News Republicans no longer a viable party?

[CAC1001]

By not raising the debt limit, the government makes the choice to default.

How so? The debt can be serviced from the revenues the government takes in.

The treasury does not have the ability to service its obligations without a raise in the debt limit. Past obligations are being mixed with a discussion over future obligations. This debate should occur when congress forges a budget. Congress should not agree to use a credit card then debate when the bill comes due.

If I am reading correctly, you mean the Treasury, even if it has the money, just technically can't do something like service the debt without a raise in the debt limit?

 

[ParticleGrl]

CAC1001, you have completely ignored my points. There are two really important factors- right now the private sector is holding a lot of uninvested cash, AND right now real interest rates on 5 year government treasuries are negative. Your responses are ignoring these points, which are really important, because that's the current reality.

Yes, sometimes the government selling treasuries decreases cash in the private sector (thought not always the US private sector, in recent years, selling treasuries in the US has largely influenced the private and public sectors of China and the Middle East). However, WHEN THE PRIVATE SECTOR ISN'T SPENDING, government borrowing is simply putting idle cash to work. It doesn't matter that they will "eventually" spend, because we are talking about taking it from them today, using it, and paying them back later (when they do want to spend).

You can see this in the treasury rates- if you have a little money chasing a lot of investments, then demand is low, and rates go up. In this case, flooding the market with treasuries will raise rates, and private sector investments get crowded-out. If you have a lot of cash, chasing few investments, demand is high, and rates go down. The key point is that you can see how much government borrowing is hurting the private sector by looking at rates. Right now, the market rates suggest that no, government borrowing isn't suppressing anything.

Think of interest rates in this case as some measure of opportunity cost imposed. If the government is taking money away from really useful private sector stuff, it has to compensate the private sector more (thats how markets work). What, then, does a low rate tell you?

I think borrowing in the future provided the deficit would be a lot smaller or a surplus would be fine, even if it costs a bit more.

The deficit doesn't matter nearly as much as the total debt. Doing the infrastructure project when rates are at their lowest AND costs are at their lowest is the best way to control the actual debt.

You are arguing that we should incur MORE total debt because of bad cash flow right now. Thats ludicrous. You want to spend more on the project, borrow money when we are out of recession (which will reduce private sector investment proportionally, because we will be at full capacity), AND pay proportionally more in debt service.

If debt is bad, and if the government should interfere as minimally as possible in the private sector THEN NOW IS THE TIME TO BUILD.

 

[SixNein]

Take a look at government-run enterprises. The nature of government is to grow and grow. Part of this is just the incentives. No government program or agency seeks to spend as little money as possible. The goal for the head of a government program or agency is to increase its size, scope, and budget.

The motivation of government entities is not profit but solutions to problems. And often times aspirations to solve problems don't agree with budgets. NASA is a very good example. The real question is if a situation needs improved and is government the most effective way to provide the solution. Just look at the state of the elderly before and after the implementations of social security and Medicare. In my opinion, this analysis must be made on a case by case basis. And in many of these cases, let the market decide is synonymous with let's ignore the problem. Sometimes the end may not justify the means, but sometimes the end does justify the means. There is no independent law to decide.

On a completely different note, I wonder if anyone has ever calculated the economic drag caused by religion?

 

[SixNein]

How so? The debt can be serviced from the revenues the government takes in.
If I am reading correctly, you mean the Treasury, even if it has the money, just technically can't do something like service the debt without a raise in the debt limit?

If we had the money to service our current obligations, there would be no need to raise the debt ceiling. In addition, even if we had enough money to do so, the money may be tied up which causes a need for short term credit.

 

[CAC1001]

The motivation of government entities is not profit but solutions to problems.

I think it depends. The motivation of government often is to grow, and in doing so, often creates more problems than solutions in the process. As a problem solver, government has a rather poor reputation. However, there are certain things only government can really do, or which government is more appropriate for doing.

And often times aspirations to solve problems don't agree with budgets. NASA is a very good example.

NASA is also a good example of how a government agency can blow insane amounts of money above and beyond what it should on various projects.

The real question is if a situation needs improved and is government the most effective way to provide the solution. Just look at the state of the elderly before and after the implementations of social security and Medicare. In my opinion, this analysis must be made on a case by case basis. And in many of these cases, let the market decide is synonymous with let's ignore the problem. Sometimes the end may not justify the means, but sometimes the end does justify the means. There is no independent law to decide.

On a completely different note, I wonder if anyone has ever calculated the economic drag caused by religion?

What makes you think religion creates an economic drag? (not saying you're wrong, just curious). The workaholic aspect of Americans is often attributed to the old Puritan work ethic of the country.

If we had the money to service our current obligations, there would be no need to raise the debt ceiling. In addition, even if we had enough money to do so, the money may be tied up which causes a need for short term credit.

We do have the money to service our current obligations if you mean the servicing the debt, as revenues can be used for that. What we do not have enough money for is all of the government spending, the things the government uses debt to finance.

 

[CAC1001]

CAC1001, you have completely ignored my points. There are two really important factors- right now the private sector is holding a lot of uninvested cash, AND right now real interest rates on 5 year government treasuries are negative. Your responses are ignoring these points, which are really important, because that's the current reality.

Yes, sometimes the government selling treasuries decreases cash in the private sector (thought not always the US private sector, in recent years, selling treasuries in the US has largely influenced the private and public sectors of China and the Middle East). However, WHEN THE PRIVATE SECTOR ISN'T SPENDING, government borrowing is simply putting idle cash to work. It doesn't matter that they will "eventually" spend, because we are talking about taking it from them today, using it, and paying them back later (when they do want to spend).

You can see this in the treasury rates- if you have a little money chasing a lot of investments, then demand is low, and rates go up. In this case, flooding the market with treasuries will raise rates, and private sector investments get crowded-out. If you have a lot of cash, chasing few investments, demand is high, and rates go down. The key point is that you can see how much government borrowing is hurting the private sector by looking at rates. Right now, the market rates suggest that no, government borrowing isn't suppressing anything.

Think of interest rates in this case as some measure of opportunity cost imposed. If the government is taking money away from really useful private sector stuff, it has to compensate the private sector more (thats how markets work). What, then, does a low rate tell you?



The deficit doesn't matter nearly as much as the total debt. Doing the infrastructure project when rates are at their lowest AND costs are at their lowest is the best way to control the actual debt.

You are arguing that we should incur MORE total debt because of bad cash flow right now. Thats ludicrous. You want to spend more on the project, borrow money when we are out of recession (which will reduce private sector investment proportionally, because we will be at full capacity), AND pay proportionally more in debt service.

If debt is bad, and if the government should interfere as minimally as possible in the private sector THEN NOW IS THE TIME TO BUILD.

Here is an interesting article that addresses the issue of spending and debt right now: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...t-grow-commentary-by-reinhart-and-rogoff.html

 

[SixNein]

What makes you think religion creates an economic drag? (not saying you're wrong, just curious). The workaholic aspect of Americans is often attributed to the old Puritan work ethic of the country.

I'm simply curious if a study as been performed on it or not. But let's let that be a topic for another time.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Here is an interesting article that addresses the issue of spending and debt right now: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...nd-rogoff.html

The article is entirely about the debt, not the deficit. As I tried to make clear- borrowing money today at low rates in order to avoid borrowing tomorrow at higher rates LOWERS the expected debt.

If you seriously care about the debt, you should be advocating more infrastructure spending now, while its cheap.

We do have the money to service our current obligations if you mean the servicing the debt, as revenues can be used for that. What we do not have enough money for is all of the government spending, the things the government uses debt to finance.

Congress's budget is supposed to be legally binding. That means everything in the current budget is an obligation. The proper time to worry about spending is while making that budget. Once you order all those services, and the bill is due, you can't say "sorry, my spending was TOTALLY out of control." Or at least, you can't if you want to be taken seriously as a bond market.

 

[CAC1001]

The article is entirely about the debt, not the deficit.

The deficit is tied to the debt.

As I tried to make clear- borrowing money today at low rates in order to avoid borrowing tomorrow at higher rates LOWERS the expected debt. If you seriously care about the debt, you should be advocating more infrastructure spending now, while its cheap.

I linked to the article because it addresses this point though:

Indeed, there is a growing perception that today’s low interest rates for the debt of advanced economies offer a compelling reason to begin another round of massive fiscal stimulus. If Asian nations are spinning off huge excess savings partly as a byproduct of measures that effectively force low- income savers to put their money in bank accounts with low government-imposed interest-rate ceilings -- why not take advantage of the cheap money?

Although we agree that governments must exercise caution in gradually reducing crisis-response spending, we think it would be folly to take comfort in today’s low borrowing costs, much less to interpret them as an “all clear” signal for a further explosion of debt.

Changing Interest Rates

Several studies of financial crises show that interest rates seldom indicate problems long in advance. In fact, we should probably be particularly concerned today because a growing share of advanced country debt is held by official creditors whose current willingness to forego short-term returns doesn’t guarantee there will be a captive audience for debt in perpetuity.

Those who would point to low servicing costs should remember that market interest rates can change like the weather. Debt levels, by contrast, can’t be brought down quickly. Even though politicians everywhere like to argue that their country will expand its way out of debt, our historical research suggests that growth alone is rarely enough to achieve that with the debt levels we are experiencing today.

While we expect to see more than one member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development default or restructure their debt before the European crisis is resolved, that isn’t the greatest threat to most advanced economies. The biggest risk is that debt will accumulate until the overhang weighs on growth.

It also points out that knowing the true amount of debt on the government is tricky because the federal government might have to bear the burden of many state and local governments as well. We see this in China right now which may have to handle as much as $2 trillion in local government debts.

Congress's budget is supposed to be legally binding. That means everything in the current budget is an obligation. The proper time to worry about spending is while making that budget. Once you order all those services, and the bill is due, you can't say "sorry, my spending was TOTALLY out of control." Or at least, you can't if you want to be taken seriously as a bond market.

I am no advocate for not raising the debt limit, that I think would be disastrous, I am just pointing out that the government's revenues could be used to pay the interest on the national debt.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

NASA is also a good example of how a government agency can blow insane amounts of money above and beyond what it should on various projects.

I understand it’s not an easy task to keep track on all those "Socialism-Tax-Threats", but I feel a strong need to inform you that the name of this site is Physics Forums.

Are you sure you’ve come to the right place??

What’s your solution for the future? Rear-gear full speed into the Medieval? Tea-Troglodytes carry out "maverick magic" to fix future problems? Or does your "theory" include the assumption that MacDonald’s will start fundamental research and space exploration, once the U.S. Government and NASA is closed down, so that future generations of reactionaries also will be able to spread their deranged ideas globally?

 

[CAC1001]

I understand it’s not an easy task to keep track on all those "Socialism-Tax-Threats", but I feel a strong need to inform you that the name of this site is Physics Forums.

Are you sure you’ve come to the right place??

What’s your solution for the future? Rear-gear full speed into the Medieval? Tea-Troglodytes carry out "maverick magic" to fix future problems? Or does your "theory" include the assumption that MacDonald’s will start fundamental research and space exploration, once the U.S. Government and NASA is closed down, so that future generations of reactionaries also will be able to spread their deranged ideas globally?

Not sure where you're getting all that from, however, if for example one points out how the different branches of the military can be prone to wasting money on certain weapons systems that aren't necessarilly needed, does this mean that they are advocating getting rid of the military?

Similarly, my pointing out how an agency like NASA can be prone to wasting money does not at all mean I am advocating closing down the agency.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Not sure where you're getting all that from, however, if for example one points out how the different branches of the military can be prone to wasting money on certain weapons systems that aren't necessarilly needed, does this mean that they are advocating getting rid of the military?

Sounds coherent:

... I'd say one major area to gun up spending is on the national defense, as the military needs a lot of vehicles, equipment, and weapons replaced and upgraded,

But okay, could you please give us the name of one NASA project that you just know is a complete waste of money & time?

 

[CAC1001]

Sounds coherent:

When I said gun up spending on the defense, I meant on the stuff needed, and also pointed out how in doing so, care would have to be taken so as to make sure that the money is not blown on unnecessary projects that waste money.

But okay, could you please give us the name of one NASA project that you just know is a complete waste of money & time?

The Space Shuttle is the most infamous I'd say.

 

[WhoWee]

SS and Medicare are self-funded by payroll taxes. Those "entitlements" are not sinking us. Untrammeled spending is.

The expansion of those programs was never included in their design - correct? Websites like this help people to participate. my bold
http://www.allsup.com/about-ssdi/ssdi-guidelines-by-disability/bipolar-disorder.aspx

"3. Ask if the bipolar disability meets or equals a medical listing. Bipolar is listed under mental disorders. To satisfy the listing criteria for bipolar disorder, a number of variables are considered:
Anhedonia
Appetite disturbance
Sleep disturbance
Psychomotor agitation or retardation
Decreased energy
Feelings of guilt or worthlessness
Difficulty concentrating or thinking
Thoughts of suicide and hallucinations
Delusions or paranoid thinking
In assessing bipolar disability relative to a listing level impairment, the following areas of functioning are evaluated:
Restrictions of activities of daily living
Maintaining social functioning
Deficiencies of concentration
Persistence or pace
Repeated episodes of decompensation--each of extended duration
An individual who has four symptoms present from the depressive syndrome list, as well as extreme limitation in two of the four functional areas, would probably be eligible for benefits."

How many drunks qualify?

http://www.ssa.gov/compassionateallowances/

 

[DevilsAvocado]

The Space Shuttle is the most infamous I'd say.

And this proves you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. I guess you never heard of the Hubble Space Telescope and the International Space Station?

Space shuttle applications have included:

• Science
• Astronomy
• Crystal growth
• Space physics
• Crew rotation and servicing of Mir and the International Space Station (ISS)
• Manned servicing missions, such as to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST)
• Manned experiments in low Earth orbit (LEO)
• Components for the construction of the ISS
• Supplies in Spacehab modules or Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules
• Carried satellites with a booster, the Payload Assist Module (PAM-D)
• Chandra X-ray Observatory
• Many TDRS satellites
• Two DSCS-III (Defense Satellite Communications System)
• A Defense Support Program satellite
• Magellan probe
• Galileo spacecraft
• Ulysses probe

The whole point of fundamental research is that we know from the beginning that all projects won’t be successful. But some of them will be very successful, and make all the difference in the world.

I.e., we need to "waste" money, on some project that will not be successful, to find those that is very successful – that’s the whole point!

No one can handpick the "good stuff" in advance, not even Einstein. Not one person on this planet could predict the importance of the research by Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, et al, on quantum theory/quantum mechanics. Not one.

Still, without the hard work of these guys, there would be no nuclear power, no internet, no IC computers, no cellular phones, no communication satellites, no GPS, no LCD, no HDD, etc, etc, etc, etc...

What do you think Michele Bachman would have said to these QM geniuses?

- Sorry guys, it looks interesting, maybe, but we’re going to buy guns and bibles...​

Yes, there were tragic disasters in the Shuttle program, but there is no way for you today, to evaluate if the program was a complete waste of money, or not.

Unless Michele Bachman becomes President, the exploration of space has just begun, and all the knowledge gained in the Shuttle program will of course have great value in the future, for coming generations.

There's only one way forward, and that's forward.

 

[mheslep]

SS and Medicare are self-funded by payroll taxes. Those "entitlements" are not sinking us. ...

If that were actually the case then there would be no threat to either from forcing the federal government cease borrowing any more money. And this statement:

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it,"

would have no grounds.

 

[mheslep]

... Remember too that the U.S. already halved the size of the Navy after the Soviet Union broke up, ...

But the US has not cut defense spending accordingly. It should.

 

[mheslep]

SS is self-funded. The money being paid for by payroll taxes adds to the surplus, and the government borrows those funds with interest being paid back by the bonds (promise to pay). ...

Source please.

 

[turbo]

Source please.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

Just go to SSA, not to the GOP windbags who are trying to lie us into entitlement cuts instead of cutting programs and raising taxes. The SSA surplus is totally healthy into 2037, and it can be fixed in perpetuity by raising the cap on payroll deductions by high-income earners. No need to cut benefits for people who have already paid in all their lives.

 

[mheslep]

He put entitlement programs on the table...

Source? One tangible, specific, on paper proposal where the President cuts or reforms entitlement spending please.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

Did you read it?

Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983

The numbers http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...R9y8lqVVpfdEj2mg&sig2=d8oNyiNwsq4l3UX2suONMg": For Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance, the government brings in $669B*, it spends $706B. In 2020 that deficit is projected to be ~$100B/yr.

*Revenues: $632B, taxes on benefits $23B, Fed employer share $15B.

 

[turbo]

Yes, and note that they said "non-interest income". Treasury bonds, which form the holdings of the SSA fund, pay interest. Non-interest income can be increased simply by raising the cap on the amount of income subject to payroll tax withholding. It's not as complicated or dire as the GOP claims.

 

[WhoWee]

I like Tom Coburn's attitude - not likely to go anywhere - but it shines the light into some dark spots - show large adjustments are possible.
http://chippewa.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/article_2c19d44b-095c-529a-ad62-5ebc6eb367e1.html
"One of the Senate's staunchest budget-cutters unveiled Monday a massive plan to cut the nation's deficit by $9 trillion over the coming decade, including $1 trillion in tax increases opposed by most of his fellow Republicans.
The plan by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is laced with politically perilous proposals like raising to 70 the age at which people can claim their full Social Security benefits. It would cut farm subsidies, Medicare, student aid, housing subsidies for the poor, and funding for community development grants. Coburn even takes on the powerful veterans' lobby by proposing that some veterans pay more for medical care and prescription drugs.
Coburn would also eliminate $1 trillion in tax breaks over the coming decade, earning him an immediate rebuke from Americans for Tax Reform, an anti-tax organization with which Coburn has had a running feud. He would block taxpayers from claiming the mortgage interest deduction on second homes and limit it to homes worth $500,000. He would also ease taxpayers into higher tax brackets more quickly by using a smaller measure of inflation to adjust the brackets. "

 

[turbo]

Coburn's plan ignores the fact that many people in demanding jobs can't possibly wait until 70 to retire. If he has a way to ameliorate that, I'd be glad to hear it.

I had to get out of paper-making by age 36. I ruined the joints in my feet, ankles, knees, etc pounding concrete trying to keep that beast humming. I managed to pull off another decade or so consulting for other paper companies, though even that was brutal at times.

There are many brutal jobs that people can't possibly be expected to do until age 70 unless you hope they die in their traces. It's all well and good for a desk-dweller to pontificate on this situation, but those gas-bags shouldn't be taken seriously. They work in air-conditioned comfort, travel to work in air-conditioned cars, and get nice cafeteria lunches every day and the best health-insurance in the world. Let's not pretend that they have a clue what real workers have to go through.

Edit age due to old-timer's syndrome.

 

[WhoWee]

Coburn's plan ignores the fact that many people in demanding jobs can't possibly wait until 70 to retire. If he has a way to ameliorate that, I'd be glad to hear it.

I had to get out of paper-making by age 46. I ruined the joints in my feet, ankles, knees, etc pounding concrete trying to keep that beast humming. I managed to pull of another decade or so consulting for other paper companies, though even that was brutal at times.

There are many brutal jobs that people can't possibly be expected to do until age 70 unless you hope they die in their traces. It's all well and good for a desk-dweller to pontificate on this situation, but those gas-bags shouldn't be taken seriously. They work in air-conditioned comfort, travel to work in air-conditioned cars, and get nice cafeteria lunches every day and the best health-insurance in the world. Let's not pretend that they have a clue what real workers have to go through.

He is offering specific solutions to a problem. My guess is most everyone under the age of 55 already expect to retire at a later age.

 

[turbo]

He is offering specific solutions to a problem. My guess is most everyone under the age of 55 already expect to retire at a later age.

How about specific REALISTIC solutions that take into account the severity of work conditions and the age of the workers? I don't see much specificity there.

If you are an old guy that has run paving machines or has laid and finished concrete all your life, can you be expected to hold such demanding jobs until you are 70? That is unrealistic, as anybody who has done such work can tell you. His "plan" is a way to marginalize and punish older workers.

As I have explained countless times, we can make SS solvent into the foreseeable future simply by raising the cap on the amount of income that will be subject to payroll withholding. There is no need to slash grandma's benefits or force older people in demanding jobs to work longer. The GOP and their media sponsors (FOX and right-wing hate-radio) love to make this situation look very complex and incomprehensible, but the situation is very simple and easy to understand. SS is NOT in trouble if adults are in charge. SS is in trouble if people allow the GOP to play Chicken Little and actually believe the lies.

 

[WhoWee]

How about specific REALISTIC solutions that take into account the severity of work conditions and the age of the workers? I don't see much specificity there.

If you are an old guy that has run paving machines or has laid and finished concrete all your life, can you be expected to hold such demanding jobs until you are 70? That is unrealistic, as anybody who has done such work can tell you. His "plan" is a way to marginalize and punish older workers.

As I have explained countless times, we can make SS solvent into the foreseeable future simply by raising the cap on the amount of income that will be subject to payroll withholding. There is no need to slash grandma's benefits or force older people in demanding jobs to work longer. The GOP and their media sponsors (FOX and right-wing hate-radio) love to make this situation look very complex and incomprehensible, but the situation is very simple and easy to understand. SS is NOT in trouble if adults are in charge. SS is in trouble if people allow the GOP to play Chicken Little and actually believe the lies.

I noticed that you haven't responded to my post regarding the expansion of Social Security Disability to include bi-polar? How can you protect the system when it's used as a political tool?

 

[Hurkyl]

As I have explained countless time

Quite honestly, your last several posts look like

I'm right, you're wrong. Here are several sentences explaining the consequences of me being right. Here are several sentences belittling those who disagree with me.​

As such, they aren't very persuasive...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Coburn's plan ignores the fact that many people in demanding jobs can't possibly wait until 70 to retire. If he has a way to ameliorate that, I'd be glad to hear it.

But surely this is a problem with every pension system. Those who die young subsidize those who live long. Life insurance works the other way so there's some compensation there. Anyway, as it is, if a person is truly disabled, they get the SS payout without reaching the retirement age.

 

[mheslep]

Yes, and note that they said "non-interest income". Treasury bonds, which form the holdings of the SSA fund, pay interest.

So? That's the government paying the government, the left hand paying the right. The money taken from the SS 'trust fund' was spent on highways, defense, NPR, EPA, making our income tax smaller than it would otherwise be, whatever; it is gone. In debt limit discussions the only salient point is that SS outlays versus SS revenues coming into the government are increasing the overall debt of the United States now, today.

 

[SixNein]

Source? One tangible, specific, on paper proposal where the President cuts or reforms entitlement spending please.

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/president-obama-expresses-support-for-means-testing-medicare/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/03/04/boehner_says_obama_s_open_to_entitlement_cuts.html

Though I don't understand why a source would be needed for what is now common knowledge. He put entitlement cuts on the table in negotiations.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/03/04/boehner_says_obama_s_open_to_entitlement_cuts.html

...In the end, Obama only feinted at entitlement reform, mentioning no specifics...

The House passed such a proposal on Medicare/Medicaid this past Spring. Any number of legislators have individually made written proposals. The Debt Commission did similarly. Hint: there is no such proposal from the President.

 

[SixNein]

I noticed that you haven't responded to my post regarding the expansion of Social Security Disability to include bi-polar? How can you protect the system when it's used as a political tool?

I believe mental disorders can be a disabling long term sickness. And I disagree with creating a stereotype by comparing people with metal disorders with drunks.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So? That's the government paying the government, the left hand paying the right. The money taken from the SS 'trust fund' was spent on highways, defense, NPR, EPA, making our income tax smaller than it would otherwise be, whatever; it is gone. In debt limit discussions the only salient point is that SS outlays versus SS revenues coming into the government are increasing the overall debt of the United States now, today.

Every economist that I've heard says that is not driving the current crisis. It will come back to haunt us but it's not the problem today.

 

[russ_watters]

Obama's influence, I would say, begins quite a while before I had ever heard of him. I hear he made a very nice speech during some Democratic convention, back when I thought I had lost all hope in the American political process.

You know what I meant. You're trolling.

As an armchair quarterback, I can tell you that the last tweny years are much easier to analyze than the next 10. But I have faith in our youth.

I'm talking about what you posted. It's your graph. Your prediction. Again, you're trolling here.

10 of those years have yet to happen, so those are just fantasy. 20 of those years are now history. They are the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush history.

Except that several years of Obama is also history - are you not figuring on that? Are you blaming Bush and Reagan for that? This is what I tried to ascertain with my previous questions, to which you responded with trolling.

No, and if I've spouted out some schizophrenic blather in the past, that would make you think that my mind works that way, please point out my previous posts.

It's in the quote I posted above. Here it is again: "The Reagan and Bush tax cuts, as far as I can tell, drove us to the debt level we are at now." The graph clearly shows substantial debt accumulated before Reagan took office, when Clinton was in office and since Obama took office, yet you are claiming the debt is Reagan and Bush's fault only.

Our debt to GDP was ~31% when Reagan took office, and it was ~65% when G.H.W.Bush left.

So then assuming your numbers are correct, the "debt level" is roughly half due to what happened over the past 30 years; of Reagan, Bush, Bush and Clinton. Right?!?

No, as I've said before, when your wife is sick in the hospital with cancer, you mortgage the house to save her.
If you don't, then you didn't really care about her.

This might strike you as some type of sick Gingrich type of Democratic slam.

And I suppose, it really is.

Yes, it's certainly a propaganda slam. It twists the reality that it ain't just your house that's at risk, it's your kids. The choice isn't your wife vs your house, it's more like your wife vs your kids. Worse, everyone seems to agree the kids are at risk and so far, Obama's sacrificed the kids in a failed attempt to help the wife. So in the end, he's losing both.

 

[SixNein]

The House passed such a proposal on Medicare/Medicaid this past Spring. Any number of legislators have individually made written proposals. The Debt Commission did similarly. Hint: there is no such proposal from the President.

I said he put entitlement reforms on the table. Your changing my argument into something else.

 

[daveb]

I like Tom Coburn's attitude - not likely to go anywhere - but it shines the light into some dark spots - show large adjustments are possible.
http://chippewa.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/article_2c19d44b-095c-529a-ad62-5ebc6eb367e1.html
"One of the Senate's staunchest budget-cutters unveiled Monday a massive plan to cut the nation's deficit by $9 trillion over the coming decade, including $1 trillion in tax increases opposed by most of his fellow Republicans.
The plan by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is laced with politically perilous proposals like raising to 70 the age at which people can claim their full Social Security benefits. It would cut farm subsidies, Medicare, student aid, housing subsidies for the poor, and funding for community development grants. Coburn even takes on the powerful veterans' lobby by proposing that some veterans pay more for medical care and prescription drugs.
Coburn would also eliminate $1 trillion in tax breaks over the coming decade, earning him an immediate rebuke from Americans for Tax Reform, an anti-tax organization with which Coburn has had a running feud. He would block taxpayers from claiming the mortgage interest deduction on second homes and limit it to homes worth $500,000. He would also ease taxpayers into higher tax brackets more quickly by using a smaller measure of inflation to adjust the brackets. "

While I might take issue with some of his specific spending cuts (student aid, for one), the fact that he is willing to compromise and raise taxes as well as cut spending makes him someone worth at least paying a little attention to.

 

[SixNein]

While I might take issue with some of his specific spending cuts (student aid, for one), the fact that he is willing to compromise and raise taxes as well as cut spending makes him someone worth at least paying a little attention to.

I think great care should be taken in all of these spending cut plans. Immediate cuts could damage the economy since its so fragile. Hopefully, any spending cuts will be on the back end instead of the front end.

 

[WhoWee]

While I might take issue with some of his specific spending cuts (student aid, for one), the fact that he is willing to compromise and raise taxes as well as cut spending makes him someone worth at least paying a little attention to.

It's impossible to make everyone happy - isn't it? Perhaps others will join him to have a serious conversation?

 

[SixNein]

It's impossible to make everyone happy - isn't it? Perhaps others will join him to have a serious conversation?

One problem is to get people to drop their ideological stances.

 

[SixNein]

One problem is to get people to drop their ideological stances.

I don't understand why this debate about spending cuts is happening now instead of when the budget is being drafted.

I'm becoming nervous that the house will not have enough votes to raise the debt ceiling.

 

[WhoWee]

I believe mental disorders can be a disabling long term sickness. And I disagree with creating a stereotype by comparing people with metal disorders with drunks.

Did you read the list of symptoms that can qualify people for Social Security Disability? I bolded the following - this list could be attributed to a drunk - couldn't it?
"Appetite disturbance
Sleep disturbance
Decreased energy
Feelings of guilt or worthlessness
Difficulty concentrating or thinking
Maintaining social functioning
Deficiencies of concentration"

Then I posted the narrative from the site which explained "An individual who has four symptoms present from the depressive syndrome list, as well as extreme limitation in two of the four functional areas, would probably be eligible for benefits."

Your response fits the troll definition - doesn't it? I'm not "creating a stereotype by comparing people with metal disorders with drunks" - I'm pointing out a potential area of abuse (of benefits = waste or potential for fraud) in the system. These programs are not designed to care for people that choose not to work - they are intended for people who can not work.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't understand why this debate about spending cuts is happening now instead of when the budget is being drafted.

I'm becoming nervous that the house will not have enough votes to raise the debt ceiling.

You do recall the President's budget was voted down?

 

[SixNein]

Did you read the list of symptoms that can qualify people for Social Security Disability? I bolded the following - this list could be attributed to a drunk - couldn't it?
"Appetite disturbance
Sleep disturbance
Decreased energy
Feelings of guilt or worthlessness
Difficulty concentrating or thinking
Maintaining social functioning
Deficiencies of concentration"

Then I posted the narrative from the site which explained "An individual who has four symptoms present from the depressive syndrome list, as well as extreme limitation in two of the four functional areas, would probably be eligible for benefits."

Your response fits the troll definition - doesn't it? I'm not "creating a stereotype by comparing people with metal disorders with drunks" - I'm pointing out a potential area of abuse (of benefits = waste or potential for fraud) in the system. These programs are not designed to care for people that choose not to work - they are intended for people who can not work.

People with bipolar disorder usually have multiple issues and some of them can be so extreme as to limit their ability to function in society, and these issues are often long term.

http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=By_Illness&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=54&ContentID=23037&lstid=325

 

[Vanadium 50]

You do recall the President's budget was voted down?

And the Senate refused to pass a budget.

 

[SixNein]

Did you read the list of symptoms that can qualify people for Social Security Disability? I bolded the following - this list could be attributed to a drunk - couldn't it?
"Appetite disturbance
Sleep disturbance
Decreased energy
Feelings of guilt or worthlessness
Difficulty concentrating or thinking
Maintaining social functioning
Deficiencies of concentration"

Then I posted the narrative from the site which explained "An individual who has four symptoms present from the depressive syndrome list, as well as extreme limitation in two of the four functional areas, would probably be eligible for benefits."

Your response fits the troll definition - doesn't it? I'm not "creating a stereotype by comparing people with metal disorders with drunks" - I'm pointing out a potential area of abuse (of benefits = waste or potential for fraud) in the system. These programs are not designed to care for people that choose not to work - they are intended for people who can not work.

http://www.allsup.com/about-ssdi/ssdi-guidelines-by-disability/bipolar-disorder.aspx
http://bipolar.about.com/od/disability/a/disability_qual.htm

These sources indicate the following:

In order for your condition to be considered severe, it must interfere with your ability to perform basic work-related activities. Basic work-related activities include things such as exerting yourself physically (walking, carrying, climbing stairs, etc.), tolerating certain environmental conditions (temperature extremes, noise, vibrations), maintaining concentration and attention, understanding, remembering and carrying out instructions, responding appropriately to other people, coping with change, etc.

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.allsup.com/about-ssdi/ssdi-guidelines-by-disability/bipolar-disorder.aspx
http://bipolar.about.com/od/disability/a/disability_qual.htm

These sources indicate the following:

I'm in favor of helping people that can not work because of illness. I am not in favor of helping people that choose to abuse drugs and alcohol and choose not to work. The requirements for Social Security Disability are quite inclusive with an increased chance of abuse of benefits. What do you disagree with as per my point?

 

[mheslep]

I said he put entitlement reforms on the table. Your changing my argument into something else.

I'm saying no he has not. One does not put entitlement reforms 'on the table' by simply wagging the tongue and saying they are on the table, and then proposing nothing but the status quo (IPAB and the like).

 

[WhoWee]

I'm saying no he has not. One does not put entitlement reforms 'on the table' by simply wagging the tongue and saying they are on the table, and then proposing nothing but the status quo (IPAB and the like).

The President now favors the Gang of 6 Proposal?
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/displayarticle.asp?xfile=data/international/2011/July/international_July965.xml&section=international&col=

"President Barack Obama threw his support behind the proposal by the “Gang of Six” senators, saying it was broadly consistent with his approach on reducing debt and deficits.

Obama urged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a fellow Democrat, and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell to start “talking turkey” about it.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, one of the six Democratic and Republican senators who have been working since December on a deficit-reduction plan, said the proposed $3.75 trillion in savings over 10 years contains $1.2 trillion in new revenues.

The group briefed about half of the 100-member Senate and “the response was very favorable,” Conrad told reporters.

He said the group asked fellow senators to take 24 hours to look at the proposal and “report back to us.”

According to an executive summary of the plan, it would immediately impose $500 billion in deficit cuts, cut security and non-security spending over 10 years with spending caps, make the Medicare and Medicaid healthcare programs operate more efficiently and abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax."

 

[mheslep]

...

According to an executive summary of the plan, it would immediately impose $500 billion in deficit cuts, cut security and non-security spending over 10 years with spending caps, make the Medicare and Medicaid healthcare programs operate more efficiently and abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax."

Yes ...
Statutory Caps ...
Repeal CLASS Act.
Shift to CPI .. exempt SSI ...

I don't see anything in there that adds up to an immediate cut of anywhere near $500B.