US politics - wheeling and dealing, avoiding debt ceiling

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Larry of the Lake said:

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.  

The economy has been growing, but so has the wealth gap. 4% GDP growth means nothing when half the country sees little to no benefit from it. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

The economy has been growing, but so has the wealth gap. 4% GDP growth means nothing when half the country sees little to no benefit from it. 

Alright help me out, where are the goalposts going next?  

Do you seriously think that the national debt increasing is what drives inequality?  

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

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.

Huh, sounds like the debt tripling hasn't done any damage.  And the rate of increase has slacked off.  Since 2000 doubled after 7 years, then 8, years or so, then only a 50% increase over the next 7.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Alright help me out, where are the goalposts going next?  

Do you seriously think that the national debt increasing is what drives inequality?  

I have said the exact same thing since last night. My worry is that as the debt balloons more and more people will agree that we need to cut spending. And who will that hurt the most? Those with the most needs.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I have said the exact same thing since last night. My worry is that as the debt balloons more and more people will agree that we need to cut spending. And who will that hurt the most? Those with the most needs.

Who cares?  Why cater to a bogus hypothetical?

[Ran]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The economy has been growing, but so has the wealth gap. 4% GDP growth means nothing when half the country sees little to no benefit from it. 

Income inequality is down, so saying half the country isn't benefitting is just not true.

7 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Huh, sounds like the debt tripling hasn't done any damage.  

We have been in a historically extremely low inflation period for a long time. The pain is going to come when interest rates are high to combat high inflation.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Who cares?  Why cater to a bogus hypothetical?

When people tell you what they want to do, listen. Have they largely failed? Yes. Are they stopping? No. 

7 minutes ago, Ran said:

Income inequality is down, so saying half the country isn't benefitting is just not true.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-04/most-americans-lack-the-cash-to-cover-a-surprise-400-expense#xj4y7vzkg

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

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 generally agree bills like the IRA should be paid for - which it was btw, and always would have been even in the earliest iterations.  There are, though, extraordinary circumstances when stimulus is required regardless.  Anyway I'm not sure why you think this doesn't already happen.  And as for entitlement programs, PAYGO was reinstituted 13 years ago.

Federal judge rules Tennessee restrictions on drag shows unconstitutional:

Quote

U.S. District Judge Thomas Parker said in his ruling that the law, which Gov. Bill Lee (R) signed in March, is both “unconstitutionally vague and substantially overbroad.” [...]

Parker agreed with the argument, ruling that the AEA was passed “for the impermissible purpose of chilling constitutionally-protected speech.” 

He ruled that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors, but the law is not the least restrictive nor most narrowly tailored way that it could accomplish this without violating free speech. 

Unless SCOTUS steps in, the next step would be the Sixth Circuit.  Be interesting to see how they rule.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

55 minutes ago, DMC said:

I generally agree bills like the IRA should be paid for - which it was btw, and always would have been even in the earliest iterations.  There are, though, extraordinary circumstances when stimulus is required regardless.  Anyway I'm not sure why you think this doesn't already happen.  And as for entitlement programs, PAYGO was reinstituted 13 years ago.

Which I agree with. I think Balanced Budge Amendments are silly and shortsighted. Every government needs to run deficits, especially now with all the climate disasters. My point is that you can't always run a deficit and when it's possible try to have a surplus for the lean times. I'm no economist either, but I think it's fair to argue during the Trump years if they weren't being cynical and ideological that they should have raised taxes, transfer money from defense to schools and infrastructure and raised interest rates. Instead they did the exact opposite and look where we are. 

Perhaps I'm being too negative and looking too far out into the future, but for me it's hard not to see how this isn't going to bite us in the ass at some point, and my worry is it will happen at a very bad time for us. And since you mentioned the UK and France, I think they should have the exact same fears. Perhaps even more so. 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Income inequality is down, so saying half the country isn't benefitting is just not true.

This really depends on how you measure it - and, of course, when you're measuring it.  For instance, there's this from the Census Bureau:

Quote

Using pretax money income, the Gini index increased by 1.2% between 2020 and 2021 (from 0.488 to 0.494). This annual change was the first time the Gini index had increased since 2011.

Prior to 2011, the Gini index had not shown an annual increase since 1993, the earliest year available for comparable measures of income inequality. Since 1993, the Gini index has increased 8.8%. 

Then, while it goes back to 2018, there's this from Pew:

Quote

The wealth gap between upper-income and lower- and middle-income families has grown wider this century. Upper-income families were the only income tier able to build on their wealth from 2001 to 2016, adding 33% at the median. On the other hand, middle-income families saw their median net worth shrink by 20% and lower-income families experienced a loss of 45%. As of 2016, upper-income families had 7.4 times as much wealth as middle-income families and 75 times as much wealth as lower-income families. These ratios are up from 3.4 and 28 in 1983, respectively.

This is the most concerning aspect to me, depicted in this chart.

Then there's Mathew Desmond who's demonstrated and emphasized the racial wealth gap:

Quote

In 2019, the median white household had a net worth of $188,200, compared with $24,100 for the median Black household.

“Our legacy of systematically denying Black people access to the nation’s land and riches has been passed from generation to generation,” he wrote.

Most first-time homebuyers, he explains, get down-payment help from their parents. And many of those parents are able to assist their children by refinancing their own homes, “as their parents did for them after the government subsidized homeownership in white communities in the wake of World War II.”

Anyway, that's a whole different discussion.  Income/wealth inequality is clearly orthogonal to the rise in national debt as a percentage of GDP, or even deficit spending.  Will Republicans focus their cuts on programs designed to help out those facing abject poverty?  Of course, but that's always been the case and will always be the case, regardless of what the national debt looks like or deficit spending for that matter.

[Ran]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-04/most-americans-lack-the-cash-to-cover-a-surprise-400-expense#xj4y7vzkg

FTFS: from Q1 to Q2, the percentage of respondents who said they had no means in any way to pay fell from 19% to 17%

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

My point is that you can't always run a deficit and when it's possible try to have a surplus for the lean times.

Yeah I don't think we're really disagreeing much.  I just don't see the point in worrying about what might happen years down the road.  Obviously there are a lot of issues concerning our politics, polarization, and democracy that make me worry about what will happen years down the road.  The national debt and/or deficit spending is decidedly low on that list.  And it should be.

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Federal judge rules Tennessee restrictions on drag shows unconstitutional:

Unless SCOTUS steps in, the next step would be the Sixth Circuit.  Be interesting to see how they rule.

I get what you're saying with "interesting" so don't take this as having a go at that, just... Fuck me is the whole thing terrifying. This ruling is very encouraging though.

Florida is throwing so much shit at the wall to try get genocide going that I imagine it's going to take a number of court cases to shut down. From that perspective it is indeed interesting seeing what SCOTUS will do with it when they start getting there

[DMC]

Just now, karaddin said:

I get what you're saying with "interesting" so don't take this as having a go at that, just... Fuck me is the whole thing terrifying. This ruling is very encouraging though.

Certainly agree it's terrifying.  Hopefully this is a step in the right direction, but I honestly have no idea how SCOTUS will come down on these type of blatantly discriminatory laws.  One thing to note though is the Judge - Tommy Parker - was appointed by Trump.  He was confirmed 98-0. 

Not counting senior judges, the sixth circuit has six judges appointed by Trump, five appointed by Democratic presidents, and four appointed by Dubya.  So who knows what the (presumably) three judge panel will look like.

[karaddin]

Yeah I'd seen it was a Trump appointee, it helps with hoping that others will follow similar lines.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

38 minutes ago, Ran said:

FTFS: from Q1 to Q2, the percentage of respondents who said they had no means in any way to pay fell from 19% to 17%

That says basically exactly what I said, just separating those who literally had nothing versus those who would find it a financial hardship. The result is the same, around half of people in the US do not have the means to pay for what is to me a small bill out of pocket. That's not good and those are likely the people that would be hit hardest by cuts in social programs. 

48 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah I don't think we're really disagreeing much.  I just don't see the point in worrying about what might happen years down the road.  Obviously there are a lot of issues concerning our politics, polarization, and democracy that make me worry about what will happen years down the road.  The national debt and/or deficit spending is decidedly low on that list.  And it should be.

We're not. I've said over and over some deficit spending is fine and in many cases necessary. I just don't like it as a crutch used for the overwhelming majority of my life. And I do care about what we do today affecting people down the road who had no say in the matter and might suffer for it. Guess I stared at this quote one too many times in a tiny office when I was a young intern:

Quote

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman, of the next generation.

Many of the issues that concern me are things I'll probably never have to deal with. I'm not that worried about climate change having a major impact on my life until I'm quite old, but I am trouble by how it will hurt the young people at the time if my fears are correct. 

[DMC]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Guess I stared at this quote one too many times in a tiny office when I was a young intern:

Yeah that quote doesn't change the fact the debt/deficit spending is not high on the list of priorities when worrying about the next generation.

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

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

Again, show your work. Why is it going to matter? Under what circumstances? Because so far you've said it is obvious that it should, but not actually been able to say why it is. My suspicion is that you simply don't know at all and have never thought about it.

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

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

Cool, cool. Now say what the gdp of the US was at that time vs now.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Cool, cool. Now say what the gdp of the US was at that time vs now.

To be fair, the best metric to use in this discussion is debt as a percentage of GDP, which can be found here.  And Ty isn't wrong that it ballooned from about 60-ish percent during the 90s and aughts to a bit over 100 percent following the GFC - and then again jumped to the 120s due to covid.  However, it should also be noted it's been decreasing since peaking at 132% in March 2021.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah that quote doesn't change the fact the debt/deficit spending is not high on the list of priorities when worrying about the next generation.

Assuming the US is stable, which I'm not sure is a safe bet.

6 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Again, show your work. Why is it going to matter? Under what circumstances? Because so far you've said it is obvious that it should, but not actually been able to say why it is. My suspicion is that you simply don't know at all and have never thought about it.

Would you like me to link for you the never ending amount of articles there are about why the debt could become a problem in the future, those not even assuming the above are fears of the writers? Just because it isn't a problem right now doesn't mean it won't be in 20 years, and the attitude of "fuck it, who cares" is not one I'm on board with.

Quote

Cool, cool. Now say what the gdp of the US was at that time vs now.

It's was higher in 2022, but that is an outlier. That's not going to hold up over time.