Thread: The deficit is down!!!

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

Boy, I've got to say i think you are dead wrong.

Your subjectivity is showing. I outlined a political strategy. I didn't argue for or against it. I didn't say I liked it or didn't. I didn't say one party's objective is better than the other.

Both parties are manouvering for political advantage. The party in power has the advantage, but here we have 3-way split: GOP over the house, dems over the senate and a dem in the White House.

The GOP wants deep cuts in spending and no new taxes, but has only managed to pull off the latter. The dems are resisting "deep" cuts as defined by the GOP. They're offering modest cuts, 1/6th of what the GOP is proposing.

The correct political ploy in that case, given the mood of the country, as expressed by the voters on the last Congressional elections, is to create the appearance in the public's mind that the dems are 1) standing in the way of meaningful cuts and by extension, deficit reduction and 2) want to raise taxes instead (they did). If the public agrees, the dems may lose the White House, the House and the Senate next year.

That's the situation. Whether you agree or disagree as to which party is right or wrong, your opinion has no direct bearing on whether or not the aforementioned political strategy exists. You can speculate on the outcome of the strategy.

It was jobs, jobs, jobs the last election. The whole starve the beast mentality is just justification for future deficits. If you want to cut spending you cut spending you dont borrow to finance taxcuts. The real meat is in entitlements and they are extremely popular and given a choice of cutting medicare and socail security or returning the top rates do you really think it's a debate the right can win with John Q Public? How come when they have the Presidency the republican party has always supported higher deficits? Reagan, Nixon, Bush1 and Junior all had party support while running up far worse numbers then Johnson, Clinton or Carter. National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The stark swings can not be just pooh poohed away they are statistically signifigant 64-2008 Starve the beast failed.

If the public agrees, the strategy will fail; if not, Katie bar the door. The current GOP leadership in the House and the Senate is sharp as a tack. The dems will have to be nimble to avoid the trap. They can, if they agree to 5/6ths of the proposed budget reduction the GOP wants, maybe even 4/5ths, and stay mum on taxes until after 2012. But my sense is Reid is not handling it well. We'll see.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Your subjectivity is showing. I outlined a political strategy. I didn't argue for or against it. I didn't say I liked it or didn't. I didn't say one party's objective is better than the other.

Both parties are manouvering for political advantage. The party in power has the advantage, but here we have 3-way split: GOP over the house, dems over the senate and a dem in the White House.

The GOP wants deep cuts in spending and no new taxes, but has only managed to pull off the latter. The dems are resisting "deep" cuts as defined by the GOP. They're offering modest cuts, 1/6th of what the GOP is proposing.

The correct political ploy in that case, given the mood of the country, as expressed by the voters on the last Congressional elections, is to create the appearance in the public's mind that the dems are 1) standing in the way of meaningful cuts and by extension, deficit reduction and 2) want to raise taxes instead (they did). If the public agrees, the dems may lose the White House, the House and the Senate next year.

That's the situation. Whether you agree or disagree as to which party is right or wrong, your opinion has no direct bearing on whether or not the aforementioned political strategy exists. You can speculate on the outcome of the strategy.







If the public agrees, the strategy will fail; if not, Katie bar the door. The current GOP leadership in the House and the Senate is sharp as a tack. The dems will have to be nimble to avoid the trap. They can, if they agree to 5/6ths of the proposed budget reduction the GOP wants, maybe even 4/5ths, and stay mum on taxes until after 2012. But my sense is Reid is not handling it well. We'll see.

Myself i'll be happy when they both join the real world and instead of deep cuts in a small portion of the budget we go for modest cuts in the whole thing as well as ending the fantasy those taxcuts are anymore unaffordable today as they were 10 years ago when we started borrowing money from the chinese to make upo the lost revenue. Myself I think neither party is run by grown ups and the idea both parties are governing with an eye on an election a week after the last election brings a major flaw that is developing in our system to light.

Originally Posted by Julie

There it is again. Entitlement and Social Security in the same sentence again. Let me say this again....

SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT

Please stop referring to Social Security as an entitlement. I have paid into the Federal Government for over 30 years for my retirement that I am more than entitled to.

Social security and medicare are entitlements Julie. I'm sorry but all that moeny you paid in which was twice what was needed most of the last 30 years was spent on taxcuts and other things. The crisis in Sosial security is the filing cabinets full of IOUs. I'd suggust you look at the link I put up showing the source of federal tax revenue. It's disgusting. While business taxes have steadily declined taxes on medficare and social security which only effect the poor and working class have risen every year and fica has been flat

Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper

And I don't blame Barry for the whole thing. GWB sure got the ball rolling on this one, but BHO hasn't done ANYTHING to help. This is his circus now.

Deficit hawks would let the Bush tax cuts expire - Blog For Arizona I would agree BHO has done nothing to reduce the dceficit but argue the cause is systemic not his agenda. Those taxcuts remain the most damaging piece when you remove the great recession. Not only are we starved for revenue but they decrease the amount of dollars available by increasing interest payments because we have borrowed money for them every single year since enacted.

JAD,

If the public agrees, the strategy will fail; if not, Katie bar the door. The current GOP leadership in the House and the Senate is sharp as a tack. The dems will have to be nimble to avoid the trap. They can, if they agree to 5/6ths of the proposed budget reduction the GOP wants, maybe even 4/5ths, and stay mum on taxes until after 2012. But my sense is Reid is not handling it well. We'll see.

isn't the latest almost-agreement somewhere along 30 bil, which is pretty much half of what each side was going for?

Originally Posted by astralis

...isn't the latest almost-agreement somewhere along 30 bil, which is pretty much half of what each side was going for?

So they claim, but it couldn't pass the Senate. The Senate has put forward exactly nothing.

The dems want a shutdown, it's pretty clear.

The house put forward a bill this morning that would fund the gov't at H.R. 1 levels for the rest of the year, if the Senate does nothing by way of counter-offer on the CR. But the Senate has to pass that, and of course they won't- they will treat it as agreeing to H.R. 1, even though that's not what it is. They could accept this deal, and continue try to hammer out an agreement on H.R. 1.

This argument is about discretionary spending. $1.1-$1.6 Trillion/year is what it's at right now (depending on whose numbers you use). That part of the budget has grown by 24% in the past 2 years. I just don't see a 6% cutback as unreasonable, obviously the other side thinks it's draconian.

That $61 Billion- counting interest, would amount to over $800 Billion in the ten-year window. Imo that's significant enough that it should be taken seriously as a starting point.

We are currently paying China $120 Million per day in interest payments. That's one F-22 per day.

Originally Posted by Julie

...Please stop referring to Social Security as an entitlement. I have paid into the Federal Government for over 30 years for my retirement that I am more than entitled to.

Julie. If you are entitled to it, that makes it an entitlement.

It is an EARNED entitlement. It's not welfare. You absolutely ARE entitled to it. The problem is it's a ponzi scheme and the gov't has spent your money on someone else's benefits.

Medicare is also an EARNED entitlement.
Medicaid is welfare.

They are both called entitlements, but they are not the same thing.

Originally Posted by astralis

JAD,



isn't the latest almost-agreement somewhere along 30 bil, which is pretty much half of what each side was going for?

I think so. We knew it wasn't going to be $61B in the end. Still, the perception may have been created that the dems are not serious about cuts.

Originally Posted by highsea

So they claim, but it couldn't pass the Senate. The Senate has put forward exactly nothing.

Reid said they were at $10B, but in talks with the dems in the Senate the GOP couldn't negotiate a final figure because they were divided themselves between Tea Party members and main line members. That's the best he can do to dodge the perception bullet? Weak.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

That's the best he can do to dodge the perception bullet? Weak.

He doesn't want to anger the cowboy poets.

Seriously, the dems want a shutdown. They could have passed either deal under reconciliation, there were plenty enough votes for both.

Originally Posted by highsea

He doesn't want to anger the cowboy poets.

Seriously, the dems want a shutdown. They could have passed either deal under reconciliation, there were plenty enough votes for both.

How does that play? "Dems force government shutdown rather than yield to GOP budget cut proposals"

Or..."GOP budget cut proposal forces government shutdown."

Guess it depends on how each media outlet chooses to spin it.

Originally Posted by DOR

I've been working as a professional economist since 1984.

Then how can you mistaken correlation with causation?

Republican president in office along with high deficit spending does not necessarily mean republicans like to spend money. In fact, it could mean the opposite. They don't like to spend money but were saddled with democrat programs from the previous administration. Republicans managed to get the house in order just in time for the next swing/shift in the public mood to lose the office to a democrat, who reaps the benefit of a fiscally sound economy.

What do democrats do when the economy is good? They expand the government. They exhaust all the bounties of an expanding tax base on permanant programs. The problem is businesses have cycles. Government programs do not. This is exactly the thinking that got California into trouble. Democrats massively expand government programs when times were good. Then invariably business down cycles hit and the deficit balloons.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

...Guess it depends on how each media outlet chooses to spin it.

Media will spin it exactly like they already are, blame the tea party. Hell even O'Reilly has jumped onto that bandwagon.

Originally Posted by highsea

Media will spin it exactly like they already are, blame the tea party. Hell even O'Reilly has jumped onto that bandwagon.

It's the "close the Washington Monument" complex on a grander scale.

Happily there is always a commentator out there to fit any point of view.