The working/middle class isn't buying the cheerleading (or much else that they don't need), not to mention that the best "stimulus package" we had was a crash in oil prices, and that's reversed itself out.
The Democrats don't like it because it's serious.Originally Posted by James50
Hah. Any plan that pretends that the last 30 years of dismal economic performance didn't happen isn't serious. The US economy has been run into the ground over the last 30 year by supply side-no George Bush the elder was right the first time-voodoo economics. It will be a serious plan when the Republicans quit pretending that you can gain revenue by lowering tax rates on the top 2%. If it didn't work for Reagan when the economy was stronger, it sure wont work in a depression, which is what we are in. Everyone under 55, including you and me, are supposed to give up the Medicare that we worked for so that some well paid witch doctors can dine as they are accostomed to.
Not on my dime.
Medicare, unlike Social Security, is no where near pay as you go. Only about 40% of costs are covered by taxes. You haven't worked for anything but a vague promise. There is no magic pot of money that is going to pay for your care whether 55 or not.
Unfortunately, its the millinneals which will pay for this.
James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton
James I'd like to see a source for that statement about Medicare. I know the projections are outrunning revenues but I think the revenues are paying for it at this moment.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
I'm not too fond of posts that are based on the belief that either unicorns or the Ryan plan have anything to do with a serious discussion of what ailes our economy.
However, I'm assuming you've been away and really just haven't been in touch to observe the real trouncing of the Ryan plan - and I'm not talking about the throwing-grandma-off-the-cliff variety, but rather his ridiculous promise of magic ponies.
Looke at this CBO chart from their scoring the Ryan plan -
- do you notice we're going to cut in half on GDP basis defense and other mandatory spending. I sure like to have whatever Ryan was smoking when he came up with that 'serious' notion.
Or how about this doozy from the Heritage Foundation touting the seriousness of the Ryan plan -
Oh, if you can't read the find print, here's what Ryan is projecting his plan would do for unemployment -
So Ryan is going to get us to a level of unemployment that was only achieved once for a few months back in the 1950s. Gee, the Fed has put out study after study that price stability requires an unemployment rate between 5 and 6 percent; remember, they're the guys that will raise rates to slow the economy to avoid inflation. But Ryan is going to magically get us down to half that level?!
These are just two of the many many magic ponies in the Ryan Plan; and remember, these magic ponies are all absolute necessities to get at Ryan's king of the magic ponies - federal debt reduction.
Ryan's plan has as much to do with reality as unicorns and it’s been savaged by economists with facts and data, and most of all, the revealing of its preposterous assumptions and projections.
My advice is to look beyond that pundit or legislator whose words seem so soothing to you because they fit your preconception so well. Google the sucker, AND go past the echo chamber falling all over itself in praise and admiration of such brillance and boldness. Look at some hard-hitting critiques. And, if you can find them, then look at some hard-hitting critiques of the critiques. See who is using data. See who is trying to feed you bullshit.
For a very recent example that has flames shooting out my ears, look at this critique of some 'facts' presented by the now Murdoch-owned WSJ -
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/a_62_pe...x_rate_wsj.php
Now there's a lot more to this critique, but let's just stop there. After reading this much, why would anyone ever read, let alone quote anything off the WSF editorial page again? This is just too much, that 'paper' couldn't be so bad as to lie so blatantly. This critique has to be wrong; certainly, other bloggers or the paper itself has responded and straighten this out or discredit this critique. So, James, go look, Google, see what you find.Zombie Lie Laboratory Creates 62 Percent Tax Rate Plan
Stephen Moore of The Wall Street Journal editorial board hacks out an instant classic on how to mislead people with numbers.
The question-as-headline is your second red flag that this just might be a deeply disingenuous op-ed (the first is that it’s on The Wall Street Journal op-ed page):
The top marginal tax rate is just 35 percent now, of course. So how does Moore come up with the idea that Obama and the Democrats are pitching a 62 percent tax rate for the rich? Disingenuously.A 62% Top Tax Rate?
First, here’s a classic example of misleading readers with an apples and oranges comparison:
For Moore’s headline purposes he includes state taxes to get to 62 percent, but when he compare it to rates under Reagan, he doesn’t include state taxes.If the Democrats’ millionaire surtax were to happen—and were added to other tax increases already enacted last year and other leading tax hike ideas on the table this year—this could leave the U.S. with a combined federal and state top tax rate on earnings of 62%. That’s more than double the highest federal marginal rate of 28% when President Reagan left office in 1989. Welcome back to the 1970s.
The comparison is much more misleading than that, really. Moore is also including things like payroll taxes to come up with his fake 62 percent number, while not including them in that 28 percent Reagan figure. You can’t do that, boss.
The WSF editorial staff hangs this kind of horseshit out there every day for millions to read. How many people do you think have really looked at Ryan's Plan in detail before telling us how serious and bold it is? You?
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service
“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke
"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman
If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite
A double dip recession will ruin any chance of Obama getting re-elected. He better get something cooking fast, even if it means compromising with the Repubs...anything...a jobs package, something and hope the recovery picks up.
Only a third or less of the country according to polls see the country moving in the right direction........His Bin Laden bounce is gone, further bad economic news will only erode his support more.
Here. Look at payroll tax versus total spending.
James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton
The progressive caucus plan also cuts defense. If you can't substantially cut defense, you are not proposing something that will work.I'm not too fond of posts that are based on the belief that either unicorns or the Ryan plan have anything to do with a serious discussion of what ailes our economy.
However, I'm assuming you've been away and really just haven't been in touch to observe the real trouncing of the Ryan plan - and I'm not talking about the throwing-grandma-off-the-cliff variety, but rather his ridiculous promise of magic ponies.
Looke at this CBO chart from their scoring the Ryan plan -
- do you notice we're going to cut in half on GDP basis defense and other mandatory spending. I sure like to have whatever Ryan was smoking when he came up with that 'serious' notion.
Agree that optimistic predictions of unemployment are largely made up, but deficit reduction plans always contain those.
Or how about this doozy from the Heritage Foundation touting the seriousness of the Ryan plan -
Oh, if you can't read the find print, here's what Ryan is projecting his plan would do for unemployment -
So Ryan is going to get us to a level of unemployment that was only achieved once for a few months back in the 1950s. Gee, the Fed has put out study after study that price stability requires an unemployment rate between 5 and 6 percent; remember, they're the guys that will raise rates to slow the economy to avoid inflation. But Ryan is going to magically get us down to half that level?!
These are just two of the many many magic ponies in the Ryan Plan; and remember, these magic ponies are all absolute necessities to get at Ryan's king of the magic ponies - federal debt reduction.
Well let's take a look at the democrats plan. Oh wait, there isn't one. They won't even pass a budget.Ryan's plan has as much to do with reality as unicorns and it’s been savaged by economists with facts and data, and most of all, the revealing of its preposterous assumptions and projections.
Everyone can stand to step outside the echo chamber. Even you.My advice is to look beyond that pundit or legislator whose words seem so soothing to you because they fit your preconception so well. Google the sucker, AND go past the echo chamber falling all over itself in praise and admiration of such brillance and boldness. Look at some hard-hitting critiques. And, if you can find them, then look at some hard-hitting critiques of the critiques. See who is using data. See who is trying to feed you bullshit.
I knew from the headline it was ridiculous. Certainly not a high point for the WSJ, but what does this have to do with Ryan?
For a very recent example that has flames shooting out my ears, look at this critique of some 'facts' presented by the now Murdoch-owned WSJ -
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/a_62_pe...x_rate_wsj.php
James50
Last edited by James50; 06-02-2011 at 01:31 PM.
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton
Markets dislike political grandstanding that puts the payment of interest and other obligations of the government at risk. The GOP pulled a big boner.
The harm that happened to housing markets in Arizona, Nevada, and southern California has spread. Economic calamities cannot be localized.
After two years of slow growth with no rise in real wages... what should anyone expect?
[/QUOTE]
I'm not surprised in view of the above. Economic reality is to no small part perception,. and if people don't see improvement for themselves they start to believe that things are going worse.
Hint: enriching the super-rich at the expense of everyone else, the only solution that the Reactionary Party offers, is one sure way to create more poverty and a nasty double-dip. Would these people torch the economy to achieve their political dream of a New Serfdom?
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Did you ever try the NY Times Balance the Budget app? You can't cut your way there either, but raising taxes gets you a lot closer than cutting alone. We're only taking-in ~16% of GDP in Federal revenue. That's way too low by today's standards, and the reason the Ryan plan is not serious.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Obviously, tax cuts for the super-rich only make things worse. The only rationale for tax cuts for the super-rich (aside from a view that the super-rich deserve them for their own sake) is that the world is short of capital and economies must compete for capital. But capital is anything but scarce. As the late housing bubble demonstrates, people can waste capital catastrophically.
My suggestion is simple: encourage the meeting of any new debt ceiling with the current equivalent of War Bonds. Call them "Recovery Bonds" if you wish. Tie them, of course, to infrastructure projects to be taken out of the regular budget. I think that our President could sell that.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
In addition to Obama's budget, there is the Progressive Dems plan that you yourself link to above (what's up with that?).
You may not be aware but the House is where the annual budget process is suppose to start; you should, however, be aware that in the House the minority party (presently, the Dems) have very little to do and no power. Beyond Obama presenting his budget, what exactly is it the Dems are suppose to do?
Where do you think I go to get all my comic material, hey?
Seriously, I do go looking for critiques of the critiques of what the Right has presented. In almost all cases, all you get is pure conjecture of those who have drunk the kool-aid. I would be thrilled if someone responding to one of my posts providing a critique of the latest BS from the Right with their own critique of my critique, i.e., show me I'm wrong. I encourage you to try; JDG’s efforts have proven juvenile as well as impotent (but, at least he tries).
The point is if Conservatives' most-read newspaper blatantly lies, why would you ever take anything Ryan or any of today's conservatives in power or media say at face value? Just exactly what is it in the Ryan plan that you have concluded, rather than what you've read in the Right's media praise machine, as bold and brilliant?
Essentially, the plan is the same old song and dance of cut taxes, Laffer curve, supply-side voodoo and trickle-down that we have heard for 40 years and been debunked. The BIG difference this time is that the old song and dance was COUPLED with the FUBAR'd tactical mistake of actually specifying what that would mean on the spending side, e.g., throwing grandma from the train.
You may want to call that brilliant and bold; I call it same-ol-same-ol with a huge dash of stupidity on top.
Many on the Right have recognized their mistake -
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...yan-budget.php
- and are trying desperately to find a way to say that they were just kidding, and get back to giving us the magic ponies again of borrow-and-spend and "tax cuts for job providers!" pssss! - don't confuse this with voodoo supply-side or trickle down and take away their fun!Poll: Conservatives And Republicans Oppose Ryan Budget
Pardon me, with all this brilliance and boldness, I need to go throw-up.
Last edited by playwrite; 06-02-2011 at 05:06 PM.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service
“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke
"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman
If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite
Before we go off on a JPT-like alarmist rant worthy of an Ayn Rand novel, how would you interpret this graph -
This is the graph that CoS refers to as to what would happen if Congress just goes on vacation for a few years - let the Bush tax cuts expire and let the new health care act implement.
Can you imagine if we also just let the Iraq and Afghanistan wars phase out according to current plans?
Maybe we could get around to addressing this little unemployment problem we have?
Nay, where would the fun be in that?
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service
“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke
"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman
If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite
JAMES! - Now here is a perfect example of the insightful critiques one can find!
Thanks, Exile, I know I could count on you to prove me wrong!
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service
“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke
"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman
If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite
Well there's millions of us voters who have played by the rules and will remember the politicans who try to sell us out. But then again , I've long suspected that a blowback to being sold out for decades would be a part of the 4T political dynamic.
We should have already have been moving towards a single payer model. Yes there's going to have to be taxes in the future. The time period of the mythical free lunch is up. And, as noted above, a lot of our fiscal problems could be handled by simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire-which I was in favor of all along. As I stated above, no plan which pretends that the tax policies of the last 30 years are viable long should be considered a serious plan.
It really is like believing that a benefactor with free money is going to arrive and chase the spooks away.
I think the problem is more that they have too many candidates. Palin, Bachman, and Trump, if the last two decide to run, all appeal to basically the same kind of people, so they will likely split the vote. I don't know a lot about Hermain Cain, but from what I've seen he identifies himself with the tea party http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOFB-2yJzCY, so I would guess that he will be chasing those voters as well. Contrast that with the "establishment" Republicans, who basically only have Romney and Pawlenty, and it becomes apparent that simply by virtue of their being less candidates to split the vote that someone from the establishment will probably win. Right now that someone appears to be Romney, as Pawlenty seems to be having trouble rising in the polls. It is still a long way till the Republican primary thought, so a lot could change. Someone like Chris Christie entering the race could change things.
Honestly, going by the advice that the Obama administration is getting from its economic advisers and its base, I don't think that they view the deficit as being the pressing concern that the Washington establishment or the Republicans do. In that, I agree with them. Right now we are facing persistently high unemployment and, judging by the week economic data already posted in this thread, the prospect of another recession. We need the government and increase the amount of debt that it holds in order to, among other things, help to relieve the private sectors' debt burden which continues to drag on the economy. Cutting government spending by balancing the budget will only make things worse, as it did in America in 1937 or as it is currently doing in the UK and the rest of Europe.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...h-weakest-2009
That being said, it would be inaccurate to say that the Obama administration is doing nothing, or has done nothing, to address the largest driver of the long term deficit, the increases in medicare costs. The Affordable Care Act, whatever its faults, does contain several reforms aimed at making medicare more efficient that reduce the long term deficit.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...e_numbers.html
In the short term, the deficit will largely take care of itself if we draw down our overseas military commitments like we plan to and let the bush tax cuts expire. In the long term, the deficit is driven by Social Security and Medicare, but the measures required to fully fund those programs are not radical, and need not involve dismantling them. It is indeed possible to fully fund those programs through taxation. Here is a link to a NYT interactive graphic that demonstrates different ways to balance the budget. I managed to get it balanced through raising taxes and enacting measures designed to make medicare more efficient.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...s-graphic.html
That doesn't mean raising taxes to fund medicare is the best option, just that it is possible. It is worth keeping in mind that all of the current discussion around the deficit assumes a linear increase in health care costs and that no further reforms are enacted in the health care system in general or medicare specifically in order to lower costs.
It is also worth keeping in mind that, as of yet, we are nowhere near the level of public debt that would necessitate a default, and there is absolutely no evidence that a crisis in investor confidence which would necessitate a government default is going to occur.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=DGS10
That shouldn't be surprising as the government of Japan manages to carry a debt load twice our own and, even after a devastating earthquake and nuclear accident, is still able to borrow money at very cheap rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-to-GDP_ratio
All of this doesn't mean I think that we should never act to close the deficit or pay off the national debt. I just means that I don't think that it is anywhere near the top of our concerns as a country.
I'm sorry, btl2283, that just makes too much sense.
But seriously, I find your argument compelling and refreshing.
Unfortunately Moody's has warned it will downgrade the USA's credit rating if progress isnt made on the budget this summer....The bill is coming due quite rapidly and its going to be the number one issue going forward....
http://www.businessinsider.com/moody...-rating-2011-6
[QUOTE]Moody's, along with other debt rating services, insisted that mortgage backed securities were AAA right up until everyone found out they were junk during the housing crash. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_...ubprime_crisis They performed equally as poorly during the dot com bubble.
Even more important, when assessing the effects that a ratings agency downgrade would have on the prospect of US default, is to look again at the example of Japan. Ratings agencies have been downgrading their debt for years, http://www.google.com/#q=Japanese+de...w=1600&bih=680, most recently in January, http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/27/news...apan/index.htm, yet they have not defaulted and their borrowing costs remain low.
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rat...t-bonds/japan/
Needless to say, they are not perfect, and the economic models they use may be flawed.
That being said, I think that you should read the article just posted a bit more carefully and think about how it applies to the current discussion. I have been pointing that the budget crisis is not severe, that there is no need for the U.S. to default on its debt, and that there is no evidence investors expect it to do so.
The article you just posted says that a particular credit rating agency is threatening to downgrade U.S. debt because certain members of the U.S. government, in this case predominantly house republicans, are threatening to refuse to modify a statutory limit regarding how much the U.S. can borrow. In other words, Moodys is threatening to lower the rating of U.S. debt because Republicans are threatening to default on U.S. debt as a negotiating tactic. Their warning has nothing to do with the U.s budget apart from the prospects of the Republicans staging a politically motivated default.
The way I read your link, and I believe I am correct in this, is that 40 percent of total medicare spending comes from payroll taxes, 41 percent from general revenue, 11 percent from taxation of Social Security benefits, 2 percent from "payments from states", 2 percent from premiums, and 4 percent from "interest payments and other".
Some of the money coming from general revenue might come from borrowed money, an amount will would change once other commitments such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over and if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire , but I think that it is inaccurate to imply that medicare is only 40 percent funded, and the rest of the money comes from borrowing. Also, it is worth noting that the charts you posted are from 2006, before the enactment of the Affordable Care Act.
People who sell out the rest of America for their political opportunism are scum. Such will be remembered in 2012.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Ah, a quintessential Joneser response ...Methinks the ultimate sell out is the privatization of Medicare, just in time for us. Remember Bush's attempt to privatize Social Security? Yup. Let Wall $treet manage our collective retirement nest eggs, (right before the Dot-Bomb crash. ) Dumb move...
And... now which political party wants to sell our Medicare to Big Insurance?But then again , I've long suspected that a blowback to being sold out for decades would be a part of the 4T political dynamic.
1. Agreed. Again, I'd go for the VAT to fund single payer. There is no such thing as a free lunch. However, "shared sacrifice" should be the meme here. Next, I'd also do things to relieve cost pressures. Example: Tort reform. If a drug or medical procedure gets FDA clearance, then you'd get a lump sum payment instead of all law suits, etc. Sorry, there is nothing risk free in my universe.We should have already have been moving towards a single payer model. Yes there's going to have to be taxes in the future.
2. The VAT has an added benefit of adding costs to imports and thus indirectly subsidizing domestic production. This eliminates any CF wrt tariffs limiting "globalization".
1. Bush tax cuts = my unicorn farm.The time period of the mythical free lunch is up. And, as noted above, a lot of our fiscal problems could be handled by simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire-which I was in favor of all along. As I stated above, no plan which pretends that the tax policies of the last 30 years are viable long should be considered a serious plan.
2. Why is this thing so complicated? To balance a budget, you need tax hikes (No hemming/hawing). Ie. "revenue enhancements". ) Be straight up.
3. Budget cuts: Why are we wasting money on the MidEast? Why do we have national level stuff like the Department of Education?
4. We need a 2 pronged approach. Get rid of waste like "wars of choice" and items which belong at the local level.
5. Realize that taxes within reason should match our collective needs. Cf. Medicare. Medicare/Medicaid. The revenue should match the costs. I'd substitute the Medicare tax with the VAT , set the age of eligibility to 0 and let it go.
Again... Anyone here on this forum want to buy my unicorn farm?It really is like believing that a benefactor with free money is going to arrive and chase the spooks away.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP
There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
You means the same Moody's that gave those mortgage securities AAA ratings? F*CK THOSE IDIOTS.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Thank you.
