Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Is the Tea Party's real goal a parliamentary system?
Author Message
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #81
RE: Is the Tea Party's real goal a parliamentary system?
(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.
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2013 01:55 PM by Hambone10.)
10-23-2013 01:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gsloth Offline
perpetually tired
*

Posts: 6,654
Joined: Aug 2007
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice&underdogs
Location: Central VA

Donators
Post: #82
RE: Is the Tea Party's real goal a parliamentary system?
Here's something to kind of back up what Hambone is getting at - it shows exactly what has been the historical (and future estimated) revenues and outlays for the US government in recent years.

http://barticles.blogs.timesdispatch.com...-it-means/

Curiously enough, two things stick out to me in that chart:

1. Outlays were actually relatively flat from 2009 through 2012. Of course, it was a huge jump to get to that first number.

2. I have serious doubts about our ability to hit that revenue figure by 2018. We're going to have a 60% jump in revenue? By what means? GDP certainly isn't going to grow anywhere close to that rate in 6 years. Maybe they're assuming we're back to full employment by then? Where else are these revenues going to come from?

Oh, and I love this chart about how absurd these projections are. Just look at how debt and spending projections changed from 2001 through 2011.

http://barticles.blogs.timesdispatch.com...at-matter/
10-27-2013 10:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #83
RE: Is the Tea Party's real goal a parliamentary system?
This came out a good time based on these recent discussions:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...rc=nl_wonk
10-31-2013 10:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #84
RE: Is the Tea Party's real goal a parliamentary system?
Sorry, but not really, Lad. It's merely an opinion piece from someone who is looking at far too small a slice of the issue.

He describes the increases in revenue for 2013 from one time events in a way that dismisses them as one-time events.... but more importantly, he completely dismisses the fact that from 2008-2013, we spent trillions more than ever before and that we have recoup this at some point.

barticles blog is merely the opposite side of that argument...

The CBO points out that this fall in the deficit is short lived based on their projections... and while I don't put much stock in their projections in terms of them being "right", I DO put some stock in their projections for being non-partisan and mathematically accurate based on current laws.

Thus, in order for the deficit to continue to decline (something your blog "fears" and I believe won't happen) the economy will have to suddenly grow at an incredible pace (the barticles blog says 60%) AND/OR (most likely and, because 60% is unrealistic) tax rates will have to go up by a ton so that we can capture more of the growth.... and of course, those two things generally work against each other... i.e. higher tax rates discourages growth somewhat... so assuming a net tax rate of 20% of GDP, we either have to grow the pie by 60% to cover our expenses, or we have to grow our government's slice of the pie by 60% (to more like 32% of GDP) or some combination thereof.

The two articles focus on different priorities... and the truth is somewhere in between... so this is how I see it...

The post blog is worried that spending will fall too quickly and that the economy will be cut short. This is a potentially reasonable fear... which only makes our ability to actually do something about our debt all the more unlikely. I'd point out that you are "encouraged" and the post blogger is "fearful" of a 1/22 cut in spending relative to GDP... but we need a 32/20 growth in revenue to cover what is already here.

Sequestration freezes spending at current levels. Most families in America have had to do this and some have had to make REAL sacrifices. Why should we expect any less out of our government? I understand that 10% across the board may leave SOME programs with insufficient funds, so government needs to make REAL decisions about REAL cuts... because that means that somewhere else needs to be cut by 20%, or even 100% in order to keep from having a 10% cut in something else.

Personally, I think we should institute a zero growth budget for the next 5-10 years. Find the cuts somewhere. Fight it out and make REAL cuts... because the ONLY thing that is death to a politician these days is to cut spending. They have ZERO incentive to do so. Any budget increases MUST be funded by a National Sales Tax that EVERYONE pays, and I mean everyone. This means that if a politician tells his voters that he can't find any more cuts anywhere, that each and every voter has a vested interest in making sure that they agree with him... and that his opponent will have to tell you what he would cut in order to NOT raise the sales tax. This is how Europe does it.

There is more to it, not worth going into right now... but we absolutely have to get our financial house in order... and the only way to do that is to end this state where politicians have pit those who pay taxes AGAINST those who receive benefits... and NOBODY wants THEIR priorities cut.
(This post was last modified: 11-01-2013 12:49 PM by Hambone10.)
11-01-2013 12:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gsloth Offline
perpetually tired
*

Posts: 6,654
Joined: Aug 2007
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice&underdogs
Location: Central VA

Donators
Post: #85
RE: Is the Tea Party's real goal a parliamentary system?
(10-14-2013 09:49 AM)gsloth Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 01:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 01:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I hate to keep saying it, but it really has gotten to be the stupid party versus the evil party.

So when I vote, it really is a choice of the lesser of two evils?

Not to completely derail this thing, but there is no such lesser when I vote for governor next month. They're both dogs, and that's an insult to dogs.

Well, I voted. At least I can say that. Gotta get better candidates and believable campaign platforms next time.

Hopefully, most of you are also doing your civic voting for whatever local election you likely have. (At least, those who live in the US.)
11-05-2013 08:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.