Economic News/Discussion

[AeroSim]

How about the EPA?
How about Education? (Let the states do what they're doing).
How about my favorite that's becoming No. 1: Bank Interest for all this f*king debt? Monetary reform would "print" this out of existence.
How about repealing healthcare and start over?
How about no SS for those who don't need it? All a lot of retirees use it for is putting gas into their RVs anyhow.
How about a balanced budget amendment and Fair Trade?

The one sector that should be able to contract freely in a down economy is the government sector. For the most part, they're responsible for many of the problems in the first place.

[Keven]

Did you know that if we cut our military spending in half

Love it. Cut it. We don't need a super-secret stealth fighter when we're fighting Islamic thugs sitting in a cave with 30 year old Soviet weaponry.

and brought taxes back to Clinton-era levels

No way. You want to put huge capital gains tax and corporate tax increases on the sputtering "recovering" economy we have now?

How bout farm subsidies?

Cut 'em.

How bout oil subsidies?

Cut baby cut. I've never been a fan of 'corporate welfare'.

You sound like a fiscal conservative, BD.

[Keven]

How about Education? (Let the states do what they're doing).

Yeah, is there any proof that American education has gotten any better since we started the US Department of Education?

[myv65]

Did you know that if we cut our military spending in half and brought taxes back to Clinton-era levels, we would save 7.5 trillion over the next 10 years? And we wouldn't have to cut health care and support services for the poor and elderly. Just sayin.

How bout farm subsidies?

How bout oil subsidies?

Any of these things qualify as "entitlement" spending?

There's at least a couple 'o things troubling about your post. One, cutting military spending in half means many thousands (probably literally into the hundreds of thousands if not millions) of people need to find a new line of work. Let's just say I'm not convinced that you can accurately predict such savings by slashing military spending and assuming those people will immediately land on their feet and keep on paying the same taxes as before. Two, as I understand it Ryan's plan does hit on such things as farm subsidies.

While the cartoon you linked may be amusing, it's wholly worthless in dealing with the reality that is our nation's budgetary disaster. You in particular seem dead set against everything that Ryan has put forth for consideration, and I believe some of your objections are misplaced.

For my part, I do not know his plan in depth and do not pretend as such. What I *do* know I tend to favor. Stuff like means testing for entitlements is an absolute must if we're to get financially stable again. Stuff like converting to defined benefits instead of seemingly bottomless pits is also a necessity.

Anyway, your note about subsidies may be accurate, but it's sort of like bailing your ship with a thimble when the hole is the size of semi. It doesn't mean we should ignore the myriad spending objects great and small, but it's pretty simple math that the only areas capable of truly altering our financial future are the big hitters: Entitlements and yes, military.

Back to Ryan. Did you happen to read Charles Krauthammer's recent editorial on Ryan's plan? You can find it easily enough from a google of charles krauthammer paul ryan, but to save you time one link is here. Now granted, Charles is going to put Ryan's plan in a favorable light and cherry pick a few easy nuggets that IMHO should get broad support. So my question to you is, do you support the points Charles raises? We've got to get serious, soon, and to date Ryan's the only guy I've seen getting serious.

What I *don't* want to see is the immigration (il)logic applied to finances. You know, the old, "Well if it isn't a *complete* solution then we can't do *anything*" line of BS. I'm tired of our politicians sitting around whining without ever doing a darn thing to address problems. No one else has even tried putting together a legitimate plan to address finances, so let's start with Ryan's and find something we can agree upon and for cryin' out loud, get it done.

Perhaps I'm a bit biased, but I also think one need look no further than deficit growth under our current President (even compared with W) and conclude we ought to be doing the precise opposite of whatever that financial fool recommends. IIRC, he's set to make a financial speech tonight. Joy. He was obviously so sincere in this year's SOTU speech on this front. Any bets he once again talks the talk, but won't even take one little baby step to walk the walk?

[BlackDragon24]

There's at least a couple 'o things troubling about your post. One, cutting military spending in half means many thousands (probably literally into the hundreds of thousands if not millions) of people need to find a new line of work. Let's just say I'm not convinced that you can accurately predict such savings by slashing military spending and assuming those people will immediately land on their feet and keep on paying the same taxes as before. Two, as I understand it Ryan's plan does hit on such things as farm subsidies.

While the cartoon you linked may be amusing, it's wholly worthless in dealing with the reality that is our nation's budgetary disaster. You in particular seem dead set against everything that Ryan has put forth for consideration, and I believe some of your objections are misplaced.

For my part, I do not know his plan in depth and do not pretend as such. What I *do* know I tend to favor. Stuff like means testing for entitlements is an absolute must if we're to get financially stable again. Stuff like converting to defined benefits instead of seemingly bottomless pits is also a necessity.

Anyway, your note about subsidies may be accurate, but it's sort of like bailing your ship with a thimble when the hole is the size of semi. It doesn't mean we should ignore the myriad spending objects great and small, but it's pretty simple math that the only areas capable of truly altering our financial future are the big hitters: Entitlements and yes, military.

Back to Ryan. Did you happen to read Charles Krauthammer's recent editorial on Ryan's plan? You can find it easily enough from a google of charles krauthammer paul ryan, but to save you time one link is here. Now granted, Charles is going to put Ryan's plan in a favorable light and cherry pick a few easy nuggets that IMHO should get broad support. So my question to you is, do you support the points Charles raises? We've got to get serious, soon, and to date Ryan's the only guy I've seen getting serious.

What I *don't* want to see is the immigration (il)logic applied to finances. You know, the old, "Well if it isn't a *complete* solution then we can't do *anything*" line of BS. I'm tired of our politicians sitting around whining without ever doing a darn thing to address problems. No one else has even tried putting together a legitimate plan to address finances, so let's start with Ryan's and find something we can agree upon and for cryin' out loud, get it done.

Perhaps I'm a bit biased, but I also think one need look no further than deficit growth under our current President (even compared with W) and conclude we ought to be doing the precise opposite of whatever that financial fool recommends. IIRC, he's set to make a financial speech tonight. Joy. He was obviously so sincere in this year's SOTU speech on this front. Any bets he once again talks the talk, but won't even take one little baby step to walk the walk?

After reading Krauthammer's piece, I have one and only one thing to say:

He's completely full of shit.

Why?

First, because anybody who believes that $15,000 per year is going to cover the cost of insurance on average for someone over 65 IN TEN YEARS is completely in denial. Second, because the assertions he makes about tax loopholes being closed are on faith that Ryan's plan will actually do this, when I have read nothing, nowhere, that shows how this will be done...because it doesn't exist. Its the same "budget without numbers" I was bitching about a year ago when Aerosim first brought up Ryan as a "serious" conservative. Third, this notion that lowering taxes somehow raises revenue...I just don't get it....its simple math, I have debunked it time and time again with the Bush tax cuts, and I won't do it again because it is such simple friggin math. Fourth, the plan, as described once again assumes that those getting the biggest tax cuts (highest tax brackets, what a surprise) will then take that money and create jobs with it, lowering unemployment. Again, I've aid it a thousand times....millionaires are not in the business of philanthropy....they are in the business of making more millions, and if it means sending off a bunch of jobs to overseas manufacturing so they can save a few million rather than create American jobs, that's what they are going to do. So unless you create incentives for creating American jobs, all "tax cuts for the rich" plans are essentially DOA in my mind.

[BlackDragon24]

^^^I came across a bit rough there.

I don't hate Ryan. I just don't think he is this brave soldier he is being portrayed to be. I think his shot across the bow is all about posturing. Its the farthest right he could go without suffering real political consequences. And in negotiations you always start off asking for at least twice what you expect to get. So politically, its a savvy move because Obama and the dems will cave like usual.

[AeroSim]

After doing taxes this year, I've finally decided-

Turbo Tax and Tim Geithner deserve each other.

[BlackDragon24]

You sound like a fiscal conservative, BD.

Fiscally conservative (but probably in a less traditional way than most would think). Socially liberal. Thanksgiving Dinner is always fun in my house

[Keven]

Second, because the assertions he makes about tax loopholes being closed are on faith that Ryan's plan will actually do this, when I have read nothing, nowhere, that shows how this will be done...because it doesn't exist.

Sure it does. The Ryan Budget removes corporate income tax and puts in its place a 8.5% Business Consumption Tax on goods and services. No loop holes.

Third, this notion that lowering taxes somehow raises revenue...I just don't get it....its simple math, I have debunked it time and time again with the Bush tax cuts, and I won't do it again because it is such simple friggin math.

So, in the abstract, cutting corporate taxes does not encourage companies to grow - at all?

You're taking the classically liberal "bidness men are evil evil" approach here. You're assuming that if we cut taxes on Microsoft, for example, all the extra money will go to Steve Ballmer's pockets, as opposed to Microsoft hiring more workers, or spending more on research and development, or whatnot.

So unless you create incentives for creating American jobs, all "tax cuts for the rich" plans are essentially DOA in my mind.

The Ryan Budget does this. The aforementioned Business Consumption Tax that would replace the corporate income tax would not be applied to American businesses who sell export goods outside the country. From the House GOP website on the Ryan Budget:

Leveling of the Playing Field. To level the playing field and eliminate the competitive disadvantage on American businesses and American-made products, the BCT is not imposed on U.S. exports when they leave the U.S. It is instead imposed on foreign imports when they enter the U.S. Thus, the BCT is “border adjustable.”

Currently, the U.S. corporate income tax is not border adjustable (i.e., the tax cannot be removed from exports or imposed on imports). In contrast, foreign competitors in Europe have the advantage of removing their own taxes on their exports. The World Trade Organization [WTO] established the requirements for a border adjustable tax system. Direct taxes, such as the corporate income tax, are not border adjustable, but indirect taxes, such as the BCT, are border adjustable.

[Keven]

So politically, its a savvy move because Obama and the dems will cave like usual.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

[myv65]

I guess we could argue indefinitely about the tax rates versus tax receipts bit, but for my part it's also a simple concept. A tax rate of zero = zero tax receipts. A tax rate of 100% = no economy. Somewhere between these two extremes exists a sweet spot (a dynamic number, granted) that maximizes the relationship between revenue and economic strength. As clear as the tax rate can be too low, the tax rate can be too high. That's my simple math on that subject. I reject entirely the notion that lowering taxes *must* lower tax revenue and that raising taxes *must* raise tax revenue. I need point no further than Kennedy (JFK that is) to back the assertion that high tax rates can hinder tax receipts.

You're right, millionaires are generally not in the business of philanthropy. It needs to make financial sense to create / keep jobs here. Government does not have a good track record, IMHO, on this front. Raising taxes on businesses definitely will not help in this regard. I'm open to suggestions for encouraging businesses to invest domestically. I'd note that government trying to determine the direction of business development and essentially picking winners/favorites does not seem to work well. IMHO, they should attempt to level the playing field with the rest of the world and nothing more.

To the loophole closures, let's get it out there and talk seriously on the topic. As a lib, you should be strongly encouraging such a talk, and in favor of a Republican willing to bring up the subject.

To the health costs, no, $15,000 a year won't cover everything. OK. Now what? We can't afford to sustain Medicare and the rate of increase for health care costs. Obama's plan doesn't address the cost side, AFAICT. I'm not a fan of rhetoric labels such as "death panels". We do need to accept the fact that we can't provide cutting edge, experimental, and exorbitantly priced treatments to every single person. It's no less a legitimate observation than that we can't sustain our present financial course.

Ultimately we need people able to work to get out there working. Having done that, we need people to actually work enough to provide for themselves until they die.

Over the last twenty years or so we've instead morphed into a society from top-to-bottom that somehow thinks it deserves more than it has. Our personal savings rate has hovered very near zero, and dipped into the negative at times. We've become accustomed to buying what we don't need with money we don't have. Worse, much of what we buy has no intrinsic value and does not add to our worth. We no longer prepare to deal with setbacks in life or our own futures, instead relying on others to prepare and plan for us.

On average, our debt as individuals, states, and a nation has exploded.

We're in for a very uncomfortable wake-up call. The severity grows every day we put off taking that call, and it won't go unanswered indefinitely.

We need to get past the point of vilifying attempts to discuss it. That's what happened when Bush suggested a discussion on SS reform, and it's what we're getting today with Ryan. Such reactions solve nothing.

[Keven]

We need to get past the point of vilifying attempts to discuss it. That's what happened when Bush suggested a discussion on SS reform, and it's what we're getting today with Ryan. Such reactions solve nothing.

Yeah, it's worth nothing that the Ryan Budget won't affect current SS recipients.

Ryan wants the retirement age of 67 to take affect in 2026. After that, the retirement age will go up 1 month every 2 years, before maxing out at 70 in the year 2100.

Yet, BD's pals at the dailykos are acting like Ryan wants 90 year olds to be working the coal mines. Eh, not quite.

[AMDScooter]

^^^ My question is where is the (D)'s plan?? We've all now seen the BS P-Turtle recycled. And we've heard plenty from the minority about Ryan k33lin'grandma and grandpa. Anyone else remember that "wonderful" time before the last mid-terms when demanding the (R)epugs show their "plan" (which they had BTW) was all the rage? Well libberals... where is your roadmap to solvency? Hint: you can scratch firing up the printing press, borrowing more from China and spending trillions on a new entitlement and more "stimulus" off the list. That said... it's easy why your party has come up with blotto.

Funny to hear the libberals who watched silently or defended bamma,pelosi/reid as they spent us into fiscal oblivion... and then not even bother to pass a budget at all... suddenly become budget chicken hawks.

[Keven]

Haven't you heard Scoot? They'll just raise income taxes on the rich and corporations, and maybe raise the capital gains tax for good measure and I'm sure it'll solve itself. Maybe we'll need to build a few more bridges and lay some high-speed rail. But it'll all clear itself up!

[AMDScooter]

^^^ I'm ready for the criticisms. I figure even if the (R)epuggies plans send our planet spinning into the sun all I need to do is repeat "it would of been worse without their plans" ala the (D)himwits defense of the "stimulus" rhetoric. That'll shut em' up fer sure eh?