US politics - wheeling and dealing, avoiding debt ceiling

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Yes, you can. Why can't you? 

Because sometimes you need a budget that's neutral on the national debt and sometimes you need a surplus. Always leaning on deficit spending because there's not much will to do anything else is idiotic when you've been doing it for 25 years.

Quote

Again, we're bringing in FAR more money than $1.05 for every $1 spent. In some areas (like SNAP or medicare) the returns are ridiculously higher.

Yes, I agree. We don't prioritize the right kind of spending far too often. My larger point is in good times you should try to bring in a little more in tax revenue than you spend. Just make sure you do it wisely. I don't think many people across the political spectrum think we're doing a good job at the latter. 

[Kalbear]

30 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Because sometimes you need a budget that's neutral on the national debt and sometimes you need a surplus. Always leaning on deficit spending because there's not much will to do anything else is idiotic when you've been doing it for 25 years.

And...why, exactly? Why do you need a budget that's neutral on the national debt? Please do show your work here. 

 

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

This POTUS, btw, was Andrew Jackson.

Coolidge, also, was big on balancing the budget right before the Great Depression.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

47 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

And...why, exactly? Why do you need a budget that's neutral on the national debt? Please do show your work here. 

 

Do you seriously think it's wise policy to run a deficit every year? There's nothing wrong with doing it for a period of time, but we've been doing it for so long with so much garbage in the budget while not doing enough for the needy, but doing all we can for the greedy. It's not a problem today, but it could become one and cynical Republicans will use it as a wedge to cut programs for the people we should actually have a deficit for. 

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Do you seriously think it's wise policy to run a deficit every year?

I mean, it depends on the context, but based on what's been going on during this entire century - yes, certainly.  Again, we're not the only ones btw.  The UK and France are in a similar (and actually "worse") boat. 

Not to get too philosophical (but I'm gonna), there are two primary reasons to have governments in the first place - to ensure the safety of its citizens, and to ensure its citizens are ensured basic needs in order to have the opportunity to better themselves. 

That describes defense spending, social security, medicare, and medicaid - otherwise known as about 70 percent of the federal budget.  Most of the rest is pretty much literally just trying to help people, in particular the most disadvantaged.  Should that be cut?  Ideally, no.  And I don't care how the economy looks overall.  Indeed, it should be increased.

Alternatively, should defense spending be cut?  Perhaps we don't need all the people we have playing dress up and spending billions on weapon systems. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

39 minutes ago, DMC said:

I mean, it depends on the context, but based on what's been going on during this entire century - yes, certainly.  Again, we're not the only ones btw.  The UK and France are in a similar (and actually "worse") boat. 

And they're declining, just like we are.

Quote

Not to get too philosophical (but I'm gonna), there are two primary reasons to have governments in the first place - to ensure the safety of its citizens, and to ensure its citizens are ensured basic needs in order to have the opportunity to better themselves. 

That describes defense spending, social security, medicare, and medicaid - otherwise known as about 70 percent of the federal budget.  Most of the rest is pretty much literally just trying to help people, in particular the most disadvantaged.  Should that be cut?  Ideally, no.  And I don't care how the economy looks overall.  Indeed, it should be increased.

Alternatively, should defense spending be cut?  Perhaps we don't need all the people we have playing dress up and spending billions on weapon systems. 

I'm not against increasing spending to help people, especially those in need, but eventually someone will have to pay for it. It should be the richest among us, but they're using their power to cut their taxes while also cutting social services. There needs to be a fundamental change to how we're doing this. I don't think Sanders' has the answers, but we've got to try something different from the current model which is just going to be making inequality worse and worse while enriching a few and bankrupting the country. 

[DMC]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

And they're declining, just like we are.

We are?  They are?  Please explain.  Because in terms of bottomline GDP, that's not the case - albeit it was during covid.

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There needs to be a fundamental change to how we're doing this. I don't think Sanders' has the answers, but we've got to try something different from the current model which is just going to be making inequality worse and worse while enriching a few and bankrupting the country. 

Not sure why you're deputizing Sanders into this argument.  He'd run deficits continuously and not worry about it.

Anyway, there's no reason to think increasing government deficits increases inequality, I don't know where you're getting that from.  There are arguments against running deficits, sure - but there are also legit arguments that it really doesn't matter.  I'm not an economist, I don't really have a strong position either way.  But what I do know is running deficits has nothing to do with the income/wealth inequality gap.  That's a bunch of bullshit you maybe hear on podcasts or something.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, DMC said:

We are?  They are?  Please explain.  Because in terms of bottomline GDP, that's not the case - albeit it was during covid.

In overall perception. Deficits aren't related to that though I think it's going to bite all three countries' asses in the long run.

Quote

Not sure why you're deputizing Sanders into this argument.  He'd run deficits continuously and not worry about it.

Anyway, there's no reason to think increasing government deficits increases inequality, I don't know where you're getting that from.  There are arguments against running deficits, sure - but there are also legit arguments that it really doesn't matter.  I'm not an economist, I don't really have a strong position either way.  But what I do know is running deficits has nothing to do with the income/wealth inequality gap.  That's a bunch of bullshit you maybe hear on podcasts or something.

Well as I've said before I believe he'd struggle to get most of what he wants passed.

And I think there is a real chance that running deficits for a very long time, even if you don't think it's an actual problem in real time, will eventually lead to cuts to the programs you're running them for. I'm not arguing for this at all, but I do think it would be wise to at least try and run a surplus in times where it makes sense. Constantly relying on the credit card has to eventually lead to real problems and if you think not then say we shouldn't ever care about it. 

[DMC]

28 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

In overall perception.

So..in other words, in your view.  Ok.  Not sure how how anyone can change that.

32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And I think there is a real chance that running deficits for a very long time, even if you don't think it's an actual problem in real time, will eventually lead to cuts to the programs you're running them for.

K.  Maybe you're right..eventually.  But is that a reason not to institute the programs now?  This smacks of a backwards argument - "eventually we may have to cut it so let's not do it in the first place."  Not very compelling. 

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Do you seriously think it's wise policy to run a deficit every year?

If you're making a massive profit in your country's success and the people's health while dominating the world? absolutely. It's a ridiculous question to ask. You're asking a question similar to 'should banks loan money'. There are very specific reasons not to depending on other factors but 'because you feel it is bad' is not a rational view, it's a moral value.

And that's fine, you can say you don't like feeding the poor and taking care of the elderly. But don't put it on the idea that the deficit is somehow this horrible boogeyman.

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

There's nothing wrong with doing it for a period of time, but we've been doing it for so long with so much garbage in the budget while not doing enough for the needy, but doing all we can for the greedy. It's not a problem today, but it could become one and cynical Republicans will use it as a wedge to cut programs for the people we should actually have a deficit for. 

Republicans will do whatever they want on the flimsiest of precepts anyway. Fuck catering to their threats. Here's the hard truth - the absolute most bulletproof policies that dems can ever put forward are social benefit ones. Once they are in place they are almost immortal. Because they are popular. 

Can the government be more efficient and less corrupt? Yep! But deficit spending isn't the cause of that either. It also takes a peculiar kind of fucked up logic to say that we shouldn't spend money to help people at all because one day someone may want to reduce how many people we can help. Thats the most extreme perfect is the enemy of the good stance I've seen in a while.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, DMC said:

K.  Maybe you're right..eventually.  But is that a reason not to institute the programs now?  This smacks of a backwards argument - "eventually we may have to cut it so let's not do it in the first place."  Not very compelling. 

We should have done them 20 years ago. And we should still do them now, but we have to be honest about what they'll cost and how we're going to pay for them even if that means we're not paying for them right now or in the next few years. I just can't accept the idea that forever deficit spending won't lead to a lot of long term problems.

12 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

If you're making a massive profit in your country's success and the people's health while dominating the world? absolutely. It's a ridiculous question to ask. You're asking a question similar to 'should banks loan money'. There are very specific reasons not to depending on other factors but 'because you feel it is bad' is not a rational view, it's a moral value.

No, I'm asking if they should except to be paid back at some point. To say that's unreasonable is ridiculous and you know it.

Quote

And that's fine, you can say you don't like feeding the poor and taking care of the elderly. But don't put it on the idea that the deficit is somehow this horrible boogeyman.

I very specifically said I want to expand social programs, not cut them. But we need a plan that isn't hopes and dreams. And we also have to be realistic about the current political environment. 

[Week]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And we also have to be realistic about the current political environment. 

You know what I love? Sitting on my hands. Let's talk about that. Do you all sit palms up or down when you sit on your hands?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Trick question horses have no palms.

Edited June 3, 2023 by A Horse Named Stranger

[Week]

Palms up means you get to hold on to your butt though.

[Larry of the Lawn]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

.

No, I'm asking if they should except to be paid back at some point. To say that's unreasonable is ridiculous and you know it.

. 

What's unreasonable and ridiculous is thinking that constant deficit spending means things aren't ever being paid for.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, Week said:

You know what I love? Sitting on my hands. Let's talk about that. Do you all sit palms up or down when you sit on your hands?

Sounds like you're a fan of the stranger you dirty bastard. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

What's unreasonable and ridiculous is thinking that constant deficit spending means things aren't ever being paid for.  

This only makes sense if you think the national debt simply doesn't matter. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

This only makes sense if you think the national debt simply doesn't matter. 

The deficit and the debt are two different things, and constant deficit spending does not mean that debts arent being paid.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

The deficit and the debt are two different things, and constant deficit spending does not mean that debts arent being paid.

The debt has been increasing for a quarter century. At some point that's going to matter. 

ETA: When I graduated HS the debt was at $10T and I was concerned then. It's about to hit $32T.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

The debt has been increasing for a quarter century. At some point that's going to matter. 

So has the size of the economy.  It's not like all the creditors can or will just demand their money all at one time.