T
truthdetector
Guest
redgreen5 said:
Shhhh. Be real quiet while he reads his unbiased news sources so that he may wow the FFF with his superior knowledge.
A legend in his own mind.
Shhhh. Be real quiet while he reads his unbiased news sources so that he may wow the FFF with his superior knowledge.
A legend in his own mind.Izdaari said:
It's a fair question, but not as easy as it sounds. I'll come back to this one, after breakfast and coffee at least.
[/quote]
On second thought, I'm going to pass on this one for now. It makes my brain hurt. :-X
R
redgreen5
Guest
[quote author=truthdetector]
You'll find that demands carry little weight with me. Let's just say that I probably read more news sources by 10am than most people read all week. When we actually have something to discuss, then you'll see my sources. Unlike some people around here - for example, christundivided - I actually provide links and citations to whatever I'm saying.
Shhhh. Be real quiet while he reads his unbiased news sources so that he may wow the FFF with his superior knowledge. A legend in his own mind.
[/quote]
No, just not another willingly brain-washed rightwinger. If you're looking for sources, see my latest two posts on unemployment benefits and capital gains taxes.
But I don't really expect you to read them. Not without sounding out the big words, anyhow.
You'll find that demands carry little weight with me. Let's just say that I probably read more news sources by 10am than most people read all week. When we actually have something to discuss, then you'll see my sources. Unlike some people around here - for example, christundivided - I actually provide links and citations to whatever I'm saying.
Shhhh. Be real quiet while he reads his unbiased news sources so that he may wow the FFF with his superior knowledge.
A legend in his own mind.[/quote]
No, just not another willingly brain-washed rightwinger. If you're looking for sources, see my latest two posts on unemployment benefits and capital gains taxes.
But I don't really expect you to read them. Not without sounding out the big words, anyhow.
B
Bou
Guest
What would former Reagan budget director propose to fix the economy?
1) Raise taxes on the rich and poor. Along those lines, let the Bush tax cuts expire.
2) Raise capital gains taxes to 35%.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-57389481/why-david-stockman-isnt-buying-it/
Did I mention he was Ronald Reagan's budget director?
Reagan was a radical, wasn't he?
1) Raise taxes on the rich and poor. Along those lines, let the Bush tax cuts expire.
2) Raise capital gains taxes to 35%.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-57389481/why-david-stockman-isnt-buying-it/
Did I mention he was Ronald Reagan's budget director?
Reagan was a radical, wasn't he?
Yeah, Stockman was Reagan's budget director for a while. He eventually got fired for being out of step with administration policy.
I agree with his analysis of the problem, and with his investment advice. But he always did like taxes too much. Yes, we're in fiscal trouble. But we won't get out of it by raising taxes. That would tank an already fragile economy and probably actually reduce revenue.
Instead it's going to take big spending cuts, including in entitlements. And by cuts, I do not mean what Washington usually means by it, a decrease in the planned rate of increase. I mean the budget needs to be smaller than it was the previous year.
I agree with his analysis of the problem, and with his investment advice. But he always did like taxes too much. Yes, we're in fiscal trouble. But we won't get out of it by raising taxes. That would tank an already fragile economy and probably actually reduce revenue.
Instead it's going to take big spending cuts, including in entitlements. And by cuts, I do not mean what Washington usually means by it, a decrease in the planned rate of increase. I mean the budget needs to be smaller than it was the previous year.
R
redgreen5
Guest
Bou said:What would former Reagan budget director propose to fix the economy?
1) Raise taxes on the rich and poor. Along those lines, let the Bush tax cuts expire.
2) Raise capital gains taxes to 35%.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-57389481/why-david-stockman-isnt-buying-it/
Did I mention he was Ronald Reagan's budget director?
Reagan was a radical, wasn't he?
Taxes are at their lowest point in 50 years.
We have a deficit.
The path forward out to be obvious.
C
christundivided
Guest
redgreen5 said:Bou said:What would former Reagan budget director propose to fix the economy?
1) Raise taxes on the rich and poor. Along those lines, let the Bush tax cuts expire.
2) Raise capital gains taxes to 35%.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-57389481/why-david-stockman-isnt-buying-it/
Did I mention he was Ronald Reagan's budget director?
Reagan was a radical, wasn't he?
Taxes are at their lowest point in 50 years.
We have a deficit.
The path forward out to be obvious.
Lowest in 50 years...... BY WHAT MEASURE? Percentage of GDP? or total revenue?
Be honest and qualify your statement.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
redgreen5 said:
Spending as a percentage of GDP is at the highest point* in 60 years.
We have a deficit.
The path forward out to be obvious.
----------------------------------
* Other than during WWII and one year during WWI, spending as a percentage of GDP has never been this high. In fact, if you removed the spikes during the Civil War, WWI, and WWII, you can see a steady increase in spending as a percentage of GDP with only a short decline (~4%) during the 1990s.
R
redgreen5
Guest
[quote author=christundivided]Taxes are at their lowest point in 50 years.
We have a deficit.
The path forward out to be obvious.
Lowest in 50 years...... BY WHAT MEASURE? Percentage of GDP? or total revenue?[/quote]
Don't be lazy; look it up.
I notice that in this entire exchange, you're sorely lacking in sources. The mental exercise will do you some good.
:
I'll need advice on honesty from you when you-know-where freezes over.
We have a deficit.
The path forward out to be obvious.
Lowest in 50 years...... BY WHAT MEASURE? Percentage of GDP? or total revenue?[/quote]
Don't be lazy; look it up.
I notice that in this entire exchange, you're sorely lacking in sources. The mental exercise will do you some good.
:
I'll need advice on honesty from you when you-know-where freezes over.
R
redgreen5
Guest
[quote author=rsc2a ]
Spending as a percentage of GDP is at the highest point* in 60 years.
We have a deficit.
The path forward out to be obvious.
----------------------------------
* Other than during WWII and one year during WWI, spending as a percentage of GDP has never been this high. In fact, if you removed the spikes during the Civil War, WWI, and WWII, you can see a steady increase in spending as a percentage of GDP with only a short decline (~4%) during the 1990s.
[/quote]
No.
FactCheck.org
.png)
CBS NEws
So what you've got here is federal spending as a % of GDP in a fairly consistent range.
Spending as a percentage of GDP is at the highest point* in 60 years.
We have a deficit.
The path forward out to be obvious.
----------------------------------
* Other than during WWII and one year during WWI, spending as a percentage of GDP has never been this high. In fact, if you removed the spikes during the Civil War, WWI, and WWII, you can see a steady increase in spending as a percentage of GDP with only a short decline (~4%) during the 1990s.
[/quote]
No.
FactCheck.org
CBS NEws
So what you've got here is federal spending as a % of GDP in a fairly consistent range.
redgreen5 said:
No.
FactCheck.org
CBS NEws
[/quote]
Alrighty, that leaves us at 23.8% of GDP during the Obama years. Dial it back to the 19.4% of the Clinton years, and I'd be much happier.
And basically, rsc2a was right. Looking at your bottom graph, we don't find a match for Obama's biggest spending year until we go back to the 1940's, winding down from WWII. Admittedly, Bush was nearly as bad at the end.
C
christundivided
Guest
Izdaari said:redgreen5 said:
No.
FactCheck.org
CBS NEws
Alrighty, that leaves us at 23.8% of GDP during the Obama years. Dial it back to the 19.4% of the Clinton years, and I'd be much happier.
And basically, rsc2a was right. Looking at your bottom graph, we don't find a match for Obama's biggest spending year until we go back to the 1940's, winding down from WWII. Admittedly, Bush was nearly as bad at the end.
[/quote]
Why should federal spending even be tied to GDP?
It shouldn't. We should only spend what is necessary. Forget the idea that we can spend up to a certain percentage of GDP. Such methods do not allow for a proper planning periods. You can't plan a spending limit based on any "present state" of the economy. If you take such a route.... at least target spending based on lowest projections with a cap of no more than say.... 15 percent of GDP.
I thought you are a Ron Paul fan.
R
redgreen5
Guest
[quote author=Izdaari link]
Alrighty, that leaves us at 23.8% of GDP during the Obama years. Dial it back to the 19.4% of the Clinton years, and I'd be much happier. [/quote]
You're talking about a 2-3% variance. Do you realize how trivial this is, in the frame of reference we're talking about?
And do you realize how trivial this is, in light of the far-right fearmongering about this point that we have been hearing?
And considering the fact that we have lost 15 million jobs and been enduring a 4 year recession, it is so terribly unrealistic for spending to be 3% higher than under Clinton, even while staying well under 25% of GDP?
And of course, even if spending had remained constant, the % of spending as % of GDP would have still gone up, because GDP has shrank during the recession. After all, when the denominator in a fraction goes down, then the ratio (fraction) goes up; i.e., 10/25 is smaller than 10/22?
Frankly, I don't see the problem here. I see a lot of people (esp. talking heads, bloggers and Tea Party types) enraged over something they don't understand very well.
Let's be clear about that, since a lot of people don't seem to understand how the federal budget operates. The first year of the Obama administration was actually the last year of the Bush administration's budget.
The federal fiscal year ends on Sept 30th each year. The first day of the federal fiscal new year is therefore Oct 1st. In the autumn of each year - and hopefully before the govt runs out of money - Congress passes the budget that allows the govt to keep running for the following year. So far, so good.
And at the end of each fiscal year, the CBO and Treasury tally the income vs. outflow figures and report them to everyone. If there is a deficit that is unpaid for any given year, then it gets added to the ongoing tally of the federal debt. Deficit is an annual event, while debt is an ongoing, rolling tally.
What does this mean?
It means that the the spending executed until 9/30/2009 represents the last budget passed while George Bush was still president in 2008. And to be fair, this is the way things are for every president: during their first year, they're actually disbursing funds from a budget passed by their predecessor. And in like fashion, the last year of every presidency is a budget which that particular president won't be spending very much of.
And of course, this doesn't count the fact that the Bush errors in fiscal and financial policy actually have ongoing effects into 2010, 2011 and beyond. The additional deficit spending in 2010 and 2011 wouldn't have been necessary if Bush & Co. hadn't trashed the economy in the preceding years.
And finally - and speaking of debt - Bush was heavy into accounting gimmicks to try and hide the cost of his two Mideast wars from Congress and the public. Once you remove those sleazy gimmicks, the Bush contribution to the debt jumps up by almost $3 trillion more than it would have otherwise been:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html
Alrighty, that leaves us at 23.8% of GDP during the Obama years. Dial it back to the 19.4% of the Clinton years, and I'd be much happier. [/quote]
You're talking about a 2-3% variance. Do you realize how trivial this is, in the frame of reference we're talking about?
And do you realize how trivial this is, in light of the far-right fearmongering about this point that we have been hearing?
And considering the fact that we have lost 15 million jobs and been enduring a 4 year recession, it is so terribly unrealistic for spending to be 3% higher than under Clinton, even while staying well under 25% of GDP?
And of course, even if spending had remained constant, the % of spending as % of GDP would have still gone up, because GDP has shrank during the recession. After all, when the denominator in a fraction goes down, then the ratio (fraction) goes up; i.e., 10/25 is smaller than 10/22?
Frankly, I don't see the problem here. I see a lot of people (esp. talking heads, bloggers and Tea Party types) enraged over something they don't understand very well.
Let's be clear about that, since a lot of people don't seem to understand how the federal budget operates. The first year of the Obama administration was actually the last year of the Bush administration's budget.
The federal fiscal year ends on Sept 30th each year. The first day of the federal fiscal new year is therefore Oct 1st. In the autumn of each year - and hopefully before the govt runs out of money - Congress passes the budget that allows the govt to keep running for the following year. So far, so good.
And at the end of each fiscal year, the CBO and Treasury tally the income vs. outflow figures and report them to everyone. If there is a deficit that is unpaid for any given year, then it gets added to the ongoing tally of the federal debt. Deficit is an annual event, while debt is an ongoing, rolling tally.
What does this mean?
It means that the the spending executed until 9/30/2009 represents the last budget passed while George Bush was still president in 2008. And to be fair, this is the way things are for every president: during their first year, they're actually disbursing funds from a budget passed by their predecessor. And in like fashion, the last year of every presidency is a budget which that particular president won't be spending very much of.
And of course, this doesn't count the fact that the Bush errors in fiscal and financial policy actually have ongoing effects into 2010, 2011 and beyond. The additional deficit spending in 2010 and 2011 wouldn't have been necessary if Bush & Co. hadn't trashed the economy in the preceding years.
And finally - and speaking of debt - Bush was heavy into accounting gimmicks to try and hide the cost of his two Mideast wars from Congress and the public. Once you remove those sleazy gimmicks, the Bush contribution to the debt jumps up by almost $3 trillion more than it would have otherwise been:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html
C
christundivided
Guest
redgreen5 said:
He swings..... Its a screamer......it a foul ball that travels and hits "mommy" right in the forehead. Roscoe Jenkins rounds the bases....
3 % of GDP isn't nothing. Would to God the GDP would rise 3 percent this year.....
You fail to realize the impact of carrying a 15 trillion debt. You do know that debt payments increase due to the deficit spending. A cut of 3 percent would at least go toward compounding debt requirements.
christundivided said:Why should federal spending even be tied to GDP?
It shouldn't. We should only spend what is necessary. Forget the idea that we can spend up to a certain percentage of GDP. Such methods do not allow for a proper planning periods. You can't plan a spending limit based on any "present state" of the economy. If you take such a route.... at least target spending based on lowest projections with a cap of no more than say.... 15 percent of GDP.
I thought you are a Ron Paul fan.
No, I'm not saying we should base our budgets on percent of GDP. But those are the basis of the graphs I was commenting on.
I didn't say 19.4% would be my ideal. I said I'd be much happier with that than with Obama's 23.8% average. I agree that 15% would be better yet, although it would require a lot of changes and I'm not quite sure how we get there from here.
And yes, by and large, I like Ron Paul's domestic agenda, though I don't care for his foreign policy. However, the foreign policy is a deal breaker, and because of it I haven't been able to support him this year.
Right, the total budget as a percent of GDP isn't quite cause for panic, though I do not like that big a government. The deficit and debt are pretty alarming though.
And yes, I do understand the budget process. I've had a fair bit of experience in politics.
And yes, I do understand the budget process. I've had a fair bit of experience in politics.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
redgreen5 said:
500 BILLION dollars is trivial? That kind of thinking is why the country is in the financial mess it is in.
redgreen5 said:
"Well under 25% of GDP"?
You honestly believe the feds should spend the equivalent of one quarter of our total economic output? redgreen5 said:
Bush was horrible in this area. Obama was horrible in this area. Bush was only a little less horrible than Obama. Congress (who shoulders most of the blame) has been horrible in this area.
Frankly, I want someone who is good in this area, not someone who is a little less horrible than the previous guy.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Izdaari said:
x2
I'd actually like to see total government spending (at all levels) around that 15% mark, but that should be up to the individual states AND there shouldn't be federal bailouts when they get underwater.
R
redgreen5
Guest
[quote author=christundivided]He swings..... Its a screamer......it a foul ball that travels and hits "mommy" right in the forehead. Roscoe Jenkins rounds the bases.... [/quote]
Whatever.
Sigh.
A 3% change in [spending as a percentage of GDP] is not the same number as a [3% increase in overall GDP].
You are confused again.
No, you fail to realize that the discussion was about annual spending as % of GDP.
The federal debt is a different discussion.
In point of fact, they have not increased. Do you know why?
If not, it'll be a useful exercise for you. Google is your friend.
So would repealing the Bush tax giveaways.
[/quote]Whatever.
Sigh.
A 3% change in [spending as a percentage of GDP] is not the same number as a [3% increase in overall GDP].
You are confused again.
No, you fail to realize that the discussion was about annual spending as % of GDP.
The federal debt is a different discussion.
In point of fact, they have not increased. Do you know why?
If not, it'll be a useful exercise for you. Google is your friend.
So would making corporations pay the same rate on taxes that middle income Americans pay.
So would repealing the Bush tax giveaways.