Global financial meltdown #2

[Jaime L]

The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts.

So, would you classify the Democrats willingness to accept 3 to 1 spending cuts/tax increases as reducing the deficit primarily through spending cuts or primarily through tax increases?

Interesting muddling going on in that article. How many economists say we should reduce the deficit only through spending cuts. Y'know, like the entire Repbulican party. I think that would be a bit more telling.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So, would you classify the Democrats willingness to accept 3 to 1 spending cuts/tax increases as reducing the deficit primarily through spending cuts or primarily through tax increases?

In terms of reality, that's reducing the deficit primarily through tax increases. Promised future cuts in discretionary spending just don't happen.

That's a point that nobody really wants to acknowledge, but it really goes to the core of the current standoff. You guys say "hey, we're willing to agree to 3-1 (or 10-1)", and we say "your 'willingness to agree' isn't worth a bucket of warm spit, because your willingness doesn't bind future Congresses."

Heck, it doens't even bind this Congress.

[Shryke]

The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts.

The survey out Monday found that 56 percent of the NABE members surveyed felt that way, while 37 percent said they favor equal parts spending cuts and tax increases. The remaining 7 percent believe it should be done only or mostly through tax increases.

As for how to reduce the deficit, nearly 40 percent said the best way would be to contain Medicare and Medicaid costs. Nearly a quarter recommended overhauling the tax system and simplifying tax rates and exemptions. About 15 percent said the government should enact tough spending caps and cut discretionary spending.

Can't find a link directly to the survey, but some interesting parts here.

The bolded above and this:

About three-quarters of the respondents to the survey said a tax overhaul should raise additional revenue rather than be revenue-neutral compared with the current system.

[Jaime L]

In terms of reality, that's reducing the deficit primarily through tax increases. Promised future cuts in discretionary spending just don't happen.

That's a point that nobody really wants to acknowledge, but it really goes to the core of the current standoff. You guys say "hey, we're willing to agree to 3-1 (or 10-1)", and we say "your 'willingness to agree' isn't worth a bucket of warm spit, because your willingness doesn't bind future Congresses."

Heck, it doens't even bind this Congress.

Yeah, I mean if we're going to talk about reality, as per Shyrke's link there really is no way you look at the situation objectively and still support only spending cuts as a means of fighting the deficit. The numbers simply don't work. This is exactly the kind of "have our cake and eat it too" mentality that got us into this deficit and now we have an entire political party who continues to believe and feed this nonsense that we can make a meaningful dent in this deficit without any personal pain on behalf of the American Taxpayer. You gotta work 10 times as hard to get half as far. But when I see every Republican Candidate refuse to say they'd accept a 10 to 1 spending cuts to tax revenue deal, I can tell we'll never make a dent in this thing because we still can't have a grownup conversation about it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yeah, I mean if we're going to talk about reality, as per Shyrke's link there really is no way you look at the situation objectively and still support only spending cuts as a means of fighting the deficit.

Well, I don't. I'm perfectly willing to agree to tax increases, including letting the Bush ctus expire in their entirety, but only as part of a deal that solves the entitlement issue and controls discretionary spending as well through the elimination of programs, not just reductions in funding that last for a year or two until Congress increases it again. But there's no way the left will agree to that.

Or is Obamacare -- the newest major entitlement -- on the table too?

[ants]

Look guys, if you're going to rehash the "republicans want x" versus "democrats think Y", or the "spending cuts are never realised" - take it to the US politics thread. You only have to look at what the conservative government did in Australia 15 years ago, or the torries in the UK now, to know that plenty of world governments cut spending. They often also increase taxes at the same time.

If you want to talk about whether that is plausible for a dysfunctional US political system, take it to the thread dedicated to that system. Or rather, rehash it in that thread - again.

[ants]

Stupid double post. Is anyone else having regular errors crop up with this board when posting or changing pages? A error screen saying something wrong with the SQL?

[ThinkerX]

. Is anyone else having regular errors crop up with this board when posting or changing pages? A error screen saying something wrong with the SQL?

Occasionally, yes.

------

More on topic: At long last we are finding out first hand what happens when economic systems based on infinite growth have head on collisions with finite resources and energy!

[The Progressive]

OMG, let me guess ............. default libertarianism for the entire world?!!!! :unsure:

[Lyanna Stark]

Interesting way to quantify the jobless rate

0.o at the comment section to that article.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Buffet doesn't toss five billion dollars down the hole for no reason. I wonder what incentives he was offered. TARP 2.0?

[IheartTesla]

Doom and gloom everywhere. Not that I trust what anyone says about anything related to the economy, so I place the probability of a market crash at 50:50, which is what a chimp would come up with.

So is BoA gonna survive or not? I remember Coco suggesting people take their money out of it a few pages back.

[Greywolf2375]

Buffet doesn't toss five billion dollars down the hole for no reason. I wonder what incentives he was offered. TARP 2.0?

In addition to what looks like basically a guaranteed positive return? Not sure.

Love the fact that in the Yahoo article it says he made the call to BOA on Wednesday morning. How do you make that call? Get in touch with the Customer Service Rep "Hi, I'm Warren Buffett and in 15 minutes, I will own your company. May I speak with your manager?"

[IheartTesla]

Well, now that Obama has gotten Berkshire on the job, you don't have to worry about it. That is, unless he can't get the NY AG on board and he goes after them in a big way.

You know as well as I do that these kinds of deals (the $5 billion kind) take weeks or even months to run all the numbers through, so I am suspect of this Buffet-Obama meeting correlation being taken as some kind of causation.

[Shryke]

Months. Anything with a billion in it takes months of due diligence. Unless Warren is just feeling frisky in his old age.

And he probably has the CEO's direct dial; no need to call through to the receptionist.

I always imagine Buffet has like a glowing red Buffet-phone in the offices of every major CEO.

[lokisnow]

it's so sad it's funny. By being a big evil corporate monster to people with mortgages (because being awful is more profitable in the short term) they now find that there are consequences to their vile behavior. Their attempts to extract profit by trying to squeeze blood out of bloodless stone instead of doing the right thing (modifying mortgage principles down) is going to wind up costing them far more than the slight losses they might have incurred by doing the right thing in the first place.

[Dinsdale!]

it's so sad it's funny. By being a big evil corporate monster to people with mortgages (because being awful is more profitable in the short term) they now find that there are consequences to their vile behavior. Their attempts to extract profit by trying to squeeze blood out of bloodless stone instead of doing the right thing (modifying mortgage principles down) is going to wind up costing them far more than the slight losses they might have incurred by doing the right thing in the first place.

You mean the system works!? Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!

[ThinkerX]

But what happens if/when Buffetts crew takes a real serious peak at the really stinky deals at BOA? The sort of deals that would normally result in massive fines and lots of prison time?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

it's so sad it's funny. By being a big evil corporate monster to people with mortgages (because being awful is more profitable in the short term) they now find that there are consequences to their vile behavior. Their attempts to extract profit by trying to squeeze blood out of bloodless stone instead of doing the right thing (modifying mortgage principles down) is going to wind up costing them far more than the slight losses they might have incurred by doing the right thing in the first place.

Why is this the right thing?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I never take people seriously who don't know that the correct spelling of the term is "mortgage principal", or start spouting about "evil corporations" (corporations are amoral, not immoral). Just pat it on the head and move on.

Well, if there was a corporation that was evil, it would be B of A. It's probably not so much malice as extreme, institutionalized incompetence, but they are miraculously bad.