danivon wrote:I agree, Jav. The credit limit has hardly ever been a political issue, simply because it's really a matter of allowing the spending that has been already agreed upon to happen. Making it a big issue, and then to explicitly link it to deals on the budget to the point that it went some weeks past where the limit had been reached was very destabilising to the market.

Is that what S & P said? I mean they did talk about the wrangling, but isn't the bigger issue credit-worthiness? Weren't they talking about $4T as "a good down payment?" Isn't the only person to propose more than $4T Paul Ryan, whom the President publicly flogged?

The debt was precisely the issue many Republicans ran on last November. Since then, the President has done nothing substantive, even though his party was routed.

All sides have to accept blame for that one, frankly.

Conservatives should get 100% of the blame for trying to do something. How dare they pass a budget? How dare they pass two bills without even having the Democrats release a public plan they were willing to vote on?

Liberals can take 100% of the blame for holding everything up for tax increases that would have had only a modest effect, then complaining about the GOP "taking hostages," being "terrorists," and "holding a gun" to the Democrats' collective head.

And, the President who publicly decried such violent pronouncements a year ago? Hiding in some fundraiser.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I agree, Jav. The credit limit has hardly ever been a political issue, simply because it's really a matter of allowing the spending that has been already agreed upon to happen. Making it a big issue, and then to explicitly link it to deals on the budget to the point that it went some weeks past where the limit had been reached was very destabilising to the market.

Is that what S & P said? I mean they did talk about the wrangling, but isn't the bigger issue credit-worthiness? Weren't they talking about $4T as "a good down payment?" Isn't the only person to propose more than $4T Paul Ryan, whom the President publicly flogged?

Well, perhaps you should read the full report, Steve, not just the bits that backed your particular case

http://www.standardandpoors.com/home/en/eu

(currently there's a link to the full document on the front page)

Standard & Poors wrote:The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,
and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt
ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in
the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our
view, the differences between political parties have proven to be
extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting
agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program
that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and
Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on
discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on
more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have
dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions
only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements,
the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key
to long-term fiscal sustainability.

(my italics)

There's stuff in there that applies to both parties to varying extents, but hey Steve, it's only ever the other side's fault, innit?

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:Taxes raised, particularly in a bad economy adversely affect consumer confidence, profits, revenues, inflations, spending power, costs of goods and services, etc. All of these thing factor into the revenue generated by taxes.

I think this topic is about to morph into the "The President Needs Your Help" forum.

I would just point out that I think flattening the tax code--lowering exemptions, removing loopholes and subsidies while also lowering rates, could actually raise revenues and improve the economy. However, Democrats are going to want more of the savings to go toward "revenue" and the GOP is going to want more in terms of cuts.

Back on topic: I would note that Gallup has Obama at 40% today. I think with his lame speech on Monday, he's going to go lower. Politically, this is going to stick to him.

Why? Because he has no plan! Without a plan that he can point to, the blame will just keep boomeranging right back. No one else is going to be in the spotlight like he is and because he seems clueless, he's affixing a "kick me" sign on his butt.

Randy, just for you, S&P also (in the same part I quoted) expressed disappointment that 'new revenues have dropped down the menu of policy options'.

Targeted tax increases can help to deal with low revenues and reduce deficit pressure. But any kind of tax increase was ruled out by the 'good guys'.

danivon wrote:

Standard & Poors wrote:The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,
and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt
ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in
the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our
view, the differences between political parties have proven to be
extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting
agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program
that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and
Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on
discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on
more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have
dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions
only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements,
the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key
to long-term fiscal sustainability.

(my italics)

Nope, I read it. Now, let me explain it to you.

S & P wrote:Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our
view, the differences between political parties have proven to be
extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting
agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program
that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently.

Where was the President's plan?

S & P also mentions this went on for months. During those months, did the Democrats propose anything? In April, the White House demanded a "clean" debt raise. In the President's original budget, defeated 97-0, he proposed no curtailment in the deficit.

The Republicans passed a budget. Had the Democrats been remotely reasonable, they would have passed one in the Senate, then differences could have been hammered out.

Since Democrats and the President knew this was a problem since early this year, what have they done?

There's stuff in there that applies to both parties to varying extents, but hey Steve, it's only ever the other side's fault, innit?

In this case, pretty much, yeah--but, only with regard to the solution. Republicans did way too much in creating the deficit, I'll acknowledge that. However, the Democrats aren't really willing to do anything serious about the problem. Want more?

S & P wrote:Republicans and
Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on
discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on
more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have
dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions
only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements,
the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key
to long-term fiscal sustainability

Again, who is not willing to cut? Who is not willing to change Medicare and Social Security?

Review the supposedly draconian Ryan plan. Now, Democrats didn't like it. In fact, they made a video of a Ryan look-alike throwing grandma over a cliff. But, what did they offer? Closing a few tax loopholes?

One side showed some seriousness--the Republicans. The Democrats were as serious as a Bozo the Clown look-alike contest.

Nancy Pelosi and just about any Democrat elected to Federal office you can name. Again, there are "rumors" the President favored this. If so, why not release the details? It would be the right thing to do for the country, so why not put the details on it and campaign for it on TV instead of the dumb things he said Monday (rehashing his previous 17 "inspiring" speeches)?

The S & P report really doesn't bail out the Democrats, especially not the President.

danivon wrote:Targeted tax increases can help to deal with low revenues and reduce deficit pressure. But any kind of tax increase was ruled out by the 'good guys'.

True, but they (Democrats) were also exceedingly disingenuous. You can't say "millionaires and billionaires need to pay their fair share" and then define "millionaire" as someone making $200K (single).

I think there is room for a deal, but Democrats have to be willing to go public instead of hiding under their desks. If not, it's the President who is going to wind up getting the short end of the deal.

Sorry, randy, but tax cuts are unlikely to work. The last sets of tax cuts did not result in an increased tax take really - deficits increased even if spending had remained at the same level of GDP.

Which suggests which side of the Laffer curve the USA is on.

(I'll ignore your personal stuff)

Danivon,
The Bush tax cuts can be argued to have helped the economy during the Bush years to the end, I personally did better because of them, especially the marriage penalty tax(which is extremely stupid). We went and got a new(2 year) used Avalanche, partly because of the money but mostly because of the confidence I had in the administration. Don't get me wrong, I didn't like and still don't like the Bush spending, irresponsible and devasting. But Bush did enjoy low unemployment rate, and remember he INHERITED a recession, the .COM bust of 2001 and the infamous 9/11 attacks but we still enjoyed a productive time when he was there. Towards the end is when the shit hit the fan and that is because of the housing bust which started in the Carter administration and carried all the way through to when it finally blew up under Bush. But the low taxes and economy disaster are not inter-related. The point is the United States in NOT a nanny state, not how we were built nor is it healthy for any nation in the long run, England is now under attack because they are trying to cut the nipple off from thousands because they can't afford it. The only ones that will do ok in the short term are nations like Norway that have an etremely high natural resource to population benefit and that will degrade over time. People need to feel needed and thus compensated and taking that feeling of accomplishment away in the form of taxes is the deadliest form of counter productivity for a nation.

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:People (as in 'you people') here scoffed at me when I equated the government to a spolied spouse who spends more moeny than a couple can earn, citing the complexity of a national govenrment over a simple family budget.

Exactly what it is.

In the 80s President Reagan asked for a balanced budget during his term and was fought tooth and nail against it by congressional Democrats

Not really.

the House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared Reagan's concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was spent afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than Congress passed.

The only reason reagans budgets were suppossedly lower was that he submitted phony economic estimates that lowballed the expected cxosts for unemployment and over estimated the revenues...In other words he tried to con congress.
source: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/56More.htm

But beleiveing these myths is important isn't it? Reagan never accomplished a balanced budget. His tax breaks didn't result in more revenue. And indeed he raised taxes higher than anyone since WWII when his initial tax breaks failed to perform as advertised. . But you keep reaching back to the mythological past to support the lunacy of supply side economics.

defiant

But the low taxes and economy disaster are not inter-related

.

No but low taxes and the defict are totally entwined. The lower taxes immediatly resulted in deficits (Clinton was running a surplus) . If he'd maintained tax levels as Clinton did, you'd have almost eliminated the deficit when the financial crash occurred. . (His first Secretary of the treasurey resigned because he thought the tax cuts were irresponsible. he wanted to eliminate the deficit and shore up SS. And thats before wars were started...)
The CBO study that you've been linked to before clearly indicates that most of the deficit accumulated since 2001 is due the tax decrease, and only a small part the unfunded war costs and the stimulus. TARP has been pretty much paid back ...
Unemployment when Bush took over was at 4.9% then went down to 4.2% and later rose to over 7%.... If the tax cuts were suppossed to help here, they would have permanently been under 5%

So what you are saying Rick, is the recession Bush walked into and the .Com bust(which spread over to the DOW) in 2001 and the 9/11 attacks had no impact on the deficit? We lost jobs and maket value before we even started the war and now you are also saying the war didn't cost anything, but all I hear is how expensive the wars are from the liberals.
Why would the tax cuts permanenty keep the unemployment stay under 5% with the variables I mentioned above. Mabye the tax cuts with the variables from above kept it at the lowest possible level, sure makes common sense.
Remember the CBO is a calculator, garbage in garbage out, it is how you define the variables going in.
Do me and yourself a big favor and go look when Medicare and Medicaid started and see how the CBO(wasn't CBO then, but same calculator) scored it and then see how it really turned out, you will learn something.
Tarp being paid back, don't think so, need real proof on that.
I suppose you still believe Obamacare will save costs and not raise taxes too. If you do I have some wonderful land in Louisana to sell you.

defiant

So what you are saying Rick, is the recession Bush walked into and the .Com bust(which spread over to the DOW) in 2001 and the 9/11 attacks had no impact on the deficit? We lost jobs and maket value before we even started the war and now you are also saying the war didn't cost anything, but all I hear is how expensive the wars are from the liberals.

No. Bush had no control over the recession, though it was pretty mild. And the effects of the terrorist attack, well, he could have controlled his response but shit happens.
The point is that Bush made the decision to cut taxes. And that decision, no matter what else happened, is responsible for most of the deficit accrued since 2000. (Debt to GDP was about 30% when he came to office.)
Now, when Reagan cut taxes, and things didn't work out the way he originally thought he IMMEDIATELY raised taxes. Bush, ignored the negative response to failing revenues, and the added cost of fighting wars... He gladly assumed debt and eficits when the economy was actually growing... (This, BTW, is the antithesis of keynes.)
Bush was no victim of circumstance. He could have adapted the way Reagan did, but he chose not to do so... And in creating that fiscal mess he hamstrung the country, and his successor, when the shit truly did hit the fan....(Really the bundle of excuses for Bush pales in comparison to the awful mess he left behind. I think its odd that you make excuses for Bush II and can't have a little more patience for his successors' limited options and uncooperative governing partners.)
If you want to criticize the CBO's calculations...have a go. The generality you offer here is meaningless garbage in and of itself.
If you won't accept the information provided by the CBO on actual expenditures since 200 then its pontnless. I grant you that their forecasts may have been off in the past, but those are forecasts...and forecast by their nature have doubt built in...
Looking back at the results, the actual tax reciepts, expenditures isn't a question of a forecast but whether they can add the numbers from the sources... Those numbrs are 100% reliable and clearly paint the picture of where the fiscal mess really started. Mostly with tax breaks. Only a little with expenditures.

rickyp wrote:defiant

So what you are saying Rick, is the recession Bush walked into and the .Com bust(which spread over to the DOW) in 2001 and the 9/11 attacks had no impact on the deficit? We lost jobs and maket value before we even started the war and now you are also saying the war didn't cost anything, but all I hear is how expensive the wars are from the liberals.

No. Bush had no control over the recession, though it was pretty mild. And the effects of the terrorist attack, well, he could have controlled his response but shit happens.

This is so . . . much retrospective.

The psychological effect of 9/11 was devastating, even if, now, looking back, it turns out not to have been as crushing economically as originally thought. To even suggest that America could have just brushed it off like so much lint is absolute nonsense.

The point is that Bush made the decision to cut taxes. And that decision, no matter what else happened, is responsible for most of the deficit accrued since 2000. (Debt to GDP was about 30% when he came to office.)

No, what killed Bush was his spending. Take out the invasion of Iraq, NCLB, and Medicare Part D, and I think he does pretty well. For some debunking of your Bush tax cut mythology, look here.

rickyp wrote:No. Bush had no control over the recession, though it was pretty mild. And the effects of the terrorist attack, well, he could have controlled his response but shit happens.
The point is that Bush made the decision to cut taxes. And that decision, no matter what else happened, is responsible for most of the deficit accrued since 2000. (Debt to GDP was about 30% when he came to office.)

Dont' forget the .com disaster that caused thousands of jobs lost.
I don't agree with you at all that is cause most of the deficit, just wrong, you cannot prove how many taxpaying jobs stayed as a result especially with the variables I said before, .com, war and recession(did you ever think why it was a mild recession).
Bush also spent too much, that is where you have a problem, you are so tunneled vision all you can think of is raising taxes, think of the other side, stop spending, can you think that way for a moment?
BTW, I also found something else when looking for the Medicare original cost. It was the House Ways and Means Committee that did the orginal cost of Medicare, here is how that turned out.

"Unlike the New Deal, which was a response to a severe financial and economic calamity, the Great Society initiatives came just as the United States' post-World War II prosperity was starting to fade, but before the coming decline was being felt by the middle and upper classes. President Kennedy proposed a tax cut lowering the top marginal rate by 20%, from 91% to 71%, which was enacted in February 1964 (three months after Kennedy's assassination) by Lyndon Johnson. Gross National Product rose 10% in the first year of the tax cut, and economic growth averaged a rate of 4.5% from 1961 to 1968.[2] Disposable personal income rose 15% in 1966 alone."

Tax reduction does have an effect!

rickyp wrote:Now, when Reagan cut taxes, and things didn't work out the way he originally thought he IMMEDIATELY raised taxes.

Ronaldus Magnus, didn't do something he said he wanted to also, he said he wanted to decrease the size of the Federal Gov't, which he didn't do, which he could have controlled cost and deficits if he would have reduced the gov't like he said he wanted to. He also brought a very bad coutnry to its knees with his high in crease in defense spending which benefited your national as well, don't forget that, we don't.

rickyp wrote:Bush was no victim of circumstance. He could have adapted the way Reagan did, but he chose not to do so... And in creating that fiscal mess he hamstrung the country, and his successor, when the shit truly did hit the fan....(Really the bundle of excuses for Bush pales in comparison to the awful mess he left behind. I think its odd that you make excuses for Bush II and can't have a little more patience for his successors' limited options and uncooperative governing partners.)

I can see why you and all your liberal cronies are on your knees for this Messiah of ours, but this clown dropped the shovel that Bush used to start digging us into this mess and got into his back hoe and really started digging. Here is the information I asked you to find about how good the CBO equal of 1965 did with the Medicare program. I am goin g to put in your little quote here.

rickyp wrote:Those numbrs are 100% reliable and clearly paint the picture of where the fiscal mess really started. Mostly with tax breaks. Only a little with expenditures.

"The cost of Medicare is a good place to begin. At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly "conservative" estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion.

This is a mere bagatelle compared with "conservative" projections for the next generation. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Medicare will cost $223 billion by 1997. Constance Homer, deputy secretary of Health and Human Services, warns that "by the year 2003, at the current rates, we will be spending more on Medicare than we do on Social Security."

The news gets even worse for the "out years" after that. The Health Care Finance Administration has given up making long-range projections of budget outlays of Medicare. Instead, HCFA makes calculations about the "actuarial balance" of the program–how much of the nation’s payroll will be required to pay for the program."

Yea, the CBO is 100% accurate, my ass. If you think the CBO is accurate on Obamacare, you are a bigger fool then the standard left. They are already re-adjusting their numers but the law is passed, too late. Obamacare is 1/6th our economy and if the CBO is off like they were with Medicare, there won't be enough tax money in the state to support it. Spending has to be reduced starting with Obamacare if it is not we are going to end up like Europe. Greece, Italy, France(today being downgraded), Spain, Ireland, Iceland, England(burning) all going broke. You know Rick, there is a fine line between ignorance and stupidity, do you know what it is? Ignorance is when you don't have the facts in front of you and you make a wrong decision, stupidity is when the facts are right in front of you and you stil make the wrong decision. There is no doubt where your liberal policies take us, proof is all around, look in Europe and look here.