The Debt Reduction "Supercommittee"

[cwjerome]

Karma's a b!tch.

It seems you missed the point.

 

[theeedude]

Think of it this way.

The Democrats want the budget balanced with cuts and tax increases.
With 16 trillion over 10 years needed, they should have at least 8 trillion worth of cuts.
If they have at least 8 trillion worth of cuts then finding 4 trillion worth of cuts for this deadline should be a cake walk.

We are talking about fixing 1/4 of the problem and the Democrats cannot even figure out how to resolve 1/4 of the problem without resorting to more taxes.

Despicable.

Are you forgetting the other 8 trillion and how Republicans haven't raised even 1/10th of that revenue?

 

[theeedude]

It seems you missed the point.

No, you missed it. Republicans were at the table for a serious deficit discussion. They walked away and turned it into a pissing match that resulted in a US credit downgrade and this super committee, which can now force them to choose between tax hikes and defense cuts. Karma's a b!tch.

 

[cwjerome]

No, you missed it. Republicans were at the table for a serious deficit discussion. They walked away and turned it into a pissing match that resulted in a US credit downgrade and this super committee, which can now force them to choose between tax hikes and defense cuts. Karma's a b!tch.

No, it's fuckups like you and Patranus playing grab-ass with each other, poking each other in the eye and continuously striving for payback and giggling like little girls whenever you think you're "hurting" the other side. The cycle goes on and on, back and forth it goes, there is no end. The bitch isn't Karma, it's the political puppets playing their violins while the ship sinks.

 

[theeedude]

No, it's fuckups like you and Patranus playing grab-ass with each other, poking each other in the eye and continuously striving for payback and giggling like little girls whenever you think you're "hurting" the other side. The cycle goes on and on, back and forth it goes, there is no end. The bitch isn't Karma, it's the political puppets playing their violins while the ship sinks.

That's a whole bunch of nothing.

 

[Jhhnn]

Here's why we have deficits-

It's not like America was being taxed to death in the Clinton era, or that the rich weren't getting richer, either. That was true even before Reagan, when taxes were much higher.

 

[Patranus]

Here's why we have deficits-

It's not like America was being taxed to death in the Clinton era, or that the rich weren't getting richer, either. That was true even before Reagan, when taxes were much higher.

Letting people keep THIER money doesn't cause deficits, spending causes deficits.
Expenditures in the 2009 budget was 3.1 trillion.
Expenditures in the 2011 budget was 3.9 trillion.

Seems like increasing spending by 800 billion per year has caused at least 50% the current deficit with 700 billion in lost revenue to the down economy.

But but but that graph shows the BOOOSH tax cuts accounting for 300 billion when 1.5 billion of the 1.6 trillion can be accounted for via increased spending and decreased revenue because cause of the economy. How can that be?!?!??!?!?!?

 

[blackangst1]

Here's why we have deficits-

It's not like America was being taxed to death in the Clinton era, or that the rich weren't getting richer, either. That was true even before Reagan, when taxes were much higher.

Funny how this doesnt include Obama's years...

You like graphs from the Economist?

How about a quote from the Economist?

To get to such a big figure two things must happen, one unwelcome to the Democrats, one hated by Republicans. First the Democrats would have to put entitlements, the legally mandated programmes of Social Security (pensions), Medicare (health care for the elderly) and Medicaid (health care for the poor), on the table. Pension reform might very well be possible; there is widespread agreement that the pensionable age needs to rise and that benefits will have to be means-tested. But the far bigger problem is health entitlements, and the Democrats, having only just conducted an enormous health-care reform in the teeth of Republican opposition, are deeply reluctant to do anything that might reopen that deal.

The other problem is taxes. No rational person believes that serious deficit reduction can be accomplished without any rise in tax revenues. The Republicans objection to tax rises is well known, but may not be absolute. The idea of raising tax rates is clearly going to remain anathema. But the tax code is such a morass of loopholes, breaks for the politically favoured and economic engineering on the part of bureaucrats, that comprehensive tax reform could allow for lower rates and yet increase tax receipts at the same time.

TLDR for you? BOTH sides need to cooperate, and neither side is. Your fucking heros are just as bad as the evil GOP. But dont mind that kool-aid you've been drinking.

You're as bad as those who soley rely on Fox for their opinions.

 

[Jhhnn]

Letting people keep THIER money doesn't cause deficits, spending causes deficits.
Expenditures in the 2009 budget was 3.1 trillion.
Expenditures in the 2011 budget was 3.9 trillion.

Seems like increasing spending by 800 billion per year has caused at least 50% the current deficit with 700 billion in lost revenue to the down economy.

But but but that graph shows the BOOOSH tax cuts accounting for 300 billion when 1.5 billion of the 1.6 trillion can be accounted for via increased spending and decreased revenue because cause of the economy. How can that be?!?!??!?!?!?

Back to sloganeering & obfuscating. Why am I not surprised?

Maybe we should just eliminate taxes entirely, establish a libertopian paradise, huh?

If we raised taxes to 1980 levels for the top 50% of earners, there wouldn't be any deficits, I suspect. I was a working adult at the time, and I don't recall anybody squealing about taxes the way that Righties do today, even when they're paying less. It's like they drank the anti-gubmint koolaid, but they still want their gubmint cheese- SS, Medicare, big military, big subsidies/ tax breaks for agribusiness, oil, and pharma, along with an even richer plutocracy to worship rather avidly.

Here's the 2011 budget with % increase & decrease over 2010 in each category. Figure it out.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

 

[Jhhnn]

Funny how this doesnt include Obama's years...

You like graphs from the Economist?

How about a quote from the Economist?



TLDR for you? BOTH sides need to cooperate, and neither side is. Your fucking heros are just as bad as the evil GOP. But dont mind that kool-aid you've been drinking.

You're as bad as those who soley rely on Fox for their opinions.

Your rant is inaccurate. Dems have agreed to spending cuts at every confrontation, while Repubs have yet to acquiesce to any tax increases at all, certainly not any from people who can afford it the most.

Not to mention Obama walked into the biggest economic recession/ depression since 1929, cause by the same repub policy of 80 years earlier....

 

[blackangst1]

Your rant is inaccurate. Dems have agreed to spending cuts at every confrontation, while Repubs have yet to acquiesce to any tax increases at all, certainly not any from people who can afford it the most.

Not to mention Obama walked into the biggest economic recession/ depression since 1929, cause by the same repub policy of 80 years earlier....

Do you use a cane or a guide dog?

 

[bradley]

The supercommitee is an extension of everything already making executive branch czars so unconstitional. Yet we have passively allowed this usurping of our elected official's conformational powers for decades. This alleged representative democracy is beyond the sham faze.

 

[theeedude]

Funny how this doesnt include Obama's years...

You like graphs from the Economist?

How about a quote from the Economist?



TLDR for you? BOTH sides need to cooperate, and neither side is. Your fucking heros are just as bad as the evil GOP. But dont mind that kool-aid you've been drinking.

You're as bad as those who soley rely on Fox for their opinions.

GOP walked away from just such a grand bargain. Democrats are open to entitlement reform, it's the GOP that balked on the tax revenue side.

 

[Jhhnn]

GOP walked away from just such a grand bargain. Democrats are open to entitlement reform, it's the GOP that balked on the tax revenue side.

Dems are apparently so desperate to raise revenues that they'll sell out to Repub demands that the truly wealthy pay no more-

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/u...eal-on-tax-increase.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

If this comes to pass, it should demonstrate who Repubs really represent, and what wimps Dems have become.

If Obama vetoes it, I say good for him. Tax increases have to start at the top, for the Rich, the have a helluva lots, not at the top of the middle class, the mere have something to hold on to's.

 

[Darwin333]

US debt to GDP ratios dropped sharply until the early 80's under Reagan. They increased under him, and then dipped again during the 90's. It's not 'a year or two', if you are counting the 'past 5 decades' then our debt to GDP ratio has been in decline for about half of that time.

A return to normal economic growth would do wonders to eliminating our deficit. Spending on social safety net programs like unemployment, food stamps, etc, etc have all increased hugely in the past few years, and they would return to more normal levels if employment stabilizes. Combining that with actual growth and you've got a good start on it. Furthermore, our actual drivers of debt going forward aren't programs that need to be cut, it is the rate of increase that needs to be slowed. (see: medicare) Mitigating or solving our unsustainable health care inflation would solve a huge portion of our future debt problems as well, without a single 'cut'.

Deficit to GDP rose during most of the 70's and a good portion of the 60's. We did have a better than average GDP rise during some of the times but by nature better than average can't be sustained.

Look, you are trying to argue politics with me and I am trying to argue math. The math is what it is regardless of who you which club you wish to blame and the math says that we can't continue on this path.

Math doesn't lie, politicians do.

Again, I challenge you to chart our deficit/GDP growth in excel. It is really simple, tell me what part of the curve we are on right now and what it looks like going forward. The answer is pretty damned vertical. That ain't good. Disagree?


And no, a return to normal GDP figures won't even begin to help us. We are WAY over normal GDP growth (3.4% a year or so) and I have yet to hear a single answer to our health care cost issue that doesn't hinge on hope and prayer that one side or the other is right. Taking profit out of health insurance doesn't work if you actually do the math, medicare for all doesn't work if you actually do the math, tort reform doesn't actually work if you actually do the math, etc..... To make matters worse we don't have the political will to change the status quo, anyone that tries to touch the big 3 (along with .mil is almost all of our budget) will be demonized regardless of how good or necessary the changes might be. To be fair, .mil should be thrown in and it should be called the big 4 but .mil cuts are a hellofa lot easier than cuts to medicare or Social Security. Remember the hell raising over not getting a COLA increase a year ago or so? Could you imagine actually cutting it?

Seems that everyone is real long on blame and real short on solutions, myself included, but I do understand math and above all else it is true.

We haven't even touched on the macro economic picture and why we won't see better than average GDP numbers without another bubble.

As I said, we be fucked. Hang on and enjoy the ride.

 

[Darwin333]

GOP walked away from just such a grand bargain. Democrats are open to entitlement reform, it's the GOP that balked on the tax revenue side.

Can neither of you have an actual honest discussion?

Neither side has a damned thing on the table of any significance.

The entitlement reform is a smokescreen that will do little to help and the revenue increase is a smokescreen that will do little to help. Combined they won't do a damned thing to help aside from political points. We are talking about the assholes who get to use the fuzziest accounting/math known to man and then pat themselves on the back for figuring out a way to make 2 + 2 = 5.

But hey, they give you guys something to argue about so they accomplished their mission.

 

[Darwin333]

The supercommitee is an extension of everything already making executive branch czars so unconstitional. Yet we have passively allowed this usurping of our elected official's conformational powers for decades. This alleged representative democracy is beyond the sham faze.

The people they represent really like their Medicare and their Social Security and their Medicaid and their .mil and their etc......

They really dislike taxes.

I agree that we have serious issues with our two party system but what exactly is the "sham" of it?

 

[Darwin333]

Back to sloganeering & obfuscating. Why am I not surprised?

Maybe we should just eliminate taxes entirely, establish a libertopian paradise, huh?

If we raised taxes to 1980 levels for the top 50% of earners, there wouldn't be any deficits, I suspect. I was a working adult at the time, and I don't recall anybody squealing about taxes the way that Righties do today, even when they're paying less. It's like they drank the anti-gubmint koolaid, but they still want their gubmint cheese- SS, Medicare, big military, big subsidies/ tax breaks for agribusiness, oil, and pharma, along with an even richer plutocracy to worship rather avidly.

Here's the 2011 budget with % increase & decrease over 2010 in each category. Figure it out.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

You suspect?

Its not that hard, take the percentage of GDP paid in taxes in 1980 and apply that to whatever year you wish to compare it to (as % of GDP).

How do you like that, you are no longer "suspecting" anything, you now "know".

Edit: Sorry, that sounded way more condescending then I intended it to, been a long night.

 

[fskimospy]

Deficit to GDP rose during most of the 70's and a good portion of the 60's. We did have a better than average GDP rise during some of the times but by nature better than average can't be sustained.

Look, you are trying to argue politics with me and I am trying to argue math. The math is what it is regardless of who you which club you wish to blame and the math says that we can't continue on this path.

Math doesn't lie, politicians do.

If you're trying to argue math, you are doing a poor job of it. Incidentally, it never ceases to amuse me how everyone who disagrees with someone on here is doing so due to politics.

I will repeat what I said to you before, our debt to GDP ratio declined for about half of this period. Here, have a chart:

I am arguing math, you are arguing wrong math. (oh, and while I know that chart leaves out GWB and Obama, it clearly shows that you were simply wrong about the 60's and 70's, the period in dispute)

Again, I challenge you to chart our deficit/GDP growth in excel. It is really simple, tell me what part of the curve we are on right now and what it looks like going forward. The answer is pretty damned vertical. That ain't good. Disagree?

Has little to do with current federal discretionary spending, and far more to do with health care inflation.

And no, a return to normal GDP figures won't even begin to help us. We are WAY over normal GDP growth (3.4% a year or so) and I have yet to hear a single answer to our health care cost issue that doesn't hinge on hope and prayer that one side or the other is right. Taking profit out of health insurance doesn't work if you actually do the math, medicare for all doesn't work if you actually do the math, tort reform doesn't actually work if you actually do the math, etc..... To make matters worse we don't have the political will to change the status quo, anyone that tries to touch the big 3 (along with .mil is almost all of our budget) will be demonized regardless of how good or necessary the changes might be. To be fair, .mil should be thrown in and it should be called the big 4 but .mil cuts are a hellofa lot easier than cuts to medicare or Social Security. Remember the hell raising over not getting a COLA increase a year ago or so? Could you imagine actually cutting it?

Seems that everyone is real long on blame and real short on solutions, myself included, but I do understand math and above all else it is true.

We haven't even touched on the macro economic picture and why we won't see better than average GDP numbers without another bubble.

As I said, we be fucked. Hang on and enjoy the ride.

I've always said that health care reform is our long term solution. I'm glad you agree. Our short term deficits, the type of which people are crying about, would most certainly be enormously helped by a return to normal employment.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

If you're trying to argue math, you are doing a poor job of it. Incidentally, it never ceases to amuse me how everyone who disagrees with someone on here is doing so due to politics.

I will repeat what I said to you before, our debt to GDP ratio declined for about half of this period. Here, have a chart:

I am arguing math, you are arguing wrong math. (oh, and while I know that chart leaves out GWB and Obama, it clearly shows that you were simply wrong about the 60's and 70's, the period in dispute)



Has little to do with current federal discretionary spending, and far more to do with health care inflation.




I've always said that health care reform is our long term solution. I'm glad you agree. Our short term deficits, the type of which people are crying about, would most certainly be enormously helped by a return to normal employment.

You keep trying to assume strong growth into existence. There is little reason to expect strong growth and unemployment is going to remain high for at least another 2-3 years. I agree with you on health care reform, but we need real reform not just a shifting of the costs from one party to another. Real healthcare reform either means rationing through single payer, or a capped subsidy in which people have to pay for the rest of their healthcare plans like the Ryan plan proposed.

IMO Americans aren't ready for either.

And by the way, if you included unfunded liabilities in your national debt chart it would look a bit different.

 

[QuantumPion]

Democrats: "Stop being so partisan. Everyone knows it's all the republicans' fault".

 

[zsdersw]

Democrats: "Stop being so partisan. Everyone knows it's all the republicans' fault".

Republicans: "Stop being so partisan. Everyone knows it's all the democrats' fault".

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Here's a couple interesting graphs that are a little more current.

 

[Acanthus]

You know that the Roman empire fell because it taxed its productive provinces into oblivion while wasting all the tax money on palaces and shit, right?

The Roman empire fell due to economic strife. A "worldwide" depression.

It also slowly suffocated itself as external forces chipped away land from its borders.

I have never heard of the Roman empire falling due to taxation, but even if it were true, it would have to be insanely high taxes in order to be able to suffocate an economy that had slaves at its disposal.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice cherry picked graphs, Doc Savage, particularly the ones showing debt as a % of GDP. Makes the Bush years look pretty good, if we forget that it was false prosperity, the result of the greatest credit bubble in history and two wars. Real estate transactions count towards GDP, and it would have flatlined in the Bush years if not for that & military spending.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/opinion/12krugman.html

The national debt actually doubled during the Bush years, 2001-2009, from ~$6T to ~$12T. A huge chunk of that came from the necessity of bailing out the perps of the Ownership Society, along with the automatic increases in social spending when it all fell down.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining, OK?