businesses would never be able to compete with overseas labor costs.

That leaves us with IP development. But once again, because there is no incentive to create jobs domestically, businesses are off shoring that shit, too. Why hire 1 engineer to design something right the first time when you can hire 10 for less to design it just good enough to last past the warranty?
<sigh> Yes, the business in my example could have hired an extra employee for the last two years. News flash - businesses don't exist to hire employees. Businesses exist to make a return on investment, preferably a greater ROI than one can get from the bank. Else why go through all the trouble of running a business? Some employees are hired just to make life easier for the boss, but most are hired because of an expected increase in profits. There's always an associated risk with any business decision, hiring included, and while tax cuts for new hires will likely pick up some marginal hires, as long as businesses are convinced that there is a significant chance that Obama will use his power to implement something that will significantly affect their bottom line, they are not going to spend any money that isn't completely necessary.

And if we forget manufacturing, we can forget IP as well. The people who understand the manufacturing become the people who understand the technology and make the next advances.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
GDP numbers in. They are ugly (1.3%)

When basic fuel costs 200% more then it should what do people honestly expect?

This

What did they expect when paying close to $5 for gas here in Chicago Vs when it was $3

That $300 more a month I am spending in gas used to go for Economy supporting things, now it does straight the to Oil Thieves that own this country.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
-snip-

And forget manufacturing. Even if you removed all taxes and regulations, US businesses would never be able to compete with overseas labor costs.

Not sure about that.

In many cases of manufacturing, labor is a fairly small %.

A lot of manufacturing is very 'dirty' (e.g., heavy metals and purifying silicon for solar panels). China can do it, they have no expensive regulations to bother with.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have regulations, but the costs of regulations can be pretty steep.

Fern
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
News flash - businesses don't exist to hire employees. Businesses exist to make a return on investment, preferably a greater ROI than one can get from the bank. Else why go through all the trouble of running a business? Some employees are hired just to make life easier for the boss, but most are hired because of an expected increase in profits.

Our society has in interest in those who have the ability and desire to work finding employment. Businesses as a whole have the same interest, as it creates more demand for their products. However, it becomes a tragedy of the commons situation whereby each business wants or expects the next business to employ the people who will be buying their goods.

It is in this disconnected area where government provides incentives to businesses to achieve society's goal of employment. Here is a great example of Bill Clinton describing this, much more eloquently than I ever could:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/t...usive---bill-clinton-extended-interview-pt--1
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
This

What did they expect when paying close to $5 for gas here in Chicago Vs when it was $3

That $300 more a month I am spending in gas used to go for Economy supporting things, now it does straight the to Oil Thieves that own this country.
I'll count out the lies:

1) Gas isn't close to $5 in Chicagogasprices.com
2) If it were, and if you were paying $3 before, you're claiming you use 150 gallons of gas/month. And we know you drive a Hyundai Tiburon. Let's say 2001 because nobody would give you money on a newer one. Also, you're probably too inept to drive a 5 speed, so with fueleconomy.gov numbers and 22 mpg, you are saying you drive 40k miles/year. No.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,345
32,967
136
Not sure about that.

In many cases of manufacturing, labor is a fairly small &#37;.

A lot of manufacturing is very 'dirty' (e.g., heavy metals and purifying silicon for solar panels). China can do it, they have no expensive regulations to bother with.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have regulations, but the costs of regulations can be pretty steep.

Fern
Thats why I said even if the US did not have all those regulations, we could not compete on labor costs. Min wage is what? $7-8? People in India are happy to work for the equivalent of $1 a day. Labor is even less in other countries. Labor may be a small factor in some manufacturing processes, but I'd bet that isn't the majority.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Rich did better under Clinton than they did under Reagan or Bush...

So did everyone. So you would support a modest tax increase on the rich and restraining spending, like Clinton did? That's how we got to an almost balanced budget.

And no one really wants a balanced budget amendment, Repulicans wouldn't be able to finance wars of convenience.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Our society has in interest in those who have the ability and desire to work finding employment. Businesses as a whole have the same interest, as it creates more demand for their products. However, it becomes a tragedy of the commons situation whereby each business wants or expects the next business to employ the people who will be buying their goods.

It is in this disconnected area where government provides incentives to businesses to achieve society's goal of employment. Here is a great example of Bill Clinton describing this, much more eloquently than I ever could:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/t...usive---bill-clinton-extended-interview-pt--1
I could buy the theory that government provides incentives to businesses to achieve society's goal of employment, but government has proven to be really, really bad at it. We spend three or four times the actual payroll for those jobs, often with little to show for that money, and those jobs are generally saved only as long as we keep paying that money.

I think the stimulus plan helped stop the employment decline. I know TARP and the fed loans did. But government can't borrow and spend us back to prosperity.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
I could buy the theory that government provides incentives to businesses to achieve society's goal of employment, but government has proven to be really, really bad at it. We spend three or four times the actual payroll for those jobs, often with little to show for that money, and those jobs are generally saved only as long as we keep paying that money.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I wasn't championing for more government jobs. From my personal experience most (though certainly not all) government jobs are not as productive as you would find in the private sector. I just meant providing tax breaks and perhaps some funding to encourage growth.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,225
664
126
This

What did they expect when paying close to $5 for gas here in Chicago Vs when it was $3

That $300 more a month I am spending in gas used to go for Economy supporting things, now it does straight the to Oil Thieves that own this country.

Well what do you know... another dmcowen thread, another lie about gas prices.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I wasn't championing for more government jobs. From my personal experience most (though certainly not all) government jobs are not as productive as you would find in the private sector. I just meant providing tax breaks and perhaps some funding to encourage growth.

The current situation should stand all of your preconceived notions about efficiency on its ear. We have the highest productivity ever, with very, very healthy corporate profits and yet dismal employment figures. Those profits are simply being held as cash or cash equivalents, because of low demand, because of lack of employment & because of an enormous debt hangover from the drunken lending & borrowing of the Ownership society. Under the circumstances, they see hiring as a waste of money, a net loss to the bottom line.

What we have is an employment crisis, and a looming debt/deflation spiral, which will create even more unemployment. So it really doesn't matter how productive or non-productive govt jobs are, because the private sector isn't hiring, and won't be until demand increases. Catch-22.

Low productivity jobs are better than no jobs at all, which is what the revered "Job Creators" are providing. No jobs. Given that they're hoarding liquidity, it seems obvious that they can easily pay higher taxes which will actually create jobs in lieu of them doing it themselves, which will go a long ways towards righting the economy.

This isn't rocket science.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Double dip coming?

Yup.

Employment is too low and QE3 wont have the impact of its predecessors. Austerity will hit us very very hard.

15&#37; U6 unemployment and an economy based on consumerism do not mix.

It wont be repaired until a breakthrough innovation or a repeal of our free trade agreements with slave wage level nations.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
Low productivity jobs are better than no jobs at all, which is what the revered "Job Creators" are providing. No jobs. Given that they're hoarding liquidity, it seems obvious that they can easily pay higher taxes which will actually create jobs in lieu of them doing it themselves, which will go a long ways towards righting the economy.

Too many government jobs are just layer upon layer of bureaucracy put in place to "fill" the budget for some program. Then when revenues drop, as is the case now, those jobs become a burden. Also, during boom times those jobs pull what could be productive workers from the private sector.

If the government wants to do New Deal type work to get people employed that is a completely different story.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Too many government jobs are just layer upon layer of bureaucracy put in place to "fill" the budget for some program. Then when revenues drop, as is the case now, those jobs become a burden. Also, during boom times those jobs pull what could be productive workers from the private sector.

If the government wants to do New Deal type work to get people employed that is a completely different story.

Completely backwards. Those jobs are now an asset, one of the few things sustaining commerce and the flow of money through the economy. They act as a flywheel, with taxes creating an alternative cashflow mechanism in the economy.

Poorly regulated financial capitalism is a series of booms & busts, bubbles, by its very nature. A situation of taxes being too low at the top means all the benefits of growth go straight to the top, and stay there, to be hoarded. Extreme wealth is, by definition, hoarding. That is demonstrably the situation of today. Descent into that economic disaster has been concealed & obfuscated by ever increasing debt at every level but the top. Debt is the mechanism that makes trickle down economics appear to work at all.

Lousy growth of GDP? You'd never know it examining the state of America's wealthiest, who are doing better than ever. Profits are at near record levels, and the distribution almost exclusively to the financial elite. In a deflationary scenario, which we face today, their continuous extraction of economic rents from the economy becomes parasitic, driving the general level of economic activity lower over time.

You're a smart person- I'd encourage you to think outside the box, ignore the self serving memes & conceptualizations of wealth concentration proponents. They'll destroy the middle class if we let them, and they've made huge strides on that direction over the last 30 years.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Yup.

Employment is too low and QE3 wont have the impact of its predecessors. Austerity will hit us very very hard.

15% U6 unemployment and an economy based on service jobs and not good paying, wealth creating (manufacturing) jobs do not mix.

It wont be repaired until a breakthrough innovation or a repeal of our free trade agreements with slave wage level nations.

Fixed what is wrong with the country for the last 30 years for you (now we need another bubble just to keep afloat).