Repubs. focus on debt wrong?

[CSVol]

Seems debt reduction may not be the most important issue right now.

Congress Careening Toward Massive Job Losses and An Exploding Deficit - Newsweek

"That’s why the budget hawks—the people who worry most about the deficit—have all proposed holding off on deficit reduction until 2012. This was the position of both the president’s fiscal commission and the widely respected Bipartisan Policy Center. Stimulus now, cuts in a year or two."

"But in December, Republicans blocked Democrats from passing money to fund the government in 2011."


"The prospect of sharp cuts in 2011 have turned the economists downright gloomy. Forecasters were predicting a year of growth strong enough to launch the economy to self-sustaining recovery. But then they were asked to add the GOP’s cuts to their calculation. Fed chairman Ben Bernanke estimated they would cost 200,000 jobs. The firm Macroeconomic Forecasters ran its own analysis and came back with 500,000 in job losses. Mark Zandi, the chief economist of Moodys.com, predicted 700,000. No matter who’s right, the number is far too high."

 

[NEO]

Newsweek is your source?

Newsweek?

Oh brother.

 

[VOLatile]

Newsweek is your source?

Newsweek?

Oh brother.

It's better than most that are referenced around here, that's for sure.

 

[CSVol]

I know, I know. It's one of several I got as a Christmas gift, I enjoy it, but understand what your saying. I was just interested in the article b/c I've been drinking the 'debt reduction' kool-aid like many others and thought this gave some perspective to the debate.

 

[NEO]

I know, I know. It's one of several I got as a Christmas gift, I enjoy it, but understand what your saying. I was just interested in the article b/c I've been drinking the 'debt reduction' kool-aid like many others and thought this gave some perspective to the debate.

The US government is a business no matter who says different. The American worker is its equity. The debt is leveraging the business to near breaking point as the interest on the debt is not matching the needed cashflow to make the business run and there is no net gain income to place back into the business to help it grow. If this business does not want to collapse (the us dollar crashes) then the debt has to be lowered and the cashflow has to become greater. Anyone saying different is lying.

 

[CSVol]

The US government is a business no matter who says different. The American worker is its equity. The debt is leveraging the business to near breaking point as the interest on the debt is not matching the needed cashflow to make the business run and there is no net gain income to place back into the business to help it grow. If this business does not want to collapse (the us dollar crashes) then the debt has to be lowered and the cashflow has to become greater. Anyone saying different is lying.

So losing 200-700k taxpayers helps how?

 

[TheDeeble]

But we have two parties who are diametrically opposed in how the debt should be approached.

Democrats- funding problem
Republicans- spending problem

And I'd bet any compromise will probably be watered down and ineffective.

As a nation we're dying because the left and right want to argue about how much to eat and where to get it from even though the food is right there in front of us.

 

[NEO]

So losing 200-700k taxpayers helps how?

fact is unless you make over 50K and have no kids you are not paying taxes. You will receive almost a full refund of all your money. The main percentage of taxes comes from the top 10%. Those making over 100k. In some states like California, I would lower that to 80K due to how fast their state income maxes out.

Tax payors are not the problem. The current tax system right now, as we speak, does not meet the needs of the federal governments spending. You cannot tax the majority of Americans enough to keep up with the spending that is going on.

 

[MG1968]

It's better than most that are referenced around here, that's for sure.

wasn't Newsweek bought by The Daily Beast for $1? I think I have more trust in HuffPo or MSNBC.

 

[TheDeeble]

fact is unless you make over 50K and have no kids you are not paying taxes. You will receive almost a full refund of all your money. The main percentage of taxes comes from the top 10%. Those making over 100k. In some states like California, I would lower that to 80K due to how fast their state income maxes out.

Tax payors are not the problem. The current tax system right now, as we speak, does not meet the needs of the federal governments spending. You cannot tax the majority of Americans enough to keep up with the spending that is going on.

They could increase taxes and I still don't think it would do anything until we cut spending on entitlements.

And even then, what about the interest on the debt?

 

[utgibbs]

I know, I know. It's one of several I got as a Christmas gift, I enjoy it, but understand what your saying. I was just interested in the article b/c I've been drinking the 'debt reduction' kool-aid like many others and thought this gave some perspective to the debate.

The debt argument is ridiculous. Whereas, we certainly need to control the growth of the deficit, the debt is far, far, far, far less than the debt coming out of WWII, which was paid down by Carter, only for Reagan to balloon it up again. A proper tax program and a proper military budget (including the War budget) would sort the debt out in no time.

This is classic "shock doctrine" beautifully illuminated by Naomi Klein. Even a perceived "emergency" enables the reactionaries and Welfare-Dads to shift money promoting the general welfare to cronies. They are moving to further restore elite class power at the expense of the nation.

 

[CSVol]

fact is unless you make over 50K and have no kids you are not paying taxes. You will receive almost a full refund of all your money. The main percentage of taxes comes from the top 10%. Those making over 100k. In some states like California, I would lower that to 80K due to how fast their state income maxes out.

Tax payors are not the problem. The current tax system right now, as we speak, does not meet the needs of the federal governments spending. You cannot tax the majority of Americans enough to keep up with the spending that is going on.

OK, let's assume the tax income from lost jobs is negligble (misguided). What about their purchasing power? Let's say 1,000 more people in your market area lose their jobs. If your Insurance business has 7,000 autos and 5,500 households, some of your policy holders would possibly be hit so there's less income for raw new autos, more term life than permanent, etc. Some may additionally reduce current auto limits to state minimums, drop some permanent life, not renew term, drop or reduce health, etc. This is a mere drop in your bucket initially. But multiply your 1,000 by 500 nationally and providers begin to see drastic drops in premium. They in turn begin to put limits on issuing new homeowners, non-renew some of the high riskers, etc. Now your business is further effected. So the taxes collectd by the gov't go down, and your business is affected. Which is more important to you in the short term: lowering the deficit or keeping/creating jobs? If you read the article, it clearly states that the debt can't be ignored, just that it should not be the immediate focus. At least not until we begin to see a self-sustaining recovery, which job losses obviously effect.

 

[DefenseisDesire]

The debt argument is ridiculous. Whereas, we certainly need to control the growth of the deficit, the debt is far, far, far, far less than the debt coming out of WWII, which was paid down by Carter, only for Reagan to balloon it up again. A proper tax program and a proper military budget (including the War budget) would sort the debt out in no time.

This is classic "shock doctrine" beautifully illuminated by Naomi Klein. Even a perceived "emergency" enables the reactionaries and Welfare-Dads to shift money promoting the general welfare to cronies. They are moving to further restore elite class power at the expense of the nation.

Yes, the debt was higher in relation to GDP. However, if you look at a graph, the debt spiked and then steadily decreased bottoming out around 1980. Since then, it has ballooned and now the graph is nearly a vertical line. Not to mention defense, social security, and medicare are apparently not going to be touched by politicians even though it accounts for 80% of expenses. The politicians are literally wrestling over pillows on the titanic as the ship sinks.

 

[lawgator1]

What I'm seeing is this ridiculous charade that cutting $62 billion is the battleground on debt reduction. Planned Parenthood and NPR may make Michelle Bachmann and some other social conservatives feel like they are fulfilling their mission, but even with the sea change we were supposed to have after the GOP landslide, absolutely nothing is even getting talked about by serious people in the big picture.

I'm depressed because these idiots are getting traction on such de minimis stuff. You guys ought to be depressed because 3 months into it the concept of actually balancing the budget is not even remotely in play.

 

[utgibbs]

Yes, the debt was higher in relation to GDP. However, if you look at a graph, the debt spiked and then steadily decreased bottoming out around 1980. Since then, it has ballooned and now the graph is nearly a vertical line. Not to mention defense, social security, and medicare are apparently not going to be touched by politicians even though it accounts for 80% of expenses. The politicians are literally wrestling over pillows on the titanic as the ship sinks.

Okay, just as I said - paid off until Carter only to balloon under Reagan.

I would agree as well, any talk of cutting the deficit is simply rubbish without discussing military cuts - and major ones. Unfortunately, the Keynesian military state capitalist system will not permit these budget cuts.

Regardless, the size of the debt vs household income (i.e. GDP) is all that matters. We are still below WWII levels despite the efforts of everyone starting with Reagan. A simple, transparent, and progressive tax plan in conjunction with war + defense budget cuts would solve the problem and leave money for undesireable things like jobs, health, education, etc.

 

[DefenseisDesire]

Okay, just as I said - paid off until Carter only to balloon under Reagan.

I would agree as well, any talk of cutting the deficit is simply rubbish without discussing military cuts - and major ones. Unfortunately, the Keynesian military state capitalist system will not permit these budget cuts.

Regardless, the size of the debt vs household income (i.e. GDP) is all that matters. We are still below WWII levels despite the efforts of everyone starting with Reagan. A simple, transparent, and progressive tax plan in conjunction with war + defense budget cuts would solve the problem and leave money for undesireable things like jobs, health, education, etc.

I agree that defense has to be cut if we are serious about balancing the budget. However, I would suggest that social security HAS to be reformed quickly. In addition, if something is not done to either defense or social security soon, our debt will be higher in relation to GDP, unless we see strong economic growth, in the near future.

 

[droski]

the mistake made here is this theory this downturn is some sort of temporary situation. we cannot continue to spend like this UNLESS the economy and tax receipts recover signficantly and i don't see that happening anytime soon. it has to end sometime. otherwise we risk everything we have here.

 

[droski]

What I'm seeing is this ridiculous charade that cutting $62 billion is the battleground on debt reduction. Planned Parenthood and NPR may make Michelle Bachmann and some other social conservatives feel like they are fulfilling their mission, but even with the sea change we were supposed to have after the GOP landslide, absolutely nothing is even getting talked about by serious people in the big picture.

I'm depressed because these idiots are getting traction on such de minimis stuff. You guys ought to be depressed because 3 months into it the concept of actually balancing the budget is not even remotely in play.

every thing you cut today is something you wont be paying for for the next 30 years. 60 billion a year is not insignificant.

 

[tvolsfan]

the mistake made here is this theory this downturn is some sort of temporary situation. we cannot continue to spend like this UNLESS the economy and tax receipts recover signficantly and i don't see that happening anytime soon. it has to end at sometime. otherwise we risk everything we have here.

Ridiculous. Just throw more money at the problem and everything will be fixed.

 

[lawgator1]

I agree that defense has to be cut if we are serious about balancing the budget. However, I would suggest that social security HAS to be reformed quickly. In addition, if something is not done to either defense or social security soon, our debt will be higher in relation to GDP, unless we see strong economic growth, in the near future.

Good luck with getting the real power brokers to talk about actual social security or Medicare reform, or cuts in military spending. If it was going to happen, it would have been now. Instead, its how do we cut $62 billion in discretionary spending out of $3.46 trillion?

 

[lawgator1]

every thing you cut today is something you wont be paying for for the next 30 years. 60 billion a year is not insignificant.

It won't come even remotely close to solving the problem.

 

[DefenseisDesire]

every thing you cut today is something you wont be paying for for the next 30 years. 60 billion a year is not insignificant.

Yes it is when the deficit is 1.5 trillion. It's like cutting 60,000 dollars out of a 1.5 million dollar budget.

 

[droski]

It won't come even remotely close to solving the problem.

so therefore it shouldn't be done? you are like the wife who argues that the cable bill shouldn't be cut because you are $50K in debt and the $50 month doesn't matter.

 

[droski]

Yes it is when the deficit is 1.5 trillion. It's like cutting 60,000 dollars out of a 1.5 million dollar budget.

so you suggest greater cuts then? i'm failing to see why some cuts isn't better than zero?

 

[utvolpj]

it's a start. When you're having to dig money out of the Dem's freezer to give it back to the people it won't be an easy task. Do you seriously expect them to cut $1.5tril tomorrow?