Spending or Deficits the problem?

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
The Deficit Chicken Hawks


<snip>
Indeed, rising deficits are sometimes helpful. They are now. It is possible to dislike parts of President Bush's tax cuts -- and to see the White House's budget rhetoric as hypocritical -- but it is not possible to think that on balance these policies have hurt the economy. From fiscal 2000 to 2003, the budget has moved from a surplus of 2.4 percent of GDP to a deficit of 3.7 percent of GDP; the shift is worth about $650 billion annually. Tax cuts didn't cause all of this swing. Still, the massive stimulus helped offset the depressing effects of the stock market, Internet and telecom bubbles. Higher deficits didn't raise interest rates. In 2000, rates on 30-year mortgages averaged 7.5 percent; this year, they've been under 6 percent.

...

Choices can be faced or avoided. The deficit fixation represents avoidance. Its presumption that higher taxes alone will "restore fiscal discipline" sidesteps the true problem -- altering the trajectory of spending. It's a delusion.
</snip>

Read the whole piece.

CkG
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
"Still, the massive stimulus helped offset the depressing effects of the stock market, Internet and telecom bubbles. Higher deficits didn't raise interest rates. In 2000, rates on 30-year mortgages averaged 7.5 percent; this year, they've been under 6 percent."



Occasionally it is necessary to run a deficit, but of course I would argue that running one in order to in part finance this war is wrong. I'll let that lie for now, because you know that.

What I want to know is this. The tax cut benefits were supposed to provide benefits down the road. Now they have an immediate effect? Which is it? If the latter, where is the evidence for his claim? Where does the tax cut come even close to offsetting these effects? It's like you said that your car broke down, and you had to get a new one. I toss you a fifty. Well that is nice, but how much does that "offset" your loss?

I do not know to what degree this deficit has influenced interest rates, but his statement to back his assertion is disingenuous at best. What are mortgage rates doing right now? They are climbing at a time when the deficit is. This correlation is not causation, but I admit it. He uses a carefully worded statement to prove a claim that is completely misleading.
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
The war just happens to be a convenient thing to spend on. Rates are climbing back to normally low levels instead of exceptionally low levels. It's because so many people took advantage of the low rates by short-selling bonds (e.g., taking mortgates, home loans, car loans, etc). Then the banks that bought the shorted bonds had to short treasuries in order to keep their risks low, causing rates to drop sharply. Just the usual bubble and pop.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
"Still, the massive stimulus helped offset the depressing effects of the stock market, Internet and telecom bubbles. Higher deficits didn't raise interest rates. In 2000, rates on 30-year mortgages averaged 7.5 percent; this year, they've been under 6 percent."



Occasionally it is necessary to run a deficit, but of course I would argue that running one in order to in part finance this war is wrong. I'll let that lie for now, because you know that.

What I want to know is this. The tax cut benefits were supposed to provide benefits down the road. Now they have an immediate effect? Which is it? If the latter, where is the evidence for his claim? Where does the tax cut come even close to offsetting these effects? It's like you said that your car broke down, and you had to get a new one. I toss you a fifty. Well that is nice, but how much does that "offset" your loss?

I do not know to what degree this deficit has influenced interest rates, but his statement to back his assertion is disingenuous at best. What are mortgage rates doing right now? They are climbing at a time when the deficit is. This correlation is not causation, but I admit it. He uses a carefully worded statement to prove a claim that is completely misleading.

The tax cuts were originally supposed to be a long term thing - hence the 10 year plan, but then were re-written to be front loaded. This last tax-cut of ~350Billion was about 2/3 frontload(first 2 years). The tax-cuts weren't a cure-all, they were to lessen the effect of recession and the tech bubble burst. His first round helped some but the second one solidified the "bump" that was needed to stave off further recessionary lapses and to provide a base for growth.

I think you misunderstood what he was saying about mortgage rates. What assertion did he make? That "Higher deficits didn't raise interest rates"? Well, the data has shown that even though rates have raised recently, it was because they were at all time lows. Things don't stay "cheap" forever...just like things don't stay overinflated(dot-com) forever. But for people to use causation to link rates hikes to deficits is a bit disingenuous, which is what his point was, and is why he pointed out 2000's rates which were when we supposedly had a "surplus".

CkG
 

Wolfdog

Member
Aug 25, 2001
187
0
0
Financial deficits are a bad thing. Think of it another way. When you got your first credit card how much could you put on it? My first card only had a 800 dollar limit, with average apr ~12%. They ended up raising it to a couple thousand over a year or so. The credit was all fine until you put more on it than you can pay off in any month. The rise in the spending ceiling is a catch all. You can put more on the card, but the payments are higher and pay less off the actual debt and more just on the interest. Now the US tax cuts however uneffective they were, are putting major debt on the US credit card. There is no spending limit par se enacted by the general governing bodies. The deficit in previous years has actually started to be payed off in ernest.(pre Bush) The US is already spending some major money just on paying the interest on monies that have already been spend in the last 50 years by my estimate. The US government should have to live by the exact same set of rules that the majority of Americans have to live by. There is a ceiling on how much we can charge on future earnings. Just think if everyone in America could charge 10 million on thier credit cards a piece. The nation would be bankrupt in a matter of months. So in a way the government is bankrupting the nation. Since if the loan got called in, they wouldn't be able to pay it.
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
If financial deficits are a bad thing, no one should get mortgages or car loans.

Low-grade junk debt is no where near government debt. It's a difference of about 10% in the interest rates.

Edit: the government can print money to pay off any deficit it wants. government debt isn't putable, anyway. a government debt is a credit to the economy.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
The tax cuts have been a minor stimulus to the US economy in comparison to the continued record consumer debt being piled up by Americans. The record low interest rates were a product of Clinton/GOP Congress that restrained spending (somewhat) during the economic boom of the late 90s. Consumers in large part have used the largesse from refinancing and the low rates of credit cards/auto loans to go deeper into debt. Some this consumption has gone to reasonable infrastructure (buying larger homes) but much of it has gone into durable (albeit depreciating) goods.

It is ridiculous for Bushies to credit Bush tax cut policy with anything other than the bump in dividend paying stocks and the deficit growth secondary to decreased tax revenue. The American consumer continues to spend more because we are greedy and credit is ample. My extended family members just clue me in on the newest scam . . . people get Lasik (on the credit plan) then declare bankruptcy.
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
The low interest rates were from people fleeing from stocks after the bubble to the "safety" of bonds. Ha Ha Ha!
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Here's another take in an unusually lucid piece (for Paul Krugman anyway) in the NYT (registration required, but text below)

During the 1990's I spent much of my time focusing on economic crises around the world ? in particular, on currency crises like those that struck Southeast Asia in 1997 and Argentina in 2001. The timing of such crises is hard to predict. But there are warning signs, like big trade and budget deficits and rising debt burdens.

And there's one thing I can't help noticing: a third world country with America's recent numbers ? its huge budget and trade deficits, its growing reliance on short-term borrowing from the rest of the world ? would definitely be on the watch list.

I'm not the only one thinking that. Lehman Brothers has a mathematical model known as Damocles that it calls "an early warning system to identify the likelihood of countries entering into financial crises." Developing nations are looking pretty safe these days. But applying the same model to some advanced countries "would set Damocles' alarm bells ringing." Lehman's press release adds, "Most conspicuous of these threats is the United States."

O.K., let's run through some reassuring counterarguments.

First, economists are very good at devising models that would have predicted past crises, but each new crisis tends to happen where and when they didn't expect it. So even though our budget deficit is bigger relative to the economy than Argentina's in 2000, and our trade deficit is bigger relative to the economy than Indonesia's in 1996, our experience needn't be the same.

Second, nasty crises in third world countries have a lot to do with the fact that their debt is in foreign currency, usually dollars. As a result, when the peso or the rupiah plunges, debts explode while assets don't, and balance sheets collapse. By contrast, thanks to the special international role of the dollar, America's burgeoning foreign debt is in our own currency.

Finally, financial markets are generally willing to give advanced countries the benefit of the doubt. Even when an advanced country seems to be deep in a financial hole, lenders usually assume that it will somehow find the resources and political will to climb back out.

So is America safe, despite its scary numbers?

Third world countries typically suffer from institutional weaknesses. They have poor corporate governance: you can't trust business accounting, and insiders often enrich themselves at stockholders' expense. Meanwhile, cronyism is rampant, with close personal and financial links between powerful politicians and the very companies that benefit from public largesse. Luckily, in America we don't have any of these weaknesses. Oh, wait. . . . (Isn't that all history? No. According to The Wall Street Journal, we are again hearing warnings that "optimism is based on massaged earnings.")

Still, there's no question that the U.S. has the resources to climb out of its financial hole. The question is whether it has the political will.

There is now a huge structural gap ? that is, a gap that won't go away even if the economy recovers ? between U.S. spending and revenue. For the time being, borrowing can fill that gap. But eventually there must be either a large tax increase or major cuts in popular programs. If our political system can't bring itself to choose one alternative or the other ? and so far the commander in chief refuses even to admit that we have a problem ? we will eventually face a nasty financial crisis.

The crisis won't come immediately. For a few years, America will still be able to borrow freely, simply because lenders assume that things will somehow work out.

But at a certain point we'll have a Wile E. Coyote moment. For those not familiar with the Road Runner cartoons, Mr. Coyote had a habit of running off cliffs and taking several steps on thin air before noticing that there was nothing underneath his feet. Only then would he plunge.

What will that plunge look like? It will certainly involve a sharp fall in the dollar and a sharp rise in interest rates. In the worst-case scenario, the government's access to borrowing will be cut off, creating a cash crisis that throws the nation into chaos.

I know: it all sounds unbelievable. But would you have believed, three years ago, that the U.S. budget would plunge so quickly from a record surplus to a record deficit? And would you have believed that, confronted with that plunge, our leaders would offer excuses rather than solutions?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
i'm pretty certain the US gov't wouldn't survive an audit using the accounting rules that corporations have to abide by.
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,633
263
126
GWB and his administration has never asked any sacrifice from the American people or the federal gov't. It is deficit spending and large tax cuts. History will reveal that GWB, the so-called compassionate conservative, will have presided over the single largest expansion of the federal gov't in the history of the United States. We are not only talking annual deficits but also a growing 6.5 trillion dollar national debt. Who do you think will have to pay this off? The interest payments used to finance this debt is approaching 300 billion dollars annually and rising. It is one of the four largest expenditures each year right up there with Medicare and Defense. A good portion of the claimants on gov't bonds are from overseas investors.

People talk about deficits as a percentage of GDP or GNP but this is a red herring, IMO. GDP is not gov't income. Tax revenue, etc are gov't revenues. We had a golden opportunity to pay down the federal debt in late 1990 and 2000s. Still, we saw politicans falling over themselves trying to increase spending and cut taxes. To add more debt on top of more debt is troubling especially with a large influx of workers (baby boomers) expected to retire in the next 20 years. These workers will not be replaced by the same or more number of workers in the future. We will have mounting costs and more "recipients" of benefits. Something will have to give, I fear.

 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
People talk about deficits as a percentage of GDP or GNP but this is a red herring, IMO.

Not really. The reason it's expressed as a percentage of GDP is so that the numbers can be put into context without needing to resort to constant dollar expressions and such. It works because it gives a rough idea of the ability of the tax base to service (and if required, retire entirely) the debt at that point in time.

Let me use an example to show my point. Joe currently has outstanding debts of $10,000. Joe's current income is $50,000/year net. Joe's debt is covered 5x by his cash flow, which depending on your POV, may be fine or not enough. Forward to next year. Joe's debt has doubled to $20,000, and his income has gone up slightly more than twice to $110,000. Is Joe better or worse off than he was last year?

Well, the answer is that you really can't tell if he's better off, but you can certainly say that a lender would be more disposed to lend him money. His ability to service his debt has increased this year since he has a higher debt to income "cover ratio." But like most financial related numbers, these numbers have to be put into context.... an accounting ratio is nice, but it doesn't take the value of money and opportunity costs into account.

Since taking the numbers in a sterile fashion like this without applying context is a waste of time, NOW we can start asking some questions to make a value judgement. Even though we know Joe has raised his cover ratio, at this point we don't know what the extra $10,000 in debt he incurred was used for, nor do you know if the increase in income will last. Joe could be FAR better off if he used that 10k to purchase an asset (be it tangible or intangible) which will help maintain or increase that higher level of income in the future. Conversely, Joe could be worse off if he simply spent the money on crap. Yes, he can better cover the debt, but the debt is still there and has to be paid.

The next question we should ask is whether the borrowing provides Joe with a postive, neutral, or negative factor of utility? Or, should Joe make an effort to pay down (or pay off entirely) his debt balance? The numbers say he COULD if he wanted to, but should he? If he's in medical school and incurring that debt now will lead to a far bigger payoff later, then yes, he should borrow as much as he needs. If he's simply financing current expenditures with projected cash flows (i.e. buying things on a credit card then paying the card off each month) it's probably a wash. If he's borrowing money on his credit card to buy PowerBall tickets, he should probably stop borrowing and pay off the debt he already has. But only Joe can determine how much utility (value to him personally) the borrowing provides. That's what the voters do in a democracy as well.

That's why the "debt as a percentage of GDP" figure is relevant. That figure gives us a constant frame of reference from which we can debate the other questions such as whether the cost of taking on the debt was worth the benefit we achieved by doing so, and whether we should continue to borrow, stand pat, or pay off existing debts.

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
When you speak of deficits and rising interest rates and a growth in the tax revenue remember one bitty part.. as the interest rates rise so does the debt service on the 6t accumulated deficits, the debt.. say a 2 pt. rise and remember lots of our debt is short term.. two pts on say only 2t is ~ 40billion$. Our increased revenue from this (other things being equal) stimuli that also increase the interest rates must exceed 40B. Some would say.. what about the tax on the interest income.. foreign held Tbills are of no consequence.. and if you calculate the increase on the entire debt it becomes nearly 100b.. a sizeable chunk of change to over come.. I'd think..

edit.. if we climb toward the 7t debt and the increase interest that causes.. and lets say the avg rate on all of the debt is up to 8 or 10 percent.. we may have some major problems... but, we are in a growing economy so ... I guess it's no problem..
 

CWRMadcat

Senior member
Jun 19, 2001
402
0
71
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The tax cuts have been a minor stimulus to the US economy in comparison to the continued record consumer debt being piled up by Americans. The record low interest rates were a product of Clinton/GOP Congress that restrained spending (somewhat) during the economic boom of the late 90s. Consumers in large part have used the largesse from refinancing and the low rates of credit cards/auto loans to go deeper into debt. Some this consumption has gone to reasonable infrastructure (buying larger homes) but much of it has gone into durable (albeit depreciating) goods.

It is ridiculous for Bushies to credit Bush tax cut policy with anything other than the bump in dividend paying stocks and the deficit growth secondary to decreased tax revenue. The American consumer continues to spend more because we are greedy and credit is ample. My extended family members just clue me in on the newest scam . . . people get Lasik (on the credit plan) then declare bankruptcy.

Not even a bump. Ending taxation on dividends doesnt do diddly for the average investor. 401k plans are tax free. Tax free dividends really only benefit people who own enough dividend yielding stock to get any sizeable return. Hence, the more affluent folks of society.
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,633
263
126
Originally posted by: glenn1
People talk about deficits as a percentage of GDP or GNP but this is a red herring, IMO.

Not really. The reason it's expressed as a percentage of GDP is so that the numbers can be put into context without needing to resort to constant dollar expressions and such. It works because it gives a rough idea of the ability of the tax base to service (and if required, retire entirely) the debt at that point in time.

Let me use an example to show my point. Joe currently has outstanding debts of $10,000. Joe's current income is $50,000/year net. Joe's debt is covered 5x by his cash flow, which depending on your POV, may be fine or not enough. Forward to next year. Joe's debt has doubled to $20,000, and his income has gone up slightly more than twice to $110,000. Is Joe better or worse off than he was last year?

Your analogy is also faulty because GDP is not equivalent to Gov't Income. The gov't can tax a percentage of the GDP to derive their sources of revenue but GDP does not equal income.
Your analogy would be Joe has a debt of 6.5 trillion dollars. Joe earned 1.946 trillion in revenues. He spent 2.052 trillion dollars for 2002. He notices that the company he is titular head of earned 10.4 trillion dollars (2002 GDP). He taxed about 2% of that to derive his income.
We would need to tax about 65% of GDP to retire his debt. That is your so-called debt to GDP ratio. Is that realistic?
GDP for 2002 - from the CIA!

Joe is not in medical school. He is working while going to college when he knows he is attending medical school in a few years (baby boomers retiring). He ran up debt and will incur more debt in the future. Both parties and the voters are to blame for this mess. Letting our children and their children shoulder the bill is a sad commentary on this country.

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Joe is not in medical school. He is working while going to college when he knows he is attending medical school in a few years (baby boomers retiring). He ran up debt and will incur more debt in the future. Both parties and the voters are to blame for this mess. Letting our children and their children shoulder the bill is a sad commentary on this country.

here here!
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Choices can be faced or avoided. The deficit fixation represents avoidance. Its presumption that higher taxes alone will "restore fiscal discipline" sidesteps the true problem -- altering the trajectory of spending. It's a delusion.
</snip>

Read the whole piece.

CkG

What a joke. Deficit is the avoidance. It avoids the politicians having to make the hard choice of cutting programs or raising taxes. If you allow spending to happen without linking it to higher taxes, then spending will go, and has gone, out of control. The higher taxes are a negative feedack on government spending, because it puts a price on each new spending bill and passes it to the consumer. Ask yourself, would you spend more if you had unlimited credit, or if you had to pay for everything out of pocket? It's simple logic, that eludes GOP presidents for some reason. The delusion is the idea that you can decouple spending from taxes, and hope that spending will eventually get inline with revenues. Borrowing money is much easier than cutting programs in short term, and the politicians only care about the next election. Unless you force the politicians to take a tax hike to the people every time they bring them a spending program, the politically expedient thing will be to borrow and spend.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Interesting analogies all.. I've got one, simplistic perhaps but related.
Joe has completed Med school and is a resident at the local hospital. In front of Joe are 3 victims of a recent auto accident. Poor Joe is all alone and must decide who gets his skills. Each are equally bad off and critical. One is a concert pianist with crushed hands. One is the mother of three kids and the last is the Senator from his home state... Limitied resources to provide and equally needy folks. Perplexed Joe starts to choose... lucky for Joe the choice is easy... The pianist has nothing to live for any more, the senator never did and the mother cares for the future..
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Your analogy is also faulty because GDP is not equivalent to Gov't Income. The gov't can tax a percentage of the GDP to derive their sources of revenue but GDP does not equal income.

You are correct. The GDP figure gives you the total base which COULD be taxed, not what actually DOES get taxed. Just stating the current budget deficit/surplus is somewhat worthless since it doesn't take into account the ability to increase the budget intake by raising taxes. Since the upper threshhold of taxes that could possibly be raised is total GDP, the GDP vs. debt figure is therefore extremely relevant.

Since government income is dependent on the rates in place at the time, government income is going to be the dependent variable. Expressing it in terms of debt vs. GDP allows you to apply an independent variable (GDP). Since both are expressed in current dollar terms, that means that the ratio stays relevant over time because you don't have to adjust it to constant dollars.

We would need to tax about 65% of GDP to retire his debt. That is your so-called debt to GDP ratio. Is that realistic?

Presuming your numbers are correct, which i have no reason to doubt, then you are correct in turn (apart from the fact that CEO's can't "tax" their companies revenues, but that's not really a big deal, your example still basically works). And it's not for me to say whether a 65% ratio is good, bad, or indifferent. It's the voters that decide that. I'm just saying it's a handy figure to be able to make year-over-year comparisons, since you don't need to adjust it for inflation, etc. You can compare the 65% figure this year to what it is next year and the year after that and sorta "keep score" that way. If the ratio goes up, then you know that government borrowing is increasing faster than the tax base which supports it. If it goes down, the opposite is true.

Again, as i said earlier, this ratio doesn't give a context beyond that. Only we as the collective voters and taxpayers can say what level of debt is appropriate. Forget about what level DOES get taxed now and focus on what SHOULD be taxed now. I agree that 65% of the GDP base being potentially taxed away to cover the debt is a scary prospect, even though i know about 20% of GDP is taxed away now. But i'd be even more scared if the figure started getting close to (or above) the 100% mark, because that would mean we could be in default at some point, or would have to print money to cover it with all the corresponding hyperinflation that would cause. But what level is appropriate? Should our total debt be no more than half our current potential income (GDP)? No more than a third? Should we even care? Those are the questions i'm trying to pose in this thread.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Choices can be faced or avoided. The deficit fixation represents avoidance. Its presumption that higher taxes alone will "restore fiscal discipline" sidesteps the true problem -- altering the trajectory of spending. It's a delusion.
</snip>

Read the whole piece.

CkG

What a joke. Deficit is the avoidance. It avoids the politicians having to make the hard choice of cutting programs or raising taxes. If you allow spending to happen without linking it to higher taxes, then spending will go, and has gone, out of control. The higher taxes are a negative feedack on government spending, because it puts a price on each new spending bill and passes it to the consumer. Ask yourself, would you spend more if you had unlimited credit, or if you had to pay for everything out of pocket? It's simple logic, that eludes GOP presidents for some reason. The delusion is the idea that you can decouple spending from taxes, and hope that spending will eventually get inline with revenues. Borrowing money is much easier than cutting programs in short term, and the politicians only care about the next election. Unless you force the politicians to take a tax hike to the people every time they bring them a spending program, the politically expedient thing will be to borrow and spend.

"eludes GOP presidents for some reason" <sigh> Partisan shills like you are so obsessed with assigning blame for this fiscal irresponsibility that it's going to take a fiscal crisis (as P. Klugman describes) before we as a people ever get serious about this. To anyone rational, it's clear both parties are to blame, but moreso, the general public is to blame. Budget deficits and federal debt have never been major issues, and voters routinely reward politicians who 'bring home the bacon'. If voters reward politicians for spending money and/or providing new services and benefits, and punish pols who attempt to cut spending/raise taxes, how do you expect this issue to be resolved in our lifetimes? Even now, with looming federal deficits as far as the eye can see, people are expecting more benefits from the government: prescription drug coverage, health care, child care subsidies, etc.. Time for a structural fix (Balanced Budget Amendment or something similar).
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
Originally posted by: CWRMadcat

Not even a bump. Ending taxation on dividends doesnt do diddly for the average investor. 401k plans are tax free. Tax free dividends really only benefit people who own enough dividend yielding stock to get any sizeable return. Hence, the more affluent folks of society.
Wrong.

1. Decreasing the tax consequences of dividends to non-outrageous amounts gives corporations an incentive to start offering them or increase them.
2. Distributing dividends gets money out of the coffers of non-growing companies and into the hands of investors or spenders who can put that money where it'll be more useful.
3. Distributing dividends avoids the accounting scandals we've had, as an earnings figure can be faked, but a dividend needs cash. If you're not actually making any money, you can't give a dividend. If dividends were actually feasible for companies to offer in the 90s, people would have realized that MCI's earnings must have been bogus because they weren't offering any dividend whatsoever. They weren't in a growing industry, so either they were hoarding the money or not making it in the first place. Either of the two indicates a company that shouldn't be invested in. Being able to better manage investments IS beneficial to 401(k) fund managers.
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool

What a joke. Deficit is the avoidance.
One person's deficit is another person's credit. Think about it for a second.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Choices can be faced or avoided. The deficit fixation represents avoidance. Its presumption that higher taxes alone will "restore fiscal discipline" sidesteps the true problem -- altering the trajectory of spending. It's a delusion.
</snip>

Read the whole piece.

CkG

What a joke. Deficit is the avoidance. It avoids the politicians having to make the hard choice of cutting programs or raising taxes. If you allow spending to happen without linking it to higher taxes, then spending will go, and has gone, out of control. The higher taxes are a negative feedack on government spending, because it puts a price on each new spending bill and passes it to the consumer. Ask yourself, would you spend more if you had unlimited credit, or if you had to pay for everything out of pocket? It's simple logic, that eludes GOP presidents for some reason. The delusion is the idea that you can decouple spending from taxes, and hope that spending will eventually get inline with revenues. Borrowing money is much easier than cutting programs in short term, and the politicians only care about the next election. Unless you force the politicians to take a tax hike to the people every time they bring them a spending program, the politically expedient thing will be to borrow and spend.

"eludes GOP presidents for some reason" <sigh> Partisan shills like you are so obsessed with assigning blame for this fiscal irresponsibility that it's going to take a fiscal crisis (as P. Klugman describes) before we as a people ever get serious about this. To anyone rational, it's clear both parties are to blame, but moreso, the general public is to blame. Budget deficits and federal debt have never been major issues, and voters routinely reward politicians who 'bring home the bacon'. If voters reward politicians for spending money and/or providing new services and benefits, and punish pols who attempt to cut spending/raise taxes, how do you expect this issue to be resolved in our lifetimes? Even now, with looming federal deficits as far as the eye can see, people are expecting more benefits from the government: prescription drug coverage, health care, child care subsidies, etc.. Time for a structural fix (Balanced Budget Amendment or something similar).

:beer::D:beer:

What I find the most interesting, as I've stated before, is that in the current nomination and recent political races is the type of questioning fielded by politicians seem to all be, "what are you going to do for ME" or add a group of people instead of the "ME". Where are the "whole country" questions or in local cases - the "area". Why aren't people asking what politicians are going to do to better things for us ALL? since they want to represent us "all".
And yes it goes both ways.

SuperTool - one could easily turn that "lack of logic" back around on the democrats, so you can knock off the partisan BS;)

CkG
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
What I find the most interesting, as I've stated before, is that in the current nomination and recent political races is the type of questioning fielded by politicians seem to all be, "what are you going to do for ME" or add a group of people instead of the "ME". Where are the "whole country" questions or in local cases - the "area". Why aren't people asking what politicians are going to do to better things for us ALL? since they want to represent us "all".
And yes it goes both ways.

SuperTool - one could easily turn that "lack of logic" back around on the democrats, so you can knock off the partisan BS;)

CkG

Exactly the problem; I think most voters have ceased thinking of themselves as U.S. citizens, and instead as members of this or that interest group. Seniors vote for Social Security benefits far in excess of what they paid into the system (not to mention Medicare, and whatever prescription drug benefit Congress ends up passing), minorities prefer candidates who support affirmative action (institutional racism, basically), etc., etc. Do you remember that guy at one of the 1992 Presidential Debates who said that citizens are like the gov't's children, and he wanted to know what each candidate was going to do for the 'kids'? Sad, just sad. People no longer think in terms of what's good for the country; rather, most only care what's good for me, or those just like me. There's probably a long post in this rant about declining morality and ethics, but I've neither the time nor the desire to write it.