Budget Things

[BigRedBuster]

just as you blame us for only thinking taxing the rich will fix the economy, you seem to believe only cuts will. the point is to jump start the economy, only the gov't can do that. then more people will spend, more jobs, more tax revenue, more freedom to reconstruct the economy as you see fit. when everyone is tightening their belts is not the time the gov't should cut spending and put even more pressure on the economy.

 

I think right there you summed up the entire problem. Too many people believe government is the only savior for everything.

How does this underlined phrase correspond with this phrase?

 

Drastic measures are required and the government needs to take part in that.

 

 

Is it simply the government spending less that will "unleash the private sector?" How does the government unleash them? If you're talking about deregulation, lack of oversight is what got us into this mess a few years ago. It was a major contributor to LIBOR.

 

You seem to want the government to be involved but in very intricate ways, yet you're not explaining those ways very well.

 

What's coming across is that you're very upset with this government. But to date there has been no plan put forth by any party, person or platform that economists can look at and say, "Yep - this will work."

 

You ignored my example of corporate taxes.

[carlfense]

Please show me a democratic candidate that has talked extensively about cutting spending. Not just some pet project of the right. I'm talking drastic cutting of spending.

Sure. Exhibit 1. Barack Obama. There was a certain "grand bargain" that was all over the news a few months back. Something like $3 trillion in spending reductions . . . and rejected by the GOP because they would not agree to the rich paying a cent more in taxes.

That sounds good on a message board but is not accurate.

 

This is an extremely long read but very informative. It seems to me that the writer hails from the left side of the isle so a couple of his conclusions may have some bias but overall it is very interesting.

 

Who Killed the Debt Deal?

Not inaccurate. Simplified, sure. The short version is that a deficit reducing bill failed because of disagreements over taxes. The power struggle between Cantor and Boehner over the deal also played into the failure.

[Comish]

My dad sent me this video. I watched a fair portion of it, and it seemed to make sense to my feeble brain. Note that I'm the furthest thing from an economist you can get. Anyone know where this guy is wrong, or is he right and we're screwed?

 

I'm wondering why this thread isn't merged?

I posted this same video on August 15th under the title Budget Crisis in Layman's terms and it generated 32 responses and several hundred viewings.

Isn't there a procedure for mixing/merging threads ?

(not complaining, just wondering since both threads are plowing the same ground)

[JJ Husker]

 

This is an extremely long read but very informative. It seems to me that the writer hails from the left side of the isle so a couple of his conclusions may have some bias but overall it is very interesting.

 

Who Killed the Debt Deal?

 

Thanks for posting that link. Very good read that I would encourage everyone to commit the time to. However, it left me with mixed feelings. On one hand, it confirms what most of us already understand; that our government is broke and re-election quests and party politics supercede the good of the American people. But, on the other hand, it appeared that some in Washington (including Obama, Boehner, etc.) actually want to attempt to fix some of these problems. I have come accustomed to not accepting that any of them want to help anything so it was a little refreshing to see that some individuals might be willing to risk their political careers to do what is in the best interest of the country. Unfortunately, concerns over re-election and party base positions will prevent solutions from ever being reached.

 

Hopefully, this article will help facilitate some learning on the part of those of us (myself included) who tend to get stuck along party lines. Any reasonable person should be able to determine that our challenges will require both decreased spending AND increased revenue. If we are ever going to address the huge debt and deficit spending problem, the large entitlement programs (as well as discretionary spending including military) of social security and medicare will have have to be brought into the realm of sustainability. But, we also need to assure that everyone is paying their fairshare which will require eliminating tax code provisions that allow the rich to pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than what we in the middle class pay. If you didn't notice, I stated "fairshare" and not increased taxes on the rich. I feel there is a difference. I don't look at it as a "tax increase" when all you are doing is putting the rich on the same playing field as the rest of us even though the end result is increased tax revenue for the government. There is something inherently wrong with a tax system that allows Warren Buffet to pay an effective rate of only about 14% while his secretary or others of us making much less money pay a much higher percentage.

 

Anyway, my take away from all of this is that our political system needs and will have to change. If it is not accomplished in congress very soon (not likely) it will be forced by open rebellion and revolution (not ideal but probably inevitible). I feel our biggest problems are economic and debt based but the real issues preventing those things from being addressed have to do with how we elect people, how long they can serve, and the lifetime benefits they get from serving. In other words, to solve our most pressing problems we have to fix the system that allows money to buy elections, allows politicians to treat themselves differently than the common citizen, and allows them to make a career and retirement of being a congressperson. It has to change and I don't see how we can rely on those same people to take away their own gravy train.

[carlfense]

Thanks for posting that link. Very good read that I would encourage everyone to commit the time to. However, it left me with mixed feelings. On one hand, it confirms what most of us already understand; that our government is broke and re-election quests and party politics supercede the good of the American people. But, on the other hand, it appeared that some in Washington (including Obama, Boehner, etc.) actually want to attempt to fix some of these problems. I have come accustomed to not accepting that any of them want to help anything so it was a little refreshing to see that some individuals might be willing to risk their political careers to do what is in the best interest of the country. Unfortunately, concerns over re-election and party base positions will prevent solutions from ever being reached.

 

Hopefully, this article will help facilitate some learning on the part of those of us (myself included) who tend to get stuck along party lines. Any reasonable person should be able to determine that our challenges will require both decreased spending AND increased revenue. If we are ever going to address the huge debt and deficit spending problem, the large entitlement programs (as well as discretionary spending including military) of social security and medicare will have have to be brought into the realm of sustainability. But, we also need to assure that everyone is paying their fairshare which will require eliminating tax code provisions that allow the rich to pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than what we in the middle class pay. If you didn't notice, I stated "fairshare" and not increased taxes on the rich. I feel there is a difference. I don't look at it as a "tax increase" when all you are doing is putting the rich on the same playing field as the rest of us even though the end result is increased tax revenue for the government. There is something inherently wrong with a tax system that allows Warren Buffet to pay an effective rate of only about 14% while his secretary or others of us making much less money pay a much higher percentage.

 

Anyway, my take away from all of this is that our political system needs and will have to change. If it is not accomplished in congress very soon (not likely) it will be forced by open rebellion and revolution (not ideal but probably inevitible). I feel our biggest problems are economic and debt based but the real issues preventing those things from being addressed have to do with how we elect people, how long they can serve, and the lifetime benefits they get from serving. In other words, to solve our most pressing problems we have to fix the system that allows money to buy elections, allows politicians to treat themselves differently than the common citizen, and allows them to make a career and retirement of being a congressperson. It has to change and I don't see how we can rely on those same people to take away their own gravy train.

Great post, JJ. I don't really agree with the part about open rebellion or revolution, but I'm mostly on board with everything else. Thanks.

[knapplc]

I'm wondering why this thread isn't merged?

I posted this same video on August 15th under the title Budget Crisis in Layman's terms and it generated 32 responses and several hundred viewings.

Isn't there a procedure for mixing/merging threads ?

(not complaining, just wondering since both threads are plowing the same ground)

 

That's because the Mods don't see everything. If this happens again, use the Report function on both threads and we'll try to merge them if appropriate.

[JJ Husker]

 

Great post, JJ. I don't really agree with the part about open rebellion or revolution, but I'm mostly on board with everything else. Thanks.

 

carl- I might need to clarify the revolution part of my post. It's not that I want to see it come to that, it's just that I haven't seen any signs of the things I think it would take to avoid it. Since you do not agree that is where things are headed, please summarize how you feel we avoid it. The only way I see we avoid it would require politicians acting counter to their own best interests and, as I stated prior, I just plain don't see that happening. Hopefully you have an insight that might brighten my outlook.

[carlfense]

carl- I might need to clarify the revolution part of my post. It's not that I want to see it come to that, it's just that I haven't seen any signs of the things I think it would take to avoid it. Since you do not agree that is where things are headed, please summarize how you feel we avoid it. The only way I see we avoid it would require politicians acting counter to their own best interests and, as I stated prior, I just plain don't see that happening. Hopefully you have an insight that might brighten my outlook.

I don't have any concrete answers as to how we get there . . . but we do need to come together over the things that we all mostly agree on and hold politicians accountable. I'm thinking things like long term deficit reduction, Citizens United style Super PAC campaigning, etc. A more informed and involved electorate is absolutely crucial to that sort of goal. Unfortunately, most people don't closely follow politics and many of those who do only watch/read hyper-partisan political commentary that reinforces what they already want to believe. (Additionally, it's difficult to get people to care when they'd rather watch Keeping up with the Kardashians, Jersey Shore, etc.)

 

I poke a lot of fun at the Tea Party, but they did do one thing very well: they got people passionately involved in discussing and shaping our country's future. I disagree with many of their premises but I'm glad that they care.

 

Basically, I place a lot of hope for our country's future on some sort of better informed electorate and the media is absolutely crucial to that future. They need to say when a politician is blatantly lying rather than presenting the story in a "Obama claims vs. Romney claims" style. WE need to hold people accountable. Politicians on BOTH sides should not be allowed to dictate what questions will be asked of them in return for granting media access. The fawning fake interviews of Obama appearing with Olberman or Romney appearing with Hannity need to be met with the derision that they deserve. Those interviews are not journalism. They're much closer to propaganda . . . but the unfortunate truth is that propaganda sells. People want their beliefs reinforced, not challenged. Politically divided networks and online communities like DemocraticUnderground and FreeRepublic ensure that people of either political persuasion don't have to see things that they disagree with. (You can see the converse here on HB where we seem to enjoy arguing politics. It's not as invigorating when we all agree.) Ultimately, the people need to hold the politicians responsible and part of that is the people holding the media responsible.

 

I apologize because I'm rambling (stream of consciousness style) and it doesn't feel coherent. I just don't believe that we are anywhere near an actual rebellion or revolution. Our country has survived more trying times than these and I still have faith in our system of government. I suppose we'll find out eventually whether that faith is misplaced.

[BigRedBuster]

carl- I might need to clarify the revolution part of my post. It's not that I want to see it come to that, it's just that I haven't seen any signs of the things I think it would take to avoid it. Since you do not agree that is where things are headed, please summarize how you feel we avoid it. The only way I see we avoid it would require politicians acting counter to their own best interests and, as I stated prior, I just plain don't see that happening. Hopefully you have an insight that might brighten my outlook.

I don't have any concrete answers as to how we get there . . . but we do need to come together over the things that we all mostly agree on and hold politicians accountable. I'm thinking things like long term deficit reduction, Citizens United style Super PAC campaigning, etc. A more informed and involved electorate is absolutely crucial to that sort of goal. Unfortunately, most people don't closely follow politics and many of those who do only watch/read hyper-partisan political commentary that reinforces what they already want to believe. (Additionally, it's difficult to get people to care when they'd rather watch Keeping up with the Kardashians, Jersey Shore, etc.)

 

I poke a lot of fun at the Tea Party, but they did do one thing very well: they got people passionately involved in discussing and shaping our country's future. I disagree with many of their premises but I'm glad that they care.

 

Basically, I place a lot of hope for our country's future on some sort of better informed electorate and the media is absolutely crucial to that future. They need to say when a politician is blatantly lying rather than presenting the story in a "Obama claims vs. Romney claims" style. WE need to hold people accountable. Politicians on BOTH sides should not be allowed to dictate what questions will be asked of them in return for granting media access. The fawning fake interviews of Obama appearing with Olberman or Romney appearing with Hannity need to be met with the derision that they deserve. Those interviews are not journalism. They're much closer to propaganda . . . but the unfortunate truth is that propaganda sells. People want their beliefs reinforced, not challenged. Politically divided networks and online communities like DemocraticUnderground and FreeRepublic ensure that people of either political persuasion don't have to see things that they disagree with. (You can see the converse here on HB where we seem to enjoy arguing politics. It's not as invigorating when we all agree.) Ultimately, the people need to hold the politicians responsible and part of that is the people holding the media responsible.

 

I apologize because I'm rambling (stream of consciousness style) and it doesn't feel coherent. I just don't believe that we are anywhere near an actual rebellion or revolution. Our country has survived more trying times than these and I still have faith in our system of government. I suppose we'll find out eventually whether that faith is misplaced.

 

COMPLETELY agree with what I have bolded.

 

I personally believe the media is a bigger threat to this country than anything else. Most of the media puts out what THEY want to put out that fits THEIR political views.

 

You are right. People want their views validated and they will listen to what ever media will do that and believe what ever they say. People from both sides will go home from work tonight, turn on the TV and either watch Fox News or MSNBC depending on if they are liberal or conservative.

 

The problem with that is, those people on those networks MAKE MONEY by getting you riled up. How do they do that? OReilly or Hannity sure as hell doesn't do it by saying....."Tonight I want to discuss a topic I agree with Obama on". Olberman or Maddow doesn't make money by talking about something Romney does well.

 

Then, what happens is they are under pressure to put a show together every night. SO...what happens if literally nothing happened that day? They make stuff up.

[carlfense]

COMPLETELY agree with what I have bolded.

 

I personally believe the media is a bigger threat to this country than anything else. Most of the media puts out what THEY want to put out that fits THEIR political views.

 

You are right. People want their views validated and they will listen to what ever media will do that and believe what ever they say. People from both sides will go home from work tonight, turn on the TV and either watch Fox News or MSNBC depending on if they are liberal or conservative.

 

The problem with that is, those people on those networks MAKE MONEY by getting you riled up. How do they do that? OReilly or Hannity sure as hell doesn't do it by saying....."Tonight I want to discuss a topic I agree with Obama on". Olberman or Maddow doesn't make money by talking about something Romney does well.

 

Then, what happens is they are under pressure to put a show together every night. SO...what happens if literally nothing happened that day? They make stuff up.

I agree with everything you've said except I think that I'm a little more cynical about the bold. I think that it's often not their political views that shape their stories . . . but their market audiences. It's not principles driving their actions . . . it's dollars.

[BigRedBuster]

I thought that was the point of my post. These networks are only there to make money. They cater to their audience. If their audience is a liberal audience, they sure as hell aren't going to do a story about something good a conservative politician does and the same holds true for the conservative audience.

 

It happens every single time that I talk about this. Someone usually pipes in and defends "their" guy or girl on TV. They claim that THEY actually do research and are fair.

[JJ Husker]

 

I don't have any concrete answers as to how we get there . . . but we do need to come together over the things that we all mostly agree on and hold politicians accountable. I'm thinking things like long term deficit reduction, Citizens United style Super PAC campaigning, etc. A more informed and involved electorate is absolutely crucial to that sort of goal. Unfortunately, most people don't closely follow politics and many of those who do only watch/read hyper-partisan political commentary that reinforces what they already want to believe. (Additionally, it's difficult to get people to care when they'd rather watch Keeping up with the Kardashians, Jersey Shore, etc.)

 

I poke a lot of fun at the Tea Party, but they did do one thing very well: they got people passionately involved in discussing and shaping our country's future. I disagree with many of their premises but I'm glad that they care.

 

Basically, I place a lot of hope for our country's future on some sort of better informed electorate and the media is absolutely crucial to that future. They need to say when a politician is blatantly lying rather than presenting the story in a "Obama claims vs. Romney claims" style. WE need to hold people accountable. Politicians on BOTH sides should not be allowed to dictate what questions will be asked of them in return for granting media access. The fawning fake interviews of Obama appearing with Olberman or Romney appearing with Hannity need to be met with the derision that they deserve. Those interviews are not journalism. They're much closer to propaganda . . . but the unfortunate truth is that propaganda sells. People want their beliefs reinforced, not challenged. Politically divided networks and online communities like DemocraticUnderground and FreeRepublic ensure that people of either political persuasion don't have to see things that they disagree with. (You can see the converse here on HB where we seem to enjoy arguing politics. It's not as invigorating when we all agree.) Ultimately, the people need to hold the politicians responsible and part of that is the people holding the media responsible.

 

I apologize because I'm rambling (stream of consciousness style) and it doesn't feel coherent. I just don't believe that we are anywhere near an actual rebellion or revolution. Our country has survived more trying times than these and I still have faith in our system of government. I suppose we'll find out eventually whether that faith is misplaced.

Good post. Can't say I disagree with anything you said. Also, I am glad you mentioned the media. That piece of the puzzle did not occur to me but it is a big part of the systemic change needed. I will admit though that I am a lot more skeptical about the electorate choosing to get more informed and less partisan or their ability to do so when too many of them seem to be satisfied with reality TV and the lives of the Kardashians. The media clearly is not helping the situation. It's kind of like the drug addict that, even though he wants to get clean, finds himself living with the drug dealer.

 

Wild idea number 1; Test peoples knowledge on basic economic theory, history, and current affairs to qualify them to be able to vote. It wouldn't have to be in depth or really tough to pass but it would be nice to weed out those who can only manage to drool on themselves and only regurgitate what people like Chris Matthews or Hannity tell them. Or, at the very least, adjust the number of electoral college votes a specifc state is entitled based on the test results of their voters (rather than the population). I know this is out there a bit but it's Friday and I'm bored. One thing is for sure, any real solutions will probably have to come from thinking outside the box. If what they're doing in Washington these days is considered "in the box" then that much is obvious.

[BigRedBuster]

Turn loose the private sector and watch what will happen?

2007–2012 global financial crisis

 

Financial Crisis Was Avoidable, Inquiry Finds

The 2008 financial crisis was an “avoidable” disaster caused by widespread failures in government regulation, corporate mismanagement and heedless risk-taking by Wall Street, according to the conclusions of a federal inquiry.

 

The 2007–2012 global financial crisis, also known as the Global Financial Crisis and 2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s

 

And you expect companies to just be able to pay employees no matter what? This is a problem none of us on this board have ever been through. Drastic measures are required and the government needs to take part in that.

no, that was not my point at all. my point was that there would be contingency plans for such time of economic downturn, which there were not. and that companies would be ran by employees, rather than a managerial class.

 

 

How do you think the Nebraska football team would perform if there were no coaches and the players ran the team?

 

I believe every company that is well ran tries to hold onto assets so that they can ride through down turns. They don't have an account set up at the bank where they deposit money to keep employees on when the company doesn't make money. All good companies are going to do what ever they can to keep good employees. It is a huge expense to lay good employees off only to have to rehire new ones and retrain them. But, when a down turn happens to a point where there is a new normal. Then drastic changes have to be made. It's a fact of life and if companies don't do that then they won't last long.

[Mavric]

Please show me a democratic candidate that has talked extensively about cutting spending. Not just some pet project of the right. I'm talking drastic cutting of spending.

Sure. Exhibit 1. Barack Obama. There was a certain "grand bargain" that was all over the news a few months back. Something like $3 trillion in spending reductions . . . and rejected by the GOP because they would not agree to the rich paying a cent more in taxes.

That sounds good on a message board but is not accurate.

 

This is an extremely long read but very informative. It seems to me that the writer hails from the left side of the isle so a couple of his conclusions may have some bias but overall it is very interesting.

 

Who Killed the Debt Deal?

Not inaccurate. Simplified, sure. The short version is that a deficit reducing bill failed because of disagreements over taxes. The power struggle between Cantor and Boehner over the deal also played into the failure.

You second set of reasons differs significantly from your first.

 

From the first post:

 

Wrong:

1 - $3T in spending cuts. From the article I can find numbers close to half that that were somewhat agreed upon

2 - GOP didn't agree to tax increases. Basically every paragraph talks about the $800B in added tax revenue that seems to have been agreed upon for some time before the deal fell apart

 

Misleading/Unprovable:

You insinuate that the GOP killed the deal. Could be. Maybe not. That's what we don't know. Did Boehner panic or did Obama change the deal? Obviously no one knows for sure - other than those present and I doubt any of them are posting on this board.

 

So, as I said, you post was inaccurate.

[Mavric]

So, now we are in such a situation that we can't cut government because so many people work for it that the economy will suffer? If that is the case then we are so far gone we are beyond fixing it. That is a pathetic situation to be in.

I think that you're an Obama fan and you just don't know it yet. Contrary to popular belief, the government workforce has dramatically decreased during his years in office.

A fact which Obama constantly bemoans.

Link to Obama bemoaning? Also . . . it's still a fact.

I didn't argue that it wasn't true. BigRedBuster observed that some believe we can't downsize government. You stated he could be an unknowing Obama fan and followed that up with the fact that the public workforce has decreased dramatically during his term. To me, this implies you were giving credit to Obama for doing this. If true, that would be like having your cake and eating it too. Credit for reducing the workforce while complaining that it's being done.

 

Also, overall government employment has fallen some 636,000 state and local government jobs have been lost but the Federal government has actually added about 143,000 so it's not the government most directly controlled by Obama that's shrinking.

 

Here's a couple:

 

Obama urges Congress to boost public sector jobs

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvUMvknc228

Never caught this before: "Flexibility of the Federal Government" read: "Ability to print money" or "Ability to spend more than we take in."