• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Debt ceiling cost to taxpayers: $1.7 billion

Objective Voice said:
I agree with you 100%, but don't you see? Had Republicans agreed to a clean debt ceiling from the start instead of insisting on tying spending cuts to raising same we could have saved the public billions!

Now, I agree we need to get our fiscal house in order, but debt and deficit reduction could (and should) have been dealt with separate from raising the debt limit same as closing tax loopholes or reforming same along with reforming Social Security and Medicare. But instead of listening to the President who stated we could wait and work on reforming Social Security after raising the debt limit or that we already made cuts to Medicare in the health care reform law, pundits still sought to affix entitlement reform, tax reform and deficit reduction measures (spending cuts) to raising the debt limit. ALL SUCH ACTIONS WERE WRONG! WRONG TIME, WRONG VENUE TO SEEK REFORMS!! And look at what it cost the America in public currency and national prestige' abroad?
Click to expand...
Exactly!
...
 
AdamT said:
And your point?
Click to expand...

much of stimulus spending is permanent

That was an overly optimistic projection
Click to expand...

LOL!

it sure was

and it was made by the chair of obama's council of economic advisers and the president's chief economist and economic policy adviser

The same projection estimated that unemployment would be under 8% even without stimulus
Click to expand...

no, romer-bernstein tops at 9.3, q2, 2010

I certainly agree that we need to start working on entitlement reform
Click to expand...

few care about your opinions, the world is not your mom
 
much of stimulus spending is permanent
Click to expand...

In other words, you don't understand how budgets work.


LOL!

it sure was

and it was made by the chair of obama's council of economic advisers and the president's chief economist and economic policy adviser
Click to expand...

Yes, that's right. Economic projection is never easy, particularly when faced with a worst-in-three-generations recession. I don't consider being off by +/- 2% to be so dramatic.


no, romer-bernstein tops at 9.3, q2, 2010
Click to expand...

Pay attention. What I'm saying is that, based upon the graph you provided, Romer predicted that unemployment would *presently* be under 8% even without stimulus spending.

Again, she clearly underestimated the severity of the recession.

few care about your opinions, the world is not your mom
Click to expand...

Did you just go into some kind of fugue state? :lol:
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Now, I agree we need to get our fiscal house in order, but debt and deficit reduction could (and should) have been dealt with separate from raising the debt limit same as closing tax loopholes or reforming same along with reforming Social Security and Medicare.
Click to expand...

I agree that it should have been. I disagree that it could have been, though. Democrats would never have agreed to cuts outside of this framework.
 
LOL!

do you KNOW the crfb?

CRFB warned last year when the stimulus was enacted that there would be enormous pressures to not only extend some of the ARRA measure, but even make them permanent. Doing so is a violation of the principle that stimulus should be timely, targeted, and temporary.

Yet we predicted last January that the Making Work Pay tax credit, the EITC, Pell grants, American Opportunity tax credit, COBRA subsidies, and child support enforcement match were at risk of being extended or made permanent because the President included them in his campaign promises. It turns out we were right. The Making Work Pay tax credit and the COBRA subsidies are being extended temporarily, as explained above. The others, in this budget, are made permanent.

ARRA Policies Made Permanant in the President's Budget (billions)

2010-2020
Expand earned income tax credit+ $30
Expand child tax credit+ $83
Pell Grants+ $187
AMT patch (index 2009 parameters to inflation) $659
Extend American opportunity tax credit $75
Extend child support enforcement incentive match $1
Total $1,035

Total Excluding AMT Patch
$376

In fact, the budget includes over $1 trillion to extend policies which were enacted under the ARRA. In fairness, the majority of this money comes from continued AMT patches -- something which was "current policy" long before it was put into the stimulus bill (which is why it should not have been there in the first place). However, even when this is excluded, the budget spends at least $376 billion to make permanent ARRA measures. Worse still, many of these policies are included in the baseline, hidden away as "current policy" when they in fact are anything but. (Following our blog post on this, the Wall Street Journal called the ARRA 'The Eternal Stimulus'.)

This is why we have argued repeatedly that stimulus should stimulate, not push an agenda. And to keep policy makers honest, we believe that all future stilmulus spending should be be fully offset -- even if these offsets occur in the out-years. Otherwise, the medicine meant to heal an unhealthy economy can become addictive, and ultimately do far more harm than good.
Click to expand...

link above
 
AdamT said:
Romer predicted that unemployment would presently be under 8% even without stimulus spending
Click to expand...

i know, the president's original chair of his council of economic advisers can't get anything right
 
The Prof said:
i know, the president's original chair of his council of economic advisers can't get anything right
Click to expand...

Show me any economist anywhere who is 100% accurate. You can start with the CBO estimates of the huge surpluses that Bush would run up. :D
 
Redress said:
There are a number of problems with your post here which indicate a lack of understanding.

1) you are assuming that nothing will change, when things always change. Saying "well, if nothing changes" is a stupid comment, since things always change. It shows you want to believe the worst instead of are looking for real information.

2) triple is an exact measure of what it is, a comparison of starting to ending amounts.

3) We have already discussed the role of inflation and such, and then you go right back to trying to ignore it since it is inconvenient to your argument.
Click to expand...

i didn't ignore inflation. I did a side-by-side comparison using the modern day conversion of the debt increase under Reagan. I'm not sure why you think I'm ignoring anything, but if I'm unclear I apologize.

As for the "nothing changing" remark...I'm not seeing anything to indicate that we'll see a spending decrease significant enough to counteract the rapid accumulation of debt. The bill passed today takes effect over 10 years and only amounts to just under $2 trillion in cuts over that time. So we could estimate that we'll see a $10 trillion increase instead of $12 trillion...still pretty significant, no?
 
tessaesque said:
i didn't ignore inflation. I did a side-by-side comparison using the modern day conversion of the debt increase under Reagan. I'm not sure why you think I'm ignoring anything, but if I'm unclear I apologize.

As for the "nothing changing" remark...I'm not seeing anything to indicate that we'll see a spending decrease significant enough to counteract the rapid accumulation of debt. The bill passed today takes effect over 10 years and only amounts to just under $2 trillion in cuts over that time. So we could estimate that we'll see a $10 trillion increase instead of $12 trillion...still pretty significant, no?
Click to expand...

Did you think Obama was going to wave some magic wand and make the deficit go away? Of course it is small right now, we are recovering from a recession. Some numbers:

~1/4 of GDP is from the federal government
~1/3 of federal spending is deficit spending
therefore, if you where to say balance the budget next year, that means even if GDP made a nice 4 % gain in private sector, you are still looking at a GDP loss of 4 %. More realistically, you are looking at 6 %. And this with massively higher unemployment.

Complaining about the deficit when we are struggling to recover from a recession is the exact wrong time to do it.
 
Redress said:
Did you think Obama was going to wave some magic wand and make the deficit go away? Of course it is small right now, we are recovering from a recession. Some numbers:

~1/4 of GDP is from the federal government
~1/3 of federal spending is deficit spending
therefore, if you where to say balance the budget next year, that means even if GDP made a nice 4 % gain in private sector, you are still looking at a GDP loss of 4 %. More realistically, you are looking at 6 %. And this with massively higher unemployment.

Complaining about the deficit when we are struggling to recover from a recession is the exact wrong time to do it.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying we need to balance the budget tomorrow. I'm saying that just under $2 trillion over 10 years seems...paltry. As far as when to complain about the deficit...do you honestly think either party is going to step up in 3 years if the economy has rebounded and say, "Hey, now that we're doing better, let's talk about spending cuts"??
 
tessaesque said:
I'm not saying we need to balance the budget tomorrow. I'm saying that just under $2 trillion over 10 years seems...paltry. As far as when to complain about the deficit...do you honestly think either party is going to step up in 3 years if the economy has rebounded and say, "Hey, now that we're doing better, let's talk about spending cuts"??
Click to expand...

2T over 10 years i as start. In my lifetime, that level of reduction in real dollars or percent of deficit or any other measure has only been done once. If we go in with the assumption that politicians won't do anything to fix it, it never will get fixed. Believe it or not, I am a deficit hawk. I also realize that fixing the problem is not easy and cannot be done in the short term. But even slowing growth is a step in the right direction. The only time it happened in my lifetime was under the Clinton, give credit to him, congress, or both. So when you look at it from that point of view, it is significant. The job is not done, but starting is more than most can claim.
 
AdamT said:
The Republican position in this "democratic" process was that we, the minority, must get 100% of what we want and you, the majority, must get 0% of what YOU want or we are going to destroy the fu**ing economy!
Click to expand...

Really? I seem to remember a number of individuals in the Republican camp that didn't want to raise the debt limit at all, yet were willing to compromise and do it. I seem to remember many wanting reform of SS, medicare, and medicaid part of it, but they compromised on those. I seem to remember many wanting the Stimulus Money to be released and it be defunded, but they compromised on that. I seem to remember them wanting far more than $4 in savings over 10 years with it mostly back loaded but they were willing to compromise.

The Republicans refused to compromise on a single position, the same position that the majority of the time the Democrats ALSO refused to compromise on, and that was increasing of taxes.

Its pure hyper partisan spin and absolute BS to paint the Republicans as 100% unwilling to compromise and yet paint the Democrats as absolute helpless babes that just were willing to give up anything and everything but the mean old republicans just kept refusing them. Both sides drew their lines, dug in their soles, and brought it to this point.
 
Redress said:
When they chose to draw the line is the sand could be considered arbitrary. It wasn't, but it could be. The real reason why republicans chose now to draw their line in the sand, finally, is they thought they could win political points, especially with 2012 coming up, and if they should win in 2012, this opens up a little more spending room for them. You cannot go around spending nonstop, and then when the other guy spends throw a fit and hope to be seen as fiscally conservative.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true that this played into it. Similarly, a large reason why the Democrats refused to budget on the tax the rich and corporations issue was becuase they thought it would win them political points as well, especially with 2012 coming up. Its hardly a republican only thing going for political points. Similarly, the reason that the Democrats voted for the debt ceiling increases in years past was because politically it was better for them then causing this kind of problem in the middle of a significant war. Just like the reason Obama lambasted and chastised Bush for raising the debt ceiling when he was in congress was because it would score him political points with his base for his upcoming election campaign while having no chance of having a major effect because the rest of the party would go along with it for fear of what political backlash would come if they significantly opposed it.

Shocker here, politicians do things for political reasons. Does that mean every politician doesn't also do things...along with political reasons...because they think its the right thing to do? Absolutely not. I'm sure there's republicans and democrats alike that honestly and truly believed that our debt was too high and we got to a point where we have to get it under control or that we absolutely have to raise taxes because people are simply not paying enough for us to sustain the things they feel we need. However, lets not delude ourselves into thinking either side's actions in almost ANY of this crap is not at least partially, if not majorly, due to political posturing.
 
Zyphlin said:
Absolutely true that this played into it. Similarly, a large reason why the Democrats refused to budget on the tax the rich and corporations issue was becuase they thought it would win them political points as well, especially with 2012 coming up. Its hardly a republican only thing going for political points. Similarly, the reason that the Democrats voted for the debt ceiling increases in years past was because politically it was better for them then causing this kind of problem in the middle of a significant war. Just like the reason Obama lambasted and chastised Bush for raising the debt ceiling when he was in congress was because it would score him political points with his base for his upcoming election campaign while having no chance of having a major effect because the rest of the party would go along with it for fear of what political backlash would come if they significantly opposed it.

Shocker here, politicians do things for political reasons. Does that mean every politician doesn't also do things...along with political reasons...because they think its the right thing to do? Absolutely not. I'm sure there's republicans and democrats alike that honestly and truly believed that our debt was too high and we got to a point where we have to get it under control or that we absolutely have to raise taxes because people are simply not paying enough for us to sustain the things they feel we need. However, lets not delude ourselves into thinking either side's actions in almost ANY of this crap is not at least partially, if not majorly, due to political posturing.
Click to expand...

Absolutely the tax stuff for democrats was political theater, and you already know I am more to the right on that issue than even you are. :shock:
 
Zyphlin said:
Really? I seem to remember a number of individuals in the Republican camp that didn't want to raise the debt limit at all, yet were willing to compromise and do it. I seem to remember many wanting reform of SS, medicare, and medicaid part of it, but they compromised on those. I seem to remember many wanting the Stimulus Money to be released and it be defunded, but they compromised on that. I seem to remember them wanting far more than $4 in savings over 10 years with it mostly back loaded but they were willing to compromise.

The Republicans refused to compromise on a single position, the same position that the majority of the time the Democrats ALSO refused to compromise on, and that was increasing of taxes.

Its pure hyper partisan spin and absolute BS to paint the Republicans as 100% unwilling to compromise and yet paint the Democrats as absolute helpless babes that just were willing to give up anything and everything but the mean old republicans just kept refusing them. Both sides drew their lines, dug in their soles, and brought it to this point.
Click to expand...

You do seem to have a handle on hyperpartisan spin -- I'll give you that much.

For example, it is insanity to suggest that the thing over which your are negotiating is in fact your concession. How would that work in the real world? You go into a car dealership and offer the salesman the wholesale price and he offers you the sticker price. You come up a little on your offer and he comes back with the sticker price again. You say, "WTF? You've got to negotiate!" He says, "I've already conceded that you can have the car for full retail! What do you want from me, blood?!"

Never mind the fact that it would have been pure insanity not to raise the debt limit. Never mind the fact that it was absurd from the outset to hold the country hostage over something that any sane person knew had to be done. Forget the fact that Congress has raised the debt limit over 100 times in the past without insisting on this lunatic game of chicken.

Let's look at what actually happened.

Democrats wanted substantial deficit reduction with a significant portion coming from revenue enhancement, albeit with the majority still coming from spending cuts.

Republicans said no, we will take less deficit reduction but we will never agree to anything that could remotely be described as a tax increase.

Democrats said, okay, we'll offer significant deficit reduction, and we'll shift the balance so that the vast majority of it comes from spending cuts.

Republicans said no, we will not accept anything remotely like a tax increase no matter what. We're crazy. We'll blow this place up!!

AND ... AAAND we will only agree not to blow up the economy if you give us a balanced budget amendment that would surely blow up the economy anyway if it could miraculously get through the amendment process!

Democrats said, holy sh*t, they really may be crazy. Okay, we'll offer you somewhat less deficit reduction and NO tax increase or anything that could in any way be interpretted as a tax increase.

Republicans said ... NO!! We will ONLY accept EVERYTHING we asked for IF you agree to do this whole economy-shaking dance again in six or nine months!

Unbelievable.

You are delusional if you think the republicans were negotiating in good faith.
 
The more and more I look into all this the more and more I feel dirty but wish for an actual moderate (in US terms) Democrat President and a majority Republican led congress.

There's no good rhyme or reason you can find with regards to the debt and Presidents over the past 6. The closest thing to consistent is that all three of the last Republicans had the Debt go up under them. However Reagan's deficits lowered, then Bush I's went up, then Bush II the Deficit went up, then down, then back up. Meanwhile on the Democratic side you have one who has had a steady rise in both debt and deficit, one who had a steady decrease in both, and one who has a mild increase then decrease then increase. There's no real honest and good indication you can get strictly by President.

The congress and debt, that's a different story. Save for the 4 years at the start of my sample (77-80), whenever we have a Split or Democratic controlled congress the Debt has relatively maintained or risen. Every time we've had Republican Control (outside of 2002) we've either relatively maintained or lowered itself.

Additionally, ground wars seem to be a better indicator for higher deficits than the control of the Presidency or the House. After Grenada and Lebanon Reagan's deficits lowered a bit, before Panama followed by Desert Storm occured and it went back up. Clinton's defies this a bit, but a large portion of Clinton's actions (Bosnia, Kosovo) were more focused with air support than full on ground war. Under GWB, during the start of afghanistan and iraq we have a raise, while it lowered a bit as the major combat lulled and then rose again with the surge. Similarly, with the surge in Afghanistan we've been seeing an increase as well.

For all the talk of Presidents, I think its a bit misguided. Wars and Congressional control likely has far more to do with these things than whatever guy happens to be in the big chair. That said, whose in the big chair is largely responsable for the Wars so there is a legitimate thing there. But in regards to debt, I think Congress is a far better indicator and its not shocking in the least to me that the best years this country has seen in the past 3 decades with regards to the debt and deficit came at a time where a Democratic President specifically tried to lean significantly more towards the center and Republicans controlled the congress.

Federal Debt as % of GDP
Federal Deficit as $ of GDP
 
Zyphlin, I think what you are seeing is that the biggest controlling factor in the deficit is the economy and reaction to the economy. Deficits go up in economic bad times, both due to slower GDP growth and higher spending. In point of fact, that is perfectly OK(and why a balanced budget amendment is a bad idea). We now have to convince our politicians that the reaction to good economic times has to change, and that during good economic times is when you end the deficits and reduce the debt.
 
Zyphlin said:
The more and more I look into all this the more and more I feel dirty but wish for an actual moderate (in US terms) Democrat President and a majority Republican led congress.

There's no good rhyme or reason you can find with regards to the debt and Presidents over the past 6. The closest thing to consistent is that all three of the last Republicans had the Debt go up under them. However Reagan's deficits lowered, then Bush I's went up, then Bush II the Deficit went up, then down, then back up. Meanwhile on the Democratic side you have one who has had a steady rise in both debt and deficit, one who had a steady decrease in both, and one who has a mild increase then decrease then increase. There's no real honest and good indication you can get strictly by President.

The congress and debt, that's a different story. Save for the 4 years at the start of my sample (77-80), whenever we have a Split or Democratic controlled congress the Debt has relatively maintained or risen. Every time we've had Republican Control (outside of 2002) we've either relatively maintained or lowered itself.

Additionally, ground wars seem to be a better indicator for higher deficits than the control of the Presidency or the House. After Grenada and Lebanon Reagan's deficits lowered a bit, before Panama followed by Desert Storm occured and it went back up. Clinton's defies this a bit, but a large portion of Clinton's actions (Bosnia, Kosovo) were more focused with air support than full on ground war. Under GWB, during the start of afghanistan and iraq we have a raise, while it lowered a bit as the major combat lulled and then rose again with the surge. Similarly, with the surge in Afghanistan we've been seeing an increase as well.

For all the talk of Presidents, I think its a bit misguided. Wars and Congressional control likely has far more to do with these things than whatever guy happens to be in the big chair. That said, whose in the big chair is largely responsable for the Wars so there is a legitimate thing there. But in regards to debt, I think Congress is a far better indicator and its not shocking in the least to me that the best years this country has seen in the past 3 decades with regards to the debt and deficit came at a time where a Democratic President specifically tried to lean significantly more towards the center and Republicans controlled the congress.

Federal Debt as % of GDP
Federal Deficit as $ of GDP
Click to expand...

Debt Deal Betrayal for all that want a smaller Central govt.

4 Ways Debt Deal Betrays Conservatives and Short-Changes America - FoxNews.com
 
Zyphlin said:
The more and more I look into all this the more and more I feel dirty but wish for an actual moderate (in US terms) Democrat President and a majority Republican led congress.

There's no good rhyme or reason you can find with regards to the debt and Presidents over the past 6. The closest thing to consistent is that all three of the last Republicans had the Debt go up under them. However Reagan's deficits lowered, then Bush I's went up, then Bush II the Deficit went up, then down, then back up. Meanwhile on the Democratic side you have one who has had a steady rise in both debt and deficit, one who had a steady decrease in both, and one who has a mild increase then decrease then increase. There's no real honest and good indication you can get strictly by President.

The congress and debt, that's a different story. Save for the 4 years at the start of my sample (77-80), whenever we have a Split or Democratic controlled congress the Debt has relatively maintained or risen. Every time we've had Republican Control (outside of 2002) we've either relatively maintained or lowered itself.

Additionally, ground wars seem to be a better indicator for higher deficits than the control of the Presidency or the House. After Grenada and Lebanon Reagan's deficits lowered a bit, before Panama followed by Desert Storm occured and it went back up. Clinton's defies this a bit, but a large portion of Clinton's actions (Bosnia, Kosovo) were more focused with air support than full on ground war. Under GWB, during the start of afghanistan and iraq we have a raise, while it lowered a bit as the major combat lulled and then rose again with the surge. Similarly, with the surge in Afghanistan we've been seeing an increase as well.

For all the talk of Presidents, I think its a bit misguided. Wars and Congressional control likely has far more to do with these things than whatever guy happens to be in the big chair. That said, whose in the big chair is largely responsable for the Wars so there is a legitimate thing there. But in regards to debt, I think Congress is a far better indicator and its not shocking in the least to me that the best years this country has seen in the past 3 decades with regards to the debt and deficit came at a time where a Democratic President specifically tried to lean significantly more towards the center and Republicans controlled the congress.

Federal Debt as % of GDP
Federal Deficit as $ of GDP
Click to expand...

All of which is a very long way around to searching for some conceivable way you might claim -- in your inimitable non-hyperpartisan fashion -- that republicans are fiscally responsibility when they aren't.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
All of which is a very long way around to searching for some conceivable way you might claim -- in your inimitable non-hyperpartisan fashion -- that republicans are fiscally responsibility when they aren't.
Click to expand...

Since when is fiscal responsibility an issue with you? Which is the better alternative today, Democrats or Republicans?

Democrats controlled the Congress the first two years of the Obama Administration and now we have these results

Obama record, 15.1 million officially unemployed TODAY 2 1/2 years later, 16.2% total unemployment or underemployment over 24 million TODAY, 4 trillion added to the debt as of the end of fiscal year 2011, and a rising misery index(7.83 to 12.67).
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Since when is fiscal responsibility an issue with you? Which is the better alternative today, Democrats or Republicans?
Click to expand...

Historically, democrats. All evidence points to that being the case now.
 
Conservative said:
Since when is fiscal responsibility an issue with you? Which is the better alternative today, Democrats or Republicans?

Democrats controlled the Congress the first two years of the Obama Administration and now we have these results

Obama record, 15.1 million officially unemployed TODAY 2 1/2 years later, 16.2% total unemployment or underemployment over 24 million TODAY, 4 trillion added to the debt as of the end of fiscal year 2011, and a rising misery index(7.83 to 12.67).
Click to expand...

I am always concerned with fiscal responsibility. I was concerned when Bush cut taxes and didn't pay for them. I was concerned when started two wars and didn't pay for them. I was concerned when the overly-loose money supply and said tax cuts contributed to a huge asset bubble. But it is not fiscally responsible to cut spending when the economy is in recession, or teetering on the edge of one.
 
AdamT said:
I am always concerned with fiscal responsibility. I was concerned when Bush cut taxes and didn't pay for them. I was concerned when started two wars and didn't pay for them. I was concerned when the overly-loose money supply and said tax cuts contributed to a huge asset bubble. But it is not fiscally responsible to cut spending when the economy is in recession, or teetering on the edge of one.
Click to expand...

Do you think your paycheck is an expense to the govt? You keep saying that tax cuts have to be paid for. Where did you learn that? Tax cuts are a benefit to the taxpayer by allowing them to keep more of what they earn. They aren't a line item expense thus don't have to be paid for as only expenses have to be paid for.

Obama has spent record amounts over the past two plus years and is about to make it 3 years in a row. This nation is broke and has to cut spending. Cutting spending doesn't hurt the private sector and that is where the economy has to grow and create jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom