(10-22-2013 05:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I don't think I'm arguing both sides at all. I wasn't extrapolating that deficit decrease to the future, just stating that in order to get to a budget surplus, you need to get a decrease in the deficit, and, well, that's what happened.
And what I'm saying is that it hasn't happened at all. We spent trillions upfront and are now getting hundreds of billions, but not trillions back... and even that "boost" from that spending is short-lived... almost by design. You're implying a trend based on one-time actions... the stimulus, the bailouts and the tax changes were all one-time events that produce one-time reactions. Going forward, the deficit is expected to increase even more. I understand that this is merely a projection and fraught with error... but not one single SERIOUS attempt to reign in spending or increase revenues has been proposed by ANY major political player.... and those from more minor players are summarily shouted down by BOTH establishments.
Quote:I wasn't trying to defend a very complicated economical model applied at a macro scale, just that hopefully this decrease in the deficit is hopefully the first step in the right direction. If you reread my comment, I was more trying to say that we have some momentum with this decrease in deficit, and instead of trying to further that momentum by going for other spending cuts, the Reps went after the program that was not going to be touched by the Dems.
What momentum? What spending cuts? The increased revenue was primarily the result of changes to the tax code that encouraged the wealthy to realize gains before their rates went up. By definition, this doesn't continue... thus all of those gains will not repeat. More of the gains are the result of spending... and unless you're projecting 20% growth of our economy in 5 years and 40% in 10, that too doesn't continue.
Let me put it in different context. You're running along with your household budget at 5k/month, adding 1k/month to your credit card balance. 5 years in, you have a 60k deficit. You decide to spend an additional $10,000 borrowed dollars to go to a conference.... so you've got an additional deficit of 10k... 70k in total... and a year later, your boss says... here... I'll pick up half of that expense... so now your deficit for that next year is only -12k + a 1 time infusion of 5k for a net of -7k... though next year, it is expected to be -12k again... and you're referring to the one time payment by your boss as a step in the right direction, when the truth is, you had to spend 10k to get the 5k back. If the 5k were a raise, that might be one thing... but it's not. It is primarily due to one-time events. The CBO isn't magic, but they also aren't partisan. At SOME point, you won't be able to borrow $1,000/month anymore... That is the limit on your credit card or your debt ceiling... Sure, you can ask for an increase... but in this case, COngress gets to set its own limit and raise it any time and to any amount it wants. Who represents "the bank"?
Quote:Also, with regards to comment about not cutting spending when the gun is to our heads, didn't, um, this kind of happen?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_sequ...on_in_2013
From your own link
The reductions in spending authority are approximately $85.4 billion (versus $42 billion in actual cash outlays[note 2]) during fiscal year 2013,[2](p14) with similar cuts for years 2014 through 2021.
However, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the total federal outlays will continue to increase even with the sequester by an average of $238.6 billion per year[2](p3) during the next decade, although at a somewhat lesser rate.
Those aren't significant spending cuts. Only in government do we call reductions in the rate of increase "spending cuts" which account for more than half of the sequestration, and people have been vilified over such modest cuts..... and versus a multi-trillion dollar budget and deficit, $42byn in actual cash outlays is barely a pimple.
If our spending for SNAP in 2014 were what it was in any year prior to 2008, the entire sequestration could have been funded with no cuts to any other program.
I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but the point I'm trying to make is that the problems are much bigger than most people can even fathom, and you seem encouraged by some truly meaningless (in the grand scheme) changes in numbers. This is precisely what politicians want you to do... to feel like they are "moving in the right direction" when they aren't really.
The stimulus gives politicians a massive budget from which to claim "savings" from. It also generates one-time returns which they can claim... even though those returns are far less than we were promised and far less than we spent. The ACA is almost exactly the same thing. We're (eyeballing) increasing spending on healthcare by 50% to increase the supply of healthcare by 10% and the demand for healthcare by 30%. That isn't a good return by any measure in a macro sense, but I'm sure we can trot out plenty of "micro" people who will be better off and imply that EVERYONE (macro) is somehow better off.
I'm okay with spending a bit more on healthcare. What I'm not okay with is all the lies that are being told to "sell" this to us. I don't care that the people "against" it also lie... because their lies don't hurt. I certainly wish they wouldn't lie either, particularly when they try and sell me things... but the truth is too hard for most voters to comprehend.
ETA Let me say that differently. The lies being told by the people against the ACA keep the lies being told by the people in favor of the ACA from harming me/the country... thus while i don't like either set of lies, only one of them hurts. If the republicans were telling these lies to pass their own version of Obamacare, I wouldn't like it either and wouldn't care about the Democrat's lies to stop it.