U.S. Politics

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

As every conservative who insists that Bush II left no meaningful deficit will tell you, wars don't cost money. Everyone knows that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

MtMM,

As every conservative who insists that Bush II left no meaningful deficit will tell you, wars don't cost money. Everyone knows that.

Who claims that? Link please.

[MojoJojo]

In addition to the massive inflexibility of a balanced budget amendment, you'd also have the problem of recessions. Recessions mean less tax revenue, so a balanced budget amendment would require increased taxes/spending cuts during a recession. Which makes the recession worse. Which means less tax revenue. Rinse and repeat.

Collecting taxes to pay wages and collect more taxes is hardly a way to prop up the economy because it can only be done through massive deficit spending. Of course, right now is the time to be running a deficit. Bad economy, fragile recovery etc. We need to keep the aggregate demand up, and interest rates are at an all time low (or at least they were before the default crisis) so at least that money is cheap. The real problem is that we dont ever want to cut back in the good times. When the economy is strong, we see extra tax revenue come in and the Democrats look for ways to spend it on new programs and entitlements while the Republicans argue we "overcharged the American People" and should cut taxes.

[Commodore]

Budgets and projections can be manipulated to say anything. Baseline budgeting should be criminal and the 1974 Budget Act needs to be abolished/replaced. If you kept spending at current levels for 10 years that would be scored as a $9 trillion cut, even though the budget hasn't changed. 99% of Americans don't know that, they think these numbers being thrown around in the news are actual cuts, when they are just a reduction in the rate of increase.

But the deficit is much harder to manipulate. At the end of the month/year the revenues/spending tells the tale, regardless of what was projected/promised/budgeted.

What I don't understand is while the economy is falling into a double dip, Obama seems paralyzed. What does he propose to do about it? Does anyone even know? If he thinks another stimulus is necessary, why hasn't he proposed one? If I were a reporter I would ask the Whitehouse basic questions. "Mr President, what do you propose be done to improve economic growth? What do you propose be done to improve unemployment? What do you propose be done to prevent a credit downgrade?" This guy is impossible to pin down on anything and he gets away with it in the press, nothing but focused tested bromides about "compromise" and a "balanced approach".

I think he truly believes in his ability to change perception without changing economic reality. He seems to be entirely focused on the former and has completely given up on the latter.

[Smashing Young Man]

As every conservative who insists that Bush II left no meaningful deficit will tell you, wars don't cost money. Everyone knows that.

Keep pulling stuff out of your ass . . . you might find something worthwhile lodged up there one of these days.

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

Who claims that? Link please.

A: you're doubtless aware I wasn't entirely serious

B: I have run into more than a few conservatives who claim that the deficit after Bush was something like $158 billion, and part of how they arrived at that number was by ignoring that the wars weren't included in the figure. I was also riffing on the GOP's, mmmm, reluctance to reduce military spending.

Keep pulling stuff out of your ass . . . you might find something worthwhile lodged up there one of these days.

What, like your penis? I'm waiting with bated breath, stud.

[TheKassi]

What is probably being referenced is the fact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were deliberately burred in the budget under Bush, rather then linked to defense spending. It was a deliberate effort to hide how much was being spent by this country in the middle east, as it would hurt the GOP's fiscal conservative street credibility.

No reason to be so vulgar about the whole thing, particularly given the mocking tone of the post. I would recommend in the future simply labeling Max a brigand, or perhaps a rogue if that term hasn't been too distorted by video games. If you truly wish to take of the gloves, go with Rapscallion. It will not only make you seem sophisticated, but the slur will be devastating to his reputation as a right and proper dandy.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Okay, so here is another question that may have been in the last thread; if so, apologies.

I keep reading about making cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I work in a hospital, so I know that the latter two have been on the hospital administration's radar for quite some time, in terms of the problems there.

What I have NOT been reading, is cutting the federal defense budget. I am under the impression that the government could possibly save mass amounts there. Has this been on the table as an option, and I have missed it? Is there the money in the defense budget alone to cut that would make everyone happy? I am presuming that the Republicans, who I believe to be the bastions of defense spending, would even consider this possibility....

Reid's plan included, among other things, $1 trillion in savings primarily from winding down DOD expenses vis-a-vis the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Defense is on the chopping block, just not as much as it should be, IMO. On the other hand, the defense budget is only about a quarter of the current year's budget, IIRC ($800 billion of $2.5 trillion, someone please correct me if I'm wrong), and we are running a deficit for this year of $1 trillion, so even eliminating the entire military would not, at this point, prevent us from running a deficit.

For comparison, "fixed expenditures" in the form of SS and Medicare/caid are something like 50% of the budget.

But the deficit is much harder to manipulate. At the end of the month/year the revenues/spending tells the tale, regardless of what was projected/promised/budgeted.

When referring to hard numbers, I tend to agree with you. What I don't like is when conservative pundits point to the deficit enumerated as a percentage of GDP under Bush and Obama without acknowledging that Obama's deficit is higher as a proportion of GDP primarily due to the effects of the recession (actually, if you consider stimulus as an effect of the recession, then it's completely due to it). But yes, the numbers can and do say anything. We have to examine the assumptions of any budget proposal on these grounds.

What I don't understand is while the economy is falling into a double dip, Obama seems paralyzed. What does he propose to do about it? Does anyone even know? If he thinks another stimulus is necessary, why hasn't he proposed one? If I were a reporter I would ask the Whitehouse basic questions. "Mr President, what do you propose be done to improve economic growth? What do you propose be done to improve unemployment? What do you propose be done to prevent a credit downgrade?" This guy is impossible to pin down on anything and he gets away with it in the press, nothing but focused tested bromides about "compromise" and a "balanced approach".

Are you suggesting that you want Obama to stimulate the economy via a jobs bill or otherwise? Not a position I would have expected you to take.

To answer the question, Obama is no doubt aware that the loudest voices in the country right now are calling for austerity and that most people either think the stimulus failed (which it didn't) or that the government overstepped its authority. The public is, overall, not in a mood to entertain another massive stimulus. However, I think that if Obama came up with an ambitious bill that stimulated jobs by rebuilding American infrastructure, especially our decrepit and shameful highway and bridge systems as well as upgrading the national telecommunications network, he could get a lot of support. The public has always seemed to indicate that jobs are the most important thing for them, and to a great extent Obama's reelection depends on employment figures. IIRC no president has ever been reelected in conditions of unemployment exceeding 8%.

Not to mention that all of the above could be done for less than the previous stimuli. Joy.

I think he truly believes in his ability to change perception without changing economic reality. He seems to be entirely focused on the former and has completely given up on the latter.

I don't think this is true. Honestly, I think he's waiting for his moment in order to maximize the political benefits or minimize the damage, depending on what happens over the next few months. I think he should just do it, personally, but he is still a politician.

[ThinkerX]

If I remember right, the question of who gets paid (and maybe how much) was covered on the evening news tonight (CBS) (actually most of the show was devoted to the debt ceiling, consequences, and solutions) :

If my recollection is right -

The US takes a overall 40% hit to revenue.

Priority is bond holders (treasuries) (WHY? WHY CAN"T THEY TAKE A HAIRCUT?)

Social programs, aka social security, pensions, mediwhatever.

Military salaries - and maybe not all of them.

Past that, there is nothing left, period. Federal Government employees and contractors won't get paid. No other programs, unless they have some sort of external income (like the post office). This includes military programs and defence contractors.

After a few weeks of this, congress critters will likely be at extreme risk of being physically lynched. Anybody think I'm exagerrating there.

[Smashing Young Man]

If I remember right, the question of who gets paid (and maybe how much) was covered on the evening news tonight (CBS) (actually most of the show was devoted to the debt ceiling, consequences, and solutions) :

If my recollection is right -

The US takes a overall 40% hit to revenue.

Priority is bond holders (treasuries) (WHY? WHY CAN"T THEY TAKE A HAIRCUT?)

Social programs, aka social security, pensions, mediwhatever.

Military salaries - and maybe not all of them.

Past that, there is nothing left, period. Federal Government employees and contractors won't get paid. No other programs, unless they have some sort of external income (like the post office). This includes military programs and defence contractors.

After a few weeks of this, congress critters will likely be at extreme risk of being physically lynched. Anybody think I'm exagerrating there.

Lynched by who?

[TheKassi]

Lynched by who?

The people who are expected to work for an IOU rather then a paycheck, and who can be tossed in jail if they refuse.

Theoretically this would be everyone from retirees to soldiers to the black water guys. While it is never going to happen, things might get ugly if such folk doesn't get paid for a couple of months. We got a lot of mercs paid out of our treasury.

On top of this, we have the people in industries heavily subsidized by everything from direct payment, to indirect payment such as tax incentives. As example, everyone who draws their paycheck in the medical and insurance fields. If those subsidies and tax incentives vanish, most of those people are going to get laid off, or see huge cuts in their standard of living. Between the VA, Medicare, Medicade, subsidies and and tax incentives for giving your workers healthcare, America is dumping way over a trillion dollars a year into those two fields alone. If you count revenue the government funnels into health insurance, which in turn trickles down into medicine, it is closer to two trillion.

That is several million families who's income, in whole or in part, depends on the government pumping out cash. If it stops, without even getting into the ripple effect, that is going to cause a lot of rage for people who believe they live in a capitalist country.

The last thing in the world America wishes to wake up and find out is that their paycheck revolved around a network of socialist wealth redistribution. Even that is without going into how many prices are artificially lowered, such as everything in the grocery store with corn in it. For as much as the nation scoffs at wealth redistribution, about half the country makes out like bandits without putting much or anything into the system.

[ThinkerX]

I was going to say 'the people who voted them into office' but 'TheKhassi' put it so much better. Things are bad enough already without millions of people missing a paycheck or two and being told 'do your job anyway and stop whining'.

I have this impression that a lot of the nitwits in congress who created this catastrophe expect they can just head on back to their home districts in a month or so and return to some form of BAU, maybe even get praise for 'standing up to Obama' or some such, not dodge literal stones or have to contend with really ticked off mobs. Stones start flying and mobs start forming...I suspect that some of these idiots will try to write it off as 'liberal thuggery' or some such and demand a crackdown rather than rethink their ideaology.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

MtMM,

A: you're doubtless aware I wasn't entirely serious

B: I have run into more than a few conservatives who claim that the deficit after Bush was something like $158 billion, and part of how they arrived at that number was by ignoring that the wars weren't included in the figure. I was also riffing on the GOP's, mmmm, reluctance to reduce military spending.

Thank you for clarifying. Anyone who claims Bush didn't increase the U.S. National debt by huge proportions is completely ignorant. I freely admit cuts to defense spending have to be on the table to bring the budget under control as well as cuts to entitlements. Neither party is willing to take the scalpel to their cash cows. It's a serious problem.

[Commodore]

Are you suggesting that you want Obama to stimulate the economy via a jobs bill or otherwise? Not a position I would have expected you to take.

No, I'm expecting Obama, being a leader and all, articulate and promote an agenda.

This guy is the POTUS and we don't know what he thinks should be done to improve the economy.

If I were a supporter I would wonder why this guy isn't leading. Look at this latest debt ceiling deal. Obama gave up everything other than a debt ceiling hike through election day, his only real stipulation. Pathetic. This guy won't even fight for what he believes. He clearly opposes these austerity attempts but rather than fight back, he just stays mum and hopes to ride it out until the economy improves and public opinion changes, I guess.

I don't think this is true. Honestly, I think he's waiting for his moment in order to maximize the political benefits or minimize the damage, depending on what happens over the next few months. I think he should just do it, personally, but he is still a politician.

What moment? How would he maximize political benefit? When you are president you have to do something or stand for doing something. We have no idea what he wants to do to improve the economy.

The first quarter of negative growth is going to force his hand. He will either have to go along with tax cuts, or propose yet another stimulus bill that won't get support in the House. But if the tax cuts lead to economic growth, it undermines his entire reelection campaign (why elect Obama when you can have the real thing?).

[Jon Sprunk]

No, I'm expecting Obama, being a leader and all, articulate and promote an agenda.

This guy is the POTUS and we don't know what he thinks should be done to improve the economy.

If I were a supporter I would wonder why this guy isn't leading.

Is this really the only ammo the GOP has left? Obama's not leading? He doesn't have any positions? Wow, talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Obama speaks extensively about his positions all the time. And he's accomplished more in his first 2 years than any president since when...? Washington?

When your enemy resorts to a slash-and-burn strategy, you don't engage directly. On the day the GOP wants to negiotiate in good faith (like, I hope, the secret talks going on right now in the White House), they'll find Obama ready and willing to talk. Otherwise, they can keep chasing their own tails.

[Serious Callers Only]

The "alleged" abuses of power of the Oboma admin are not. They're factual.

Read this:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/30/whistleblowers/index.html

Muppet on the right, meet muppet on the left.

[Noroldis]

A question for all here: if Obama had taken a firm stand back in November concerning the Bush tax cuts instead of basically capitulating to the GOP, do you believe the Republicans would have been willing to engage in the current brinksmanship we're seeing for the debt ceiling?

[Galactus]

No, I'm expecting Obama, being a leader and all, articulate and promote an agenda.

This guy is the POTUS and we don't know what he thinks should be done to improve the economy.

If I were a supporter I would wonder why this guy isn't leading. Look at this latest debt ceiling deal. Obama gave up everything other than a debt ceiling hike through election day, his only real stipulation. Pathetic. This guy won't even fight for what he believes. He clearly opposes these austerity attempts but rather than fight back, he just stays mum and hopes to ride it out until the economy improves and public opinion changes, I guess.

What moment? How would he maximize political benefit? When you are president you have to do something or stand for doing something. We have no idea what he wants to do to improve the economy.

The first quarter of negative growth is going to force his hand. He will either have to go along with tax cuts, or propose yet another stimulus bill that won't get support in the House. But if the tax cuts lead to economic growth, it undermines his entire reelection campaign (why elect Obama when you can have the real thing?).

Honestly, I'd expect Obama not having much of an articulated positiion in this situation, it means he doesen't have to go back on his word when the inevitable compromise comes.

[Selmy]

Okay, so here is another question that may have been in the last thread; if so, apologies.

I keep reading about making cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I work in a hospital, so I know that the latter two have been on the hospital administration's radar for quite some time, in terms of the problems there.

What I have NOT been reading, is cutting the federal defense budget. I am under the impression that the government could possibly save mass amounts there. Has this been on the table as an option, and I have missed it? Is there the money in the defense budget alone to cut that would make everyone happy? I am presuming that the Republicans, who I believe to be the bastions of defense spending, would even consider this possibility....

Supposedly defense cuts are on the table.

There have been a few stories and you can probably find clips of Petraeus talking to groups of soldiers and telling that they may need to reconsider their finances, cutting back, reconsider their military pensions, etc.

I'm not sure how much posturing he was doing.

[Commodore]

Is this really the only ammo the GOP has left? Obama's not leading? He doesn't have any positions? Wow, talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Obama speaks extensively about his positions all the time. And he's accomplished more in his first 2 years than any president since when...? Washington?

Like I said, you can't tell me what Obama wants to do about declining economic growth, high unemployment, the rising debt. He hasn't proposed anything. Those are the issues that will define the next election and he has no stand.