• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

United States Budget Dilemma, are we going to be like Greece?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
1
0
To where?

EU is even worse shape financially than the US.

Canada? Australia? Brazil? Heck, might as well go to Antarctica and be an iceman. Then the ice may melt away from earth warming. :(
I hear Israel is doing great financially.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,236
5
76
The Republican Party is morphing into an alternative Democrat Party because we as a nation have decided we want our government to take wealth from others and give it to us. Thus today's Democrat Party is economically the 1980s Socialist Party and today's Republican Party is economically the 1980s Democrat Party. Oddly, today's Republican Party is even more conservative on social issues though, at a time when fewer people are conservative on social issues.

Morph forward twenty years and it may not be so much a contest between two political ideologies as a contest to decide which of two candidates with nice hair you want to implement the policies of Karl Marx. But that's the beauty of democracy; you always get the leaders you deserve.
B.S. The Democratic Party, under Bill Clinton came the closest to a balanced budget in many years. This was achieved by cutting some spending, reforming welfare and raising taxes moderately on the rich. Republicans screamed that this would kill the economy and NONE of them voted for this. Of course it didn't kill the economy and we had the largest peacetime rally in history.
Republicans now will not give Obama any help and obstruct any attempt to raise revenue.
Democrats were willing to give $9 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases, but Republicans wouldn't agree.
Reasonable people agree that taxes must go up and spending must go down, but righties will not agree to one dollar of tax increases. Does this seem like a reasonable position?

Oh, and it's the Democratic Party, what is it with righties calling it the Democrat Party?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
B.S. The Democratic Party, under Bill Clinton came the closest to a balanced budget in many years. This was achieved by cutting some spending, reforming welfare and raising taxes moderately on the rich. Republicans screamed that this would kill the economy and NONE of them voted for this. Of course it didn't kill the economy and we had the largest peacetime rally in history.
Republicans now will not give Obama any help and obstruct any attempt to raise revenue.
Democrats were willing to give $9 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases, but Republicans wouldn't agree.
Reasonable people agree that taxes must go up and spending must go down, but righties will not agree to one dollar of tax increases. Does this seem like a reasonable position?

Oh, and it's the Democratic Party, what is it with righties calling it the Democrat Party?
NONE of Clinton's budgets were balanced. He made no attempt to balance the budget before '94, and his budgets were DOA in Congress after '94, just like Bush's after 2006. For that matter, just like Obama's now - in our post-budget world.

I'm all for compromise, but let's use the same methodology. If the Democrat Party wants to take last year's number adjusted inflation and increased demand - baseline budgeting, the standard in Congress - let's do the same for tax increases. We'll give you your draconian cuts that only spend 5% more instead of the 15% more "everyone" knows we need, you give us our draconian tax increases where we pay 5% less instead of the 15% less "everyone" knows we need. When Congress has demonstrated that it can spend fewer dollars each year, I'll certainly support tax increases on all Americans and even higher increases on the highest earners. Until then, I see no reason to send an extra dollar to D.C. knowing for every new dollar they'll spend three.

And we call it the Democrat Party because that's what it is, the party of Democrats. Very little democratic about it - although granted, Obama has been a welcome relief in some ways. At least he passed Obamacare legislatively rather than the Democrat Party's favored means of bureaucratic and judicial maneuvering.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,658
13,740
136
NONE of Clinton's budgets were balanced. He made no attempt to balance the budget before '94, and his budgets were DOA in Congress after '94, just like Bush's after 2006. For that matter, just like Obama's now - in our post-budget world.
Hogwash.

In his first address to the nation on February 15, 1993, Clinton announced his intention to raise taxes to cap the budget deficit.[12] On February 17, 1993, in a nationally televised address to a joint session of Congress, Clinton unveiled his economic plan. The plan focused on deficit reduction rather than a middle class tax cut, which had been high on his campaign agenda.[13] (Clinton was pressured by his advisers, including Robert Rubin formerly of Goldman Sachs, to raise taxes on the theory that a smaller federal budget deficit would reduce bond interest rates.[14])
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton

I'm all for compromise, but let's use the same methodology. If the Democrat Party wants to take last year's number adjusted inflation and increased demand - baseline budgeting, the standard in Congress - let's do the same for tax increases. We'll give you your draconian cuts that only spend 5% more instead of the 15% more "everyone" knows we need, you give us our draconian tax increases where we pay 5% less instead of the 15% less "everyone" knows we need. When Congress has demonstrated that it can spend fewer dollars each year, I'll certainly support tax increases on all Americans and even higher increases on the highest earners. Until then, I see no reason to send an extra dollar to D.C. knowing for every new dollar they'll spend three.
Yes, let's talk about taxes as if govt revenues as a % of GDP weren't already at their lowest ebb since 1950. And let's cast aspersions wrt Congressional spending, use that as an excuse to not restore revenues to historical levels. By all means, let's cut spending in a depression to force layoffs to vanquish unemployment while we're at it, too.

And we call it the Democrat Party because that's what it is, the party of Democrats. Very little democratic about it - although granted, Obama has been a welcome relief in some ways. At least he passed Obamacare legislatively rather than the Democrat Party's favored means of bureaucratic and judicial maneuvering.
As if Repubs weren't praising the unitary executive & exploiting it mercilessly during the Bush years. As if Bush era financial regulators didn't act as cheerleaders for the lootocracy rather than watchdogs. As if Citizens United weren't the act of an activist & highly partisan court. Corporate personhood wasn't even at issue in the case as brought before them. As if the mistreatment of enemy combatants & the prison at Guantanamo weren't the result of GWB's extra-judicial assertions of power.

Sheesh.
 
Last edited:

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,324
126
Yeah, maybe Obama will get lucky and there will be another tech bubble to ride to "prosperity"... :rolleyes:
They have been trying to inflate another credit bubble but the private sector hasn't been or isn't able to bite so the government spending is the bubble now.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,324
126
Yes, let's talk about taxes as if govt revenues as a % of GDP weren't already at their lowest ebb since 1950. And let's cast aspersions wrt Congressional spending, use that as an excuse to not restore revenues to historical levels. By all means, let's cut spending in a depression to force layoffs to vanquish unemployment while we're at it, too.
Actually, in 2007 before the crash total government revenue was at almost its highest point, with only a single year being higher by .2% of GDP, since 1985. I know I know, you are going to call bullshit on this and frankly I would to but notice the wording. "Total government revenue", your side always loves to throw in all the other taxes people pay and I bet money it was probably brought up in this very thread, but the fact is that states and local governments have been drastically raising taxes/revenue for quite a while now until the bottom fell out. In 2007 total .gov revenue was over a third of the United States GDP at 37%. Sure Federal revenue was lower than historical norms but total .gov revenue was almost at a historic high. That is why it would be impossible to return to things like 70% tax rates on the rich as some propose, when that was in effect the state and local .govs barely made a dent on the revenue chart.

So how much total revenue, as a percentage of GDP, do you think is to much? 50% of the nations GDP? 75%? I don't know the answer but I do know that the .gov is and has been taking and spending more and more. In 1910 total .gov revenue was 6-7ish% of GDP, in 1940 it was 20%, 1950 was 25%, hit 30% in 1970 and steadily creaped up until the tech bubble, rebounded to 37% and then dropped again after the housing bubble and is currently rebounding back to its previous spot and I would wager upward movement again.

As if Repubs weren't praising the unitary executive & exploiting it mercilessly during the Bush years. As if Bush era financial regulators didn't act as cheerleaders for the lootocracy rather than watchdogs. As if Citizens United weren't the act of an activist & highly partisan court. Corporate personhood wasn't even at issue in the case as brought before them. As if the mistreatment of enemy combatants & the prison at Guantanamo weren't the result of GWB's extra-judicial assertions of power.

Sheesh.
I am with ya bud, the repubs suck pretty bad too. I just don't get the warm and fuzzies about your side either because they do to much of the same shit. Not a single bankster in jail as of this day despite having sworn testimony of fraud in front of fucking Congress ffs! To this day the banksters are above the law and they know it and we are talking existing laws so you can't blame it on Congress.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
They have been trying to inflate another credit bubble but the private sector hasn't been or isn't able to bite so the government spending is the bubble now.
It was being blown bigger under the stimulus. When the money tap is turned off, spending for non-federal government should get back in line with tax revenues. The Feds can not keep padding those jobs until the tax revenues rise to support them. And it should not, nor have tried in the beginning. All it does is generate false hopes and increase the pain.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,658
13,740
136
Analysis: Candidates' Deficit Plans Don't Add Up = http://www.cnbc.com/id/49223270

Both sides would not dare to do what it needs to be done.

In other words, Obama's proposals are actually a move in the right direction, even if the effects are debatable as to the numbers. They are also politically possible.

That can't be said for Romney's proposals, at all, so comparisons are just more of the usual false equivalency from the Right.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,294
1
76
Your post reminded me of this story I read this morning:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/medicare-working-to-boost-obama-in-swing-states-poll-finds/2012/09/27/b8a53a0e-0822-11e2-858a-5311df86ab04_story.html?hpid=z1

I especially love the last lines:

Basically, no one cares about fiscal issues until it's far too late.
Medicare cuts aren't necessary for deficit reduction.

What is necessary is reducing healthcare costs to a % of gdp that is in line with other 1st world countries.

That will reduce Medicare and Medicaid deficits, as well as the cost of healthcare for everyone.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,833
1
0
Analysis: Candidates' Deficit Plans Don't Add Up = http://www.cnbc.com/id/49223270

Both sides would not dare to do what it needs to be done.
What the fuck don't you understand about eliminating the deficit by cutting spending cratering the economy? I am so sick of people with no understanding of macroeconomics putting on airs with this facade of "I'm smart because I drink the Ron Paul Kool Aid". Get it through your skull that laying off millions of people would destroy this economy and everyone's standard of living.

The way to actually eliminate the deficit is to grow GDP.
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
Medicare cuts aren't necessary for deficit reduction.

What is necessary is reducing healthcare costs to a % of gdp that is in line with other 1st world countries.

That will reduce Medicare and Medicaid deficits, as well as the cost of healthcare for everyone.
There is no free lunch. I agree that we should do something to reduce healthcare costs as % of GDP, but don't kid yourself into thinking that there is no trade off in the quantity and quality of healthcare supplied. I'm not saying the trade offs aren't worth making, but it's dishonest not acknowledge them.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,658
13,740
136
Actually, in 2007 before the crash total government revenue was at almost its highest point, with only a single year being higher by .2% of GDP, since 1985. I know I know, you are going to call bullshit on this and frankly I would to but notice the wording. "Total government revenue", your side always loves to throw in all the other taxes people pay and I bet money it was probably brought up in this very thread, but the fact is that states and local governments have been drastically raising taxes/revenue for quite a while now until the bottom fell out. In 2007 total .gov revenue was over a third of the United States GDP at 37%. Sure Federal revenue was lower than historical norms but total .gov revenue was almost at a historic high. That is why it would be impossible to return to things like 70% tax rates on the rich as some propose, when that was in effect the state and local .govs barely made a dent on the revenue chart.

So how much total revenue, as a percentage of GDP, do you think is to much? 50% of the nations GDP? 75%? I don't know the answer but I do know that the .gov is and has been taking and spending more and more. In 1910 total .gov revenue was 6-7ish% of GDP, in 1940 it was 20%, 1950 was 25%, hit 30% in 1970 and steadily creaped up until the tech bubble, rebounded to 37% and then dropped again after the housing bubble and is currently rebounding back to its previous spot and I would wager upward movement again.
You ignore other changes in the economy necessitating greater govt involvement to preserve & protect the interests of the vast majority of Americans who are the middle and working class. Income share of the top 1% and of the top .1% peaked in 2007 at nearly 23% & 12% respectively, while wages as a % of GDP have continued to decline. Those disparities are at the their greatest level since the 1920's.

When the private sector, the so-called "Job Creators" fail to deliver on their promises of shared prosperity, then govt intervention becomes a necessity. Nobody want to grow the govt for the sake of growing the govt, but rather in response to that failure to deliver. When & if the financial elite relents wrt their own greed & tendency to hoard then govt involvement will diminish as well.

I am with ya bud, the repubs suck pretty bad too. I just don't get the warm and fuzzies about your side either because they do to much of the same shit. Not a single bankster in jail as of this day despite having sworn testimony of fraud in front of fucking Congress ffs! To this day the banksters are above the law and they know it and we are talking existing laws so you can't blame it on Congress.
I pointed out the falsity in werepossum's remarks, and you merely try to transform his arguments into false equivalency. I am also disappointed in the lack of prosecutions, but I'm more disappointed in the ongoing obstructionism wrt reforms that may prevent future occurrences, just as I was disappointed in the Bush Admin's blatant enabling & cheerleading for the greatest financial flimflam in the history of banking.

Prosecutions in the wake of the S&L scandal were possible in the context of an otherwise relatively healthy financial sector. Virtuous players were enabled in that process. I doubt that any of the players in the "Ownership Society" ripoff were virtuous at all, and we can't really afford to destroy our own financial sector in the pursuit of justice. Which is not to say that I like that one bit.

We need to concentrate on the present & the future rather than the recriminations of the past, and it's quite obvious that the Party of the Rich, for the Rich, and by the Rich opposes that entirely. After ripping off both investors & homebuyers, cashing in, getting liquid, shorting the shit out of the decline, they now attempt to enhance their position even more by invoking hard money & deflation.

Only fools are buying it, and there are apparently a lot of them.
 

AyashiKaibutsu

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2004
9,307
3
81
There is no free lunch. I agree that we should do something to reduce healthcare costs as % of GDP, but don't kid yourself into thinking that there is no trade off in the quantity and quality of healthcare supplied. I'm not saying the trade offs aren't worth making, but it's dishonest not acknowledge them.
Don't act like for the majority of Americans the quality of healthcare they receive is on par with the rest of the first world. A small percent receive great healthcare, and another group on par or sub-par and another group nothing at all. Any changes should try to preserve the good, but simply ignoring the growing suffering when it far outweighs the good in this country isn't a forgivable choice anymore. It's dishonest to not acknowledge the last two categories.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,324
126
Medicare cuts aren't necessary for deficit reduction.

What is necessary is reducing healthcare costs to a % of gdp that is in line with other 1st world countries.

That will reduce Medicare and Medicaid deficits, as well as the cost of healthcare for everyone.
Medicare/medicaid has raised in cost approx. 9% a year for the last few decades. If nothing is done it will cost almost $2 trillion a year in just 10 years from now.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,294
1
76
There is no free lunch. I agree that we should do something to reduce healthcare costs as % of GDP, but don't kid yourself into thinking that there is no trade off in the quantity and quality of healthcare supplied. I'm not saying the trade offs aren't worth making, but it's dishonest not acknowledge them.
Most statistical evidence I've seen seems to show better healthcare for more people in the countries that are spending less than us as a % of gdp.

As Americans, we like to think we have the best solutions, capitalism, free markets, freedom of choice, competition. And for the most part maybe those are the best principles.

But we do don't really even have those things in healthcare. What we have are big monopolies and an almost complete disconnect between the consumer/patient, and choices about what amount of healthcare to consume and who to purchase it from.

So we don't really have a proper capitalist system, and we are afraid to consider government-run healthcare becasue we are told government is bad.

So we're kind of stuck.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,324
126
What the fuck don't you understand about eliminating the deficit by cutting spending cratering the economy? I am so sick of people with no understanding of macroeconomics putting on airs with this facade of "I'm smart because I drink the Ron Paul Kool Aid". Get it through your skull that laying off millions of people would destroy this economy and everyone's standard of living.

The way to actually eliminate the deficit is to grow GDP.
We have been steadily increasing our debt faster than we have been increasing our GDP, that is why we are in this mess. Ever heard of the law of exponents? Yeah, we have made it to the "damn near straight up" part of the curve already. We simply can not grow our way out of this mess, it just isn't reasonably possible.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,233
472
126
Not sure if anyone posted this or not but this is a good clip showing how much politicians from both sides lying to the teeth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW5IdwltaAc



Interesting question from the clip, "the question is when, but not if, the US will collapse?".

How are we going to solve this huge problem without touching the big fat elephants of SS, Medicare/aid, and other mandatory spending programs? I think what the author said at the end of the clip is right, we all have to face the pains (cuts across the board - yes, even to the entitlement programs, and raise taxes) to fix this huge problem.

You won't see the US collapse suddenly, what you will see and are seeing now are municipalities collapsing and states running out of money for basic services first.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,560
1,157
126
What the fuck don't you understand about eliminating the deficit by cutting spending cratering the economy? I am so sick of people with no understanding of macroeconomics putting on airs with this facade of "I'm smart because I drink the Ron Paul Kool Aid". Get it through your skull that laying off millions of people would destroy this economy and everyone's standard of living.

The way to actually eliminate the deficit is to grow GDP.
Earth to you, I did NOT write that article. Get it? Got it? Good.

Send your rage to CNBC. Oh, one more thing, would you kindly post a post or two from me that I "drink the Ron Paul Kool Aid" and such? Put up or shut up.
 
Last edited:

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
10,886
201
106
To where?

EU is even worse shape financially than the US.

Canada? Australia? Brazil? Heck, might as well go to Antarctica and be an iceman. Then the ice may melt away from earth warming. :(
Australia is actually doing pretty good financially. Though if the west collapses, they'll take a big hit with tourism.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
What makes you think we are not like Greece right now, but just dont know it yet? What happens to SS % medicare if China says you can no longer borrow money? half of the country has 1 or more members of the family tha lost their job or took a job making less money and we are told SS and Medicare is too sacred to cut? Shouldnt we share the burden?

I think the congress is trying to live in some kind of land of fairy tales. It is time to get real and plan for a leaner future.
 
Last edited:

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
Actually we could reduce the curve and the borrowing if we just imported less stuff from overseas. Everything does not have to be made in China. We need to promote making more goods locally and heavily tax imports.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
What the fuck don't you understand about eliminating the deficit by cutting spending cratering the economy? I am so sick of people with no understanding of macroeconomics putting on airs with this facade of "I'm smart because I drink the Ron Paul Kool Aid". Get it through your skull that laying off millions of people would destroy this economy and everyone's standard of living.

The way to actually eliminate the deficit is to grow GDP.
Both sides believe this. The Republicans want to take less money to spur more spending because they believe that the people who earn money know best how to spend it. The Democrats want to take more money and hand it out to different people (along with a couple trillion in extra borrowed cash) because they believe that the federal government adds the magic smoke. Both sides are overlooking the unfortunate facts that roughly half of all goods are imported, so much of the money spent immediately leaves our economy, and that the mere fact of having more money to invest doesn't change the underlying factors mitigating against investing that money in America.

You ignore other changes in the economy necessitating greater govt involvement to preserve & protect the interests of the vast majority of Americans who are the middle and working class. Income share of the top 1% and of the top .1% peaked in 2007 at nearly 23% & 12% respectively, while wages as a % of GDP have continued to decline. Those disparities are at the their greatest level since the 1920's.

When the private sector, the so-called "Job Creators" fail to deliver on their promises of shared prosperity, then govt intervention becomes a necessity. Nobody want to grow the govt for the sake of growing the govt, but rather in response to that failure to deliver. When & if the financial elite relents wrt their own greed & tendency to hoard then govt involvement will diminish as well.

I pointed out the falsity in werepossum's remarks, and you merely try to transform his arguments into false equivalency. I am also disappointed in the lack of prosecutions, but I'm more disappointed in the ongoing obstructionism wrt reforms that may prevent future occurrences, just as I was disappointed in the Bush Admin's blatant enabling & cheerleading for the greatest financial flimflam in the history of banking.

Prosecutions in the wake of the S&L scandal were possible in the context of an otherwise relatively healthy financial sector. Virtuous players were enabled in that process. I doubt that any of the players in the "Ownership Society" ripoff were virtuous at all, and we can't really afford to destroy our own financial sector in the pursuit of justice. Which is not to say that I like that one bit.

We need to concentrate on the present & the future rather than the recriminations of the past, and it's quite obvious that the Party of the Rich, for the Rich, and by the Rich opposes that entirely. After ripping off both investors & homebuyers, cashing in, getting liquid, shorting the shit out of the decline, they now attempt to enhance their position even more by invoking hard money & deflation.

Only fools are buying it, and there are apparently a lot of them.
You pointed out no fallacies; you linked to a politician's statement. By that standard we've already solved the deficit AND the debt a hundredfold. Gettum clue; politicians' statements are political cover and have no real world relevancy. Look at Clinton's budgets prior to the Pubbies taking over; deficits continued to rise after the first dip (retroactive tax increase works pretty well - ONCE) and then, long after Clinton would be out of office, a miracle was presumed to occur due to his tax increases and the budget would miraculously balance. That's a tactic used by EVERY President, let me do what I want for eight years and I promise that after I'm out out of office things will be fixed. It is so much fart noise, no matter the party.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
10,886
201
106
Actually, in 2007 before the crash total government revenue was at almost its highest point, with only a single year being higher by .2% of GDP, since 1985. I know I know, you are going to call bullshit on this and frankly I would to but notice the wording. "Total government revenue", your side always loves to throw in all the other taxes people pay and I bet money it was probably brought up in this very thread, but the fact is that states and local governments have been drastically raising taxes/revenue for quite a while now until the bottom fell out. In 2007 total .gov revenue was over a third of the United States GDP at 37%. Sure Federal revenue was lower than historical norms but total .gov revenue was almost at a historic high. That is why it would be impossible to return to things like 70% tax rates on the rich as some propose, when that was in effect the state and local .govs barely made a dent on the revenue chart.

So how much total revenue, as a percentage of GDP, do you think is to much? 50% of the nations GDP? 75%? I don't know the answer but I do know that the .gov is and has been taking and spending more and more. In 1910 total .gov revenue was 6-7ish% of GDP, in 1940 it was 20%, 1950 was 25%, hit 30% in 1970 and steadily creaped up until the tech bubble, rebounded to 37% and then dropped again after the housing bubble and is currently rebounding back to its previous spot and I would wager upward movement again.



I am with ya bud, the repubs suck pretty bad too. I just don't get the warm and fuzzies about your side either because they do to much of the same shit. Not a single bankster in jail as of this day despite having sworn testimony of fraud in front of fucking Congress ffs! To this day the banksters are above the law and they know it and we are talking existing laws so you can't blame it on Congress.
Using .gov should be only for the federal government. The states use xx.us. While I understood it in this context, it can be confusing down the line.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY