1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

President Obama announces that an eleventh-hour debt deal has been reached

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Northside Storm, Jul 31, 2011.

  1. Northside Storm

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    ah cool.

    Reason why I brought that up was because Krugman likes to wave it around as an example, just that I don't think it's a really good one.
     
  2. DaDakota

    DaDakota Balance wins
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    129,064
    Likes Received:
    39,544
    I was just listening to him on the BBC radio station and he was talking about how the banks do not have the countries best interests, and sometimes lowering your lending rate is not that big of a deal, there is relatively little difference between AAA and AA.

    Of course he also said they should have let Greece and others default, and reset their economies....

    I am no economist, but it sounds pretty reasonable to me to focus more on what is right for the country and not worry so much about the banks.

    DD
     
  3. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    16,153
    Likes Received:
    2,819
    Good thing there weren't any really deep cuts then. The apoplexy from the left over this deal is startling. Even if the "cuts" weren't backloaded, they amount to an average cut of about 90 billion per year. That is only about 6 percent of the deficit. We aren't even talking about reducing the debt with this, just growing the debt slightly slower than before. I understand that the deal doesn't tax the rich enough to satisfy some people, but this is hardly the deep and meaningful spending cuts that some of us were looking for. If the cuts they were doing were permanent reductions in spending and the amounts they were talking about were the amount by which annual spending would be reduced, then we would have this discussion. Instead they didn't really fix much of anything and we basically ended up with the debt ceiling getting raised and not much else happening.
     
  4. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,681
    Likes Received:
    16,205
    That might be the case if the deal actually cut spending in a weak economy. But as has been posted at least 5 separate times in this thread, there are no spending cuts in the 2012 budget.

    You'd think, at some point, people would actually learn about what's in the deal before criticizing it.
     
  5. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,785
    Likes Received:
    41,212
    I stopped there (Iceland) in route to Europe in the early 1970's on Icelandic Air, which had the cheapest commercial flights at the time, New York to Luxembourg (which was a trip in itself, but I digress), and while it was cold in early March, it was a lot colder in Luxembourg.
     
  6. RedRedemption

    RedRedemption Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    32,542
    Likes Received:
    7,752
    Cutting your spending won't help if you don't have enough money coming in anyway.
    Raise taxes, at least on the rich. PLEASE.
     
  7. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,370
    Likes Received:
    9,296
    how much revenue would that raise?
     
  8. Northside Storm

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    Billions if not trillions.
     
  9. solid

    solid Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2001
    Messages:
    21,218
    Likes Received:
    9,055
    Our government is embarrassing, like a boatload of clowns. Sound and fury signifying nothing. The poor skate, the rich skate, the rest of us will pay. Will we ever have a government of the Majority, middle class working people of all races, colors, and religions
     
  10. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,370
    Likes Received:
    9,296
    how many billions?
     
  11. DaDakota

    DaDakota Balance wins
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    129,064
    Likes Received:
    39,544
    The rich are certainly skating free right now, we should go back to the tax rates under Reagan !

    DD
     
  12. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,370
    Likes Received:
    9,296
    can we go back to the spending rates under reagan as well?
     
  13. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,831
    Likes Received:
    41,304
    We already are.
     
  14. Northside Storm

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    As a hypothetical example showing the magnitude of the numbers...

    A millionaire's tax would raise about $50 billion for 2015, and about $95 billion in 2030. Letting the Bush Tax Cuts unwind for incomes above $250,000 would raise about $54 billion for 2015, and about $115 billion for 2030. Subjecting incomes higher than $106,000 to payroll taxes would bring in $50 billion for 2015, $100 billion for 2030. Returning the estate tax to Clinton levels would bring in $50 billion for 2015, $104 billion for 2030. Returning investment taxes to Clinton levels would bring in $32 billion for 2015, $46 billion for 2030. Reducing mortgage deductions and others for high-income households would bring in $25 billion for 2015, and $54 billion for 2030. Eliminating tax loopholes and keeping tax rates higher would bring in $136 billion for 2015, $315 billion for 2030.

    That's already about $397 billion in revenue by 2015, and $829 billion in revenue by 2030. Add the savings associated with interest costs of not taking on more debt, and that number quickly snowballs up. This also doesn't include ideas such as reducing Social Security benefits for those with higher incomes, which amounts to the same thing if you look at purchasing power.

    Those numbers are expressed in 2010 dollars, but it's not that far off from 2011 dollars.
     
  15. rimrocker

    rimrocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    23,106
    Likes Received:
    10,128
    I disagree with a number of points you've made throughout this thread in support of the plan, but this is the kicker.

    It was not even remotely about long-term fiscal health. It was purely political. It was designed to accomplish the goals of the Republican Party without going through the normal process... because they could not do this through the normal process. That it has the added benefit of making sure the economy is the equivalent of the Dodo Bird between now and the 2012 election is just gravy.

    The people screaming about the long term fiscal health of this nation did everything possible to wreck it during the W years and only started caring about it when they lost the WH. The people who are at least aware of the realistic problems with our long term fiscal health just acquiesed to a deal that will end up harming that long term fiscal health.

    This "deal" was a resolution to an absolutely unecessary crisis created out of whole cloth by Republicans to accomplish what they couldn't through legislation.

    Now, we have this Supergroup of congressmen (ugh) that will come forward with recommendations. What could happen? Well, they could up with a plan that guts discretionary spending which the Dems won't agree to, they could come up with a plan that pushes the bulk of the 'savings" onto DOD which the Repubs won't agree to, or they could come up with cuts and taxes, which the Repubs will be dead set against. None of those outcomes favor the long term fiscal health of our country... but none of those will actually happen.

    Instead, we'll get another hostage taking by the Repubs and the DOD cuts will be taken off the table or greatly reduced and we'll be arguing over entitlements and discretionary spending after which another "deal" will be announced which will give the Repubs something they wouldn't be able to achieve legislatively and we start all over again... but closer to the 2012 election.

    The other thing that will happen is that as soon as a Republican is sitting in the WH, this concern for long term fiscal health among the GOP will vanish and they will all become corporate Keynesians and if Dems then try to emulate the scorched earth politics of the Repubs, they will get a a lot of tsk-tsking and stories about how the Dems are unreasonable and using tactics that are outside the norm.

    Republicans are now like the twisted Nazi colonel that tells the town priest to pick 5 people that will be shot or else the whole town will be massacred and Democrats are like the scared townspeople that could storm the Nazis and after taking considerable losses do away with the threat but would rather stand there and hope the Nazis are reasonable and just go away.

    Yep, I said it. This whole thing sucks and none of it is good for the country or the Long-term fiscal health of the country.

    You know what would be good for the long term fiscal health of the country? People working and the economy growing.
     
  16. rimrocker

    rimrocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    23,106
    Likes Received:
    10,128
    If this deal is approved we'll be in Eisenhower territory.
     
  17. DaDakota

    DaDakota Balance wins
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    129,064
    Likes Received:
    39,544
    The last time we had a surplus.

    I saw an article last year that showed that out of every $1 we take in in taxes...... that .26 cents went to the INTEREST on the debt.

    Not paying it down, just the interest.

    That is upside down BS, right there.

    DD
     
  18. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,370
    Likes Received:
    9,296
  19. Northside Storm

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    The last time America had a surplus was when people were convinced Dogs.com was going to be the next Microsoft.

    Interesting note though, Eisenhower marginal tax rates were high, and a lot of investments were put into infrastructure. maybe building a surplus requires investing in your own people, raising taxes, and cutting spending that doesn't benefit your people. who da thunk it.
     
    #79 Northside Storm, Aug 1, 2011
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2011
  20. pirc1

    pirc1 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,137
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    The interest rate is about 3% right now on average, which would mean we pay about 450 billion in interest a year. And the government takes in around 1.8 trillion of tax a year. Sounds pretty close.
     

Share This Page