United States of Entropy - Page 42 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-07-2013, 09:27 PM   #616
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 11:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbcrusader View Post

If anything, one of the best parts of my participation on Interference is that you've gotten me to think at a deeper level on a wide variety of topics.
I echo this sentiment. FYM drives me nuts, but it always challenges my thinking.
__________________

__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 10-07-2013, 09:28 PM   #617
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbcrusader View Post
Fair enough. If anything, one of the best parts of my participation on Interference is that you've gotten me to think at a deeper level on a wide variety of topics. While I'd prefer to debate in person, limited and brief trips to the East Coast would prevent such opportunities. Till then, I look forward to exchanges here.

And I appreciate when, as you just did with anitram and taxes, you push further into a topic and construct an interesting point of view.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-07-2013, 09:30 PM   #618
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
I echo this sentiment. FYM drives me nuts, but it always challenges my thinking.

And I'd add, for me, it forces me to really think about things. One might only have 5 minutes to construct an argument, but at least the wheels are turning and you've forced yourself to learn something if only to defend a point.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-07-2013, 09:54 PM   #619
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Once again I'll ask this question; would you defend it as democracy were this debt ceiling being hijacked to end a war started by a Republican, push gun control agendas, or reverse abortion laws put into place?
Yes. I'd admonish the GOP for getting suckered into a budget battle over unrelated issues.

Can we really be surprised by the continued battle over the ACA? It is essentially the antithesis of bipartisanship. And like so many other laws, whether through executive, legislative or judicial action, change will always be sought.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-08-2013, 01:08 AM   #620
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbcrusader View Post
The statement “it’s a revenue problem” is simplistic and misleading.
Sorry for the length. I'm an Independent but I used to describe myself as fiscally conservative. But all I ever really meant by that was I believe in a balanced budget. Dealing w/economics we can't take numbers in a vacuum but we can take numbers and look at a reasonable approach to governance.

What we know is that the focus on "increasing incomes" and effective 'growth by tax cut' will bring in about 18% of GDP (Federal revenues) maximum. Since FY1983 and the Reagan tax cuts, we hit 18% a whole three times with a GOP President. That's 17 years of Reagan, HWBush and WBush, 14 of which were below 18%. But that is the proven 'ceiling' here for supply-side and naturally the number GOP politicians always use - '18%'.

While EVERY year from 1995-2001 brought above 18%. Only hitting 20% once in 2000. You have to go back to 1952 to find it hitting 20% again. And during those balanced budgets (surplus), it was 19%. This argument is relative to tax cuts paying for themselves and there were no tax cuts in the 90's, so while the GOP ran congress under Clinton, that is irrelevant to the point.

We simply cannot HOPE to balance the budget at 18%. And probably not even at 19%. 20% might be what is needed. But 18% is objectively too low. Heading further into the 21st century, everyone is living longer, entitlements are not going to disappear because everyone wants them. Republicans want them because they NEVER have and NEVER will cut them. The one MILD adjustment in the 90's was to welfare. But when it's all GOP (see: 8 years of Dubya, they do nothing). Why? Because they want to stay in office too. And a group of fringe "Tea Party" folk that don't understand what they're railing against (in certain situations) aren't going to change any of that.

It's simply not enough revenue to fund the government EVERYBODY wants. And not only the government everybody wants, the government that (relatively speaking) is not going away. Those federal pensions are pesky but they aren't evaporating any time soon. And the defense budget has been trimmed about as far as it will be trimmed.

It might be too simplistic to say that it's a revenue problem, because that might imply spending isn't its own issue. But it is MUCH more of a revenue problem than a spending problem. That is virtually inarguable. The math is the math. Regardless of how GOP politicians sell this farce to the public.

The last time we had a balanced budget we had spending reforms + higher taxes and a BOOMING economy. Right now we're at about 16% which is way way too low. It hasn't been that low since 1976. But 2010 dipped below 15% and we're projected to be back at 18% by 2015. So we're going in the right direction. After all 18% is the vaunted GOP number. Federal spending is currently too high at 22% of GDP. Here are some other years where fed spending was 22% of GDP - 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1991.

And everyone can remember all those conservatives talking about the Bush admin spending too much, to show how balanced they were and that is wasn't about pure politics? Well, spending never topped 20% under W. It was Saint Reagan and Daddy that spent like a madman. Of course, they also had a Democratic-controlled congress. But once again, once in control of both houses, they didn't cut anything in the way of so-called entitlements. All that is - is a political tactic. To scare people into voting against Democrats.

But yes, 22% is high but austerity shrinks growth. And the one thing economists genuinely all do agree with is - we need growth. Growth alone will shrink spending relative to GDP.

And even the one BIG argument the GOP used to make about job creation (all essentially in a two-year window under Reagan) fell apart when W Bush put up a goose egg in 8 years. Effectively no jobs created.

Republican economics via Supply Side has thoroughly failed. This isn't an endorsement of the alternative but only to say, it's clearly a better option. And as long as that is the case and as long as someone like Bill Clinton is alive that can make this "math" argument much better than I can, (although maybe just as long winded!) the Reps will not take back the WH.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 10-08-2013, 03:38 PM   #621
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
Sorry for the length. I'm an Independent but I used to describe myself as fiscally conservative. But all I ever really meant by that was I believe in a balanced budget. Dealing w/economics we can't take numbers in a vacuum but we can take numbers and look at a reasonable approach to governance.

What we know is that the focus on "increasing incomes" and effective 'growth by tax cut' will bring in about 18% of GDP (Federal revenues) maximum. Since FY1983 and the Reagan tax cuts, we hit 18% a whole three times with a GOP President. That's 17 years of Reagan, HWBush and WBush, 14 of which were below 18%. But that is the proven 'ceiling' here for supply-side and naturally the number GOP politicians always use - '18%'.

While EVERY year from 1995-2001 brought above 18%. Only hitting 20% once in 2000. You have to go back to 1952 to find it hitting 20% again. And during those balanced budgets (surplus), it was 19%. This argument is relative to tax cuts paying for themselves and there were no tax cuts in the 90's, so while the GOP ran congress under Clinton, that is irrelevant to the point.

We simply cannot HOPE to balance the budget at 18%. And probably not even at 19%. 20% might be what is needed. But 18% is objectively too low. Heading further into the 21st century, everyone is living longer, entitlements are not going to disappear because everyone wants them. Republicans want them because they NEVER have and NEVER will cut them. The one MILD adjustment in the 90's was to welfare. But when it's all GOP (see: 8 years of Dubya, they do nothing). Why? Because they want to stay in office too. And a group of fringe "Tea Party" folk that don't understand what they're railing against (in certain situations) aren't going to change any of that.

It's simply not enough revenue to fund the government EVERYBODY wants. And not only the government everybody wants, the government that (relatively speaking) is not going away. Those federal pensions are pesky but they aren't evaporating any time soon. And the defense budget has been trimmed about as far as it will be trimmed.

It might be too simplistic to say that it's a revenue problem, because that might imply spending isn't its own issue. But it is MUCH more of a revenue problem than a spending problem. That is virtually inarguable. The math is the math. Regardless of how GOP politicians sell this farce to the public.

The last time we had a balanced budget we had spending reforms + higher taxes and a BOOMING economy. Right now we're at about 16% which is way way too low. It hasn't been that low since 1976. But 2010 dipped below 15% and we're projected to be back at 18% by 2015. So we're going in the right direction. After all 18% is the vaunted GOP number. Federal spending is currently too high at 22% of GDP. Here are some other years where fed spending was 22% of GDP - 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1991.

And everyone can remember all those conservatives talking about the Bush admin spending too much, to show how balanced they were and that is wasn't about pure politics? Well, spending never topped 20% under W. It was Saint Reagan and Daddy that spent like a madman. Of course, they also had a Democratic-controlled congress. But once again, once in control of both houses, they didn't cut anything in the way of so-called entitlements. All that is - is a political tactic. To scare people into voting against Democrats.

But yes, 22% is high but austerity shrinks growth. And the one thing economists genuinely all do agree with is - we need growth. Growth alone will shrink spending relative to GDP.

And even the one BIG argument the GOP used to make about job creation (all essentially in a two-year window under Reagan) fell apart when W Bush put up a goose egg in 8 years. Effectively no jobs created.

Republican economics via Supply Side has thoroughly failed. This isn't an endorsement of the alternative but only to say, it's clearly a better option. And as long as that is the case and as long as someone like Bill Clinton is alive that can make this "math" argument much better than I can, (although maybe just as long winded!) the Reps will not take back the WH.
Interesting post. If this is true - then what in the heck is Obama doing?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-08-2013, 04:31 PM   #622
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 07:54 PM
I agree that Obama should be willing to compromise here too.

I wonder if both sides are ready for any kind of lawsuits:

Quote:
This is the exact situation that CDC and other about-to-be-furloughed federal personnel warned about last week. As a reminder, a CDC staffer told me at the time:
I know that we will not be conducting multi-state outbreak investigations. States may continue to find outbreaks, but we won’t be doing the cross-state consultation and laboratory work to link outbreaks that might cross state borders.
That means that the lab work and molecular detection that can link far-apart cases and define the size and seriousness of outbreaks are not happening. At the CDC, which operates the national foodborne-detection services FoodNet and PulseNet, scientists couldn’t work on this if they wanted to; they have been locked out of their offices, lab and emails. (At a conference I attended last week, 10 percent of the speakers did not show up because they were CDC personnel and risked being fired if they traveled even voluntarily.)
There's a Major Foodborne Illness Outbreak and the Government's Shut Down - Wired Science
__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 10-08-2013, 04:33 PM   #623
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
I agree that Obama should be willing to compromise here too.


what should he compromise on?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-08-2013, 04:33 PM   #624
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,277
Local Time: 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
I agree that Obama should be willing to compromise here too.
Where?
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 10-08-2013, 04:56 PM   #625
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 07:54 PM
I don't know. I'm just babbling now, sorry. I'm just pissed with what's going on and I want it to end. I'm not too optimistic that the GOP will not allow the default to happen. They may prevent that, and have good reasons to, but I'm not too hopeful.
__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 10-08-2013, 05:10 PM   #626
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
what should he compromise on?
I think he can stop being the president of the 1 percent and actually start working for the rest of us:

95% Of Income Gains Since 2009 Went To The Top 1%
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-08-2013, 05:17 PM   #627
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,277
Local Time: 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I think he can stop being the president of the 1 percent and actually start working for the rest of us:

95% Of Income Gains Since 2009 Went To The Top 1%
AEON, I find this as repulsive as you do, but what do you suggest the President does?

He doesn't control private sector salaries.

So what do you suggest? Raising taxes on the 1% to increase revenue? Increase regulations on corporations, thereby reducing corporate profits?
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 10-08-2013, 05:58 PM   #628
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Interesting post. If this is true - then what in the heck is Obama doing?
You can double check any of those numbers. They are all accurate and I believe they are presented in a fair context.

Obama is doing about all he can. But especially given the nature of the House opposition. I know that's not a sufficient answer for people that are predisposed to believing he's not doing something he should.

I think the Obama plan is to let growth slowly build. Because cutting too much shrinks growth. Proven by recent austerity elsewhere in the world. But each time it starts looking better, something like a government shutdown happens and causes the market to panic and it fucks everything up.

Debt to GDP ratio is the most damning statistic against Obama. But that is in the wake of the Great Recession and Greedy Bankers and Credit Default Swaps, etc. So everything looks much worse than it otherwise would.

Government Debt Chart: United States 1950-2018 - Federal State Local Data

You can also use that link to double check the federal spending/revenue numbers relative to GDP.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 10-08-2013, 06:25 PM   #629
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I think he can stop being the president of the 1 percent and actually start working for the rest of us: 95% Of Income Gains Since 2009 Went To The Top 1%


I'm talking about the present situation in regards to the extortion over the ACA.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-08-2013, 07:56 PM   #630
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
I'm talking about the present situation in regards to the extortion over the ACA.
From what 'm reading - default should be avoided at all costs. I think the president and congress should do whatever it takes to make certain this doesn't happen.

After this showdown is over, then we need make it illegal for this to ever happen again. But we need to get through this mess first.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com