Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 117

Thread: Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

  1. #91
    Skeptical Optimist
    Rhapsody1447's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    09-20-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,510

    Re: Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    You're just thinking too simplistically about it. You're looking for answers like "it is the Republicans fault" or "it is the Democrats fault" or "it is either the president's fault or Congress's fault"... It's binary thinking. The most glaring of all the flaws in the way Republicans reason...

    In reality, Congress has probably 75% control over the budget, the executive 25%. The executive can veto a budget, he starts the ball rolling with his proposal, he can use the bully pulpit, etc, but Congress makes the final decision.
    I'm not looking to attribute our deficit problems to one person or party, nor have I. It seems YOU are the one that wants to blame the opposition party for spending policy whether they are in control of the White House or Congress.

    For example, during the debt ceiling hostage crisis, the Republicans proposed $3 trillion, Obama proposed $4 trillion. During the super committee the Republicans were pushing for a $2 trillion plan, where the Democrats were pushing for $3 trillion.
    Can you link me to these said plans? I've yet to see any deficit reduction proposal that matched Ryans in scope. Using these figures to argue that Democrats were more serious about deficit reduction is disingenuous considering the Republican's deals contained a balanced budget amendment, the most drastic piece of legislation to reform future deficits.
    "There is an excellent correlation between giving society what it wants and making money, and almost no correlation between the desire to make money and how much money one makes." ~Dalio

  2. #92
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447 View Post
    It is interesting to note, however, that revenues reached record levels soon after Bush's tax cuts were put into place.
    That is total bull****. Raw income tax revenue did not surpass the 2000 level until 2005 -- four years after the first Bush tax cuts. Income tax as a percentage of GDP has NEVER recovered to it's 1997/98 level (which I choose to avoid the dotcom-inflated figure of 2000) -- not even close.

    Government Taxes and Revenue Chart: United States 2000-2009 - Federal State Local Data

    Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

  3. #93
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447 View Post
    I'm not looking to attribute our deficit problems to one person or party, nor have I. It seems YOU are the one that wants to blame the opposition party for spending policy whether they are in control of the White House or Congress.
    I think I've told you like 10 times now that I blame both parties, so lets just agree that we both think both parties are to blame.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447 View Post
    Can you link me to these said plans? I've yet to see any deficit reduction proposal that matched Ryans in scope. Using these figures to argue that Democrats were more serious about deficit reduction is disingenuous considering the Republican's deals contained a balanced budget amendment, the most drastic piece of legislation to reform future deficits.
    Well, Ryan's plan wasn't a serious plan, it was just grandstanding. The public opposed it 58 to 35. Obviously they knew it would never clear the senate or the veto because of it's ludicrously devastating effects, so it was just a safe way for them to look like they want to make big cuts. Of the serious plans though, the Democrats have been making the bigger proposals at every turn. For example:

    Obama to Propose $4.4 Trillion Deficit Reduction Plan - ABC News
    Super Committee Democrats Go Big with $3 Trillion Plan - Politics - The Atlantic Wire

    It just makes sense, right? Domestic spending, military spending and revenues are all part of the problem, but Republicans are only willing to address 1/3 of those them. They want to cut domestic spending a bit more deeply than Democrats do, but they can't seriously propose cutting it three times as deep as the Democrats are willing to agree to. That would be tantamount to intentionally collapsing us into a third world country. They can't match the Democrats on deficit reduction without giving up some of their sacred cows and thus far, they've been unwilling to do that.
    Last edited by teamosil; 01-12-12 at 07:37 PM.

  4. #94
    Skeptical Optimist
    Rhapsody1447's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    09-20-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,510

    Re: Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    That doesn't really work logically. Say that they have a medium desire to reduce spending when the deficit is at a medium level and a high desire to reduce spending when the deficit is at a high level. Then when the deficit gets high they will jump up to high desire to reduce spending, but once it gets paid back down to a medium level, they'll just drop back to a medium level of desire to reduce spending. Trying to create problems because you want to make the public solve the problems you create is a ridiculous way to run a country.
    Can you name me a more effective restraint on the spending propensities of the executive branch and the legislature than revenues and deficits? No, it's not making the public manage the country. Politicians can only afford to deny public opinion for so long before they take action or risk losing reelection. What is predetermined is not spending but the politically tolerable deficit. Raise taxes by enough to eliminate the existing deficit and spending will go up to restore the tolerable deficit.

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Random question- why do you have that quote as your sig? Does that mean you are pro-union or anti-union? It seems like just a matter of fact statement of what "right to work" laws do.
    It's an interesting use of the word 'fair share' to demonize free riders who are not paying into the system yet reaping the benefits.
    "There is an excellent correlation between giving society what it wants and making money, and almost no correlation between the desire to make money and how much money one makes." ~Dalio

  5. #95
    Skeptical Optimist
    Rhapsody1447's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    09-20-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,510

    Re: Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    That is total bull****. Raw income tax revenue did not surpass the 2000 level until 2005 -- four years after the first Bush tax cuts. Income tax as a percentage of GDP has NEVER recovered to it's 1997/98 level (which I choose to avoid the dotcom-inflated figure of 2000) -- not even close.

    Government Taxes and Revenue Chart: United States 2000-2009 - Federal State Local Data

    Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
    I'm sorry did your link disprove my claim that revenues reached record levels after the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003? From your first link, and own omission, the data clearly shows that raw income tax revenue peaked in 2007. How does this make my claim bull****?

    Of course, as a percentage of GDP income taxes would be lower. That's the whole point of the tax cut in the first place.
    "There is an excellent correlation between giving society what it wants and making money, and almost no correlation between the desire to make money and how much money one makes." ~Dalio

  6. #96
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447 View Post
    Can you name me a more effective restraint on the spending propensities of the executive branch and the legislature than revenues and deficits? No, it's not making the public manage the country. Politicians can only afford to deny public opinion for so long before they take action or risk losing reelection. What is predetermined is not spending but the politically tolerable deficit. Raise taxes by enough to eliminate the existing deficit and spending will go up to restore the tolerable deficit.
    Deficits and revenues have little to no effect on spending, so yeah, there are tons of better ways to restrain spending. Although, really we shouldn't be talking about restraining spending, we should be talking about restraining deficits. Spending can be good or bad, it isn't necessarily bad. If we spend $100 and it generates $150 in value for society, that is good and we should do as much of that kind of spending as we can. If we spend $50 and it generates only $50 in value for society, that is bad and we need to cut that kind of spending as much as we can. But, that aside, the clear way to apply pressure to politicians to reduce the deficits is voting of course. That's the whole point of our system of government. Even the deficit based strategy you are proposing works via voting. Your theory is that exploding the deficit will force the public to get concerned about the deficit and use their votes to apply pressure. It's just a backasswards way to do it. If you have the votes to enact that plan, you have enough votes to just reduce the deficit without the theatrics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447 View Post
    It's an interesting use of the word 'fair share' to demonize free riders who are not paying into the system yet reaping the benefits.
    Oh, you're going with the "poor people don't pay enough taxes" angle?

  7. #97
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Maybe that is technically true, but it isn't relevant. The US could "stand" to spend several tens of trillions a year and accumulate hundreds of trillions in debt before it reached a point where it was unable to keep spending, so a few hundred billion, or even a trillion, more or less in revenues doesn't really change that line in any appreciable way.
    So the wealth loses and the inflation that causes people to harder lives is irrelevant? On the other hand, it is only relevant that the government can spend more?

  8. #98
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    So the wealth loses and the inflation that causes people to harder lives is irrelevant? On the other hand, it is only relevant that the government can spend more?
    Not really sure what you're talking about

  9. #99
    Skeptical Optimist
    Rhapsody1447's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    09-20-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,510

    Re: Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Deficits and revenues have little to no effect on spending, so yeah, there are tons of better ways to restrain spending. Although, really we shouldn't be talking about restraining spending, we should be talking about restraining deficits. Spending can be good or bad, it isn't necessarily bad. If we spend $100 and it generates $150 in value for society, that is good and we should do as much of that kind of spending as we can. If we spend $50 and it generates only $50 in value for society, that is bad and we need to cut that kind of spending as much as we can. But, that aside, the clear way to apply pressure to politicians to reduce the deficits is voting of course. That's the whole point of our system of government. Even the deficit based strategy you are proposing works via voting. Your theory is that exploding the deficit will force the public to get concerned about the deficit and use their votes to apply pressure. It's just a backasswards way to do it. If you have the votes to enact that plan, you have enough votes to just reduce the deficit without the theatrics.
    What ways do you think would be more effective at restraining spending than reduced revenues and deficits? Ideas originated within government? I agree that voting is the way to make it happen, but the public at large is rarely concerned with restraining spending unless deficits/regulations become intolerable. Spending is at the forefront of the upcoming election and I would say the American public used their voting power dramatically in 2010 to protest deficits and spending.

    Oh, you're going with the "poor people don't pay enough taxes" angle?
    Think moreso about the definition of the term "fair share".
    "There is an excellent correlation between giving society what it wants and making money, and almost no correlation between the desire to make money and how much money one makes." ~Dalio

  10. #100
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447 View Post
    I agree that voting is the way to make it happen, but the public at large is rarely concerned with restraining spending unless deficits/regulations become intolerable.
    Well, unfortunately that's what we have to live with then. Trying to play games to trick the public into supporting a position they don't want to support or whatever is no way to govern. First because as I pointed out, it's useless. At best it would just serve to artificially raise the deficit, then bring it right back to where it was before you did that. Second because if you have the votes to do some strange deficit-creation-to-trigger-deficit-panic scheme, you have the votes to just decrease the deficit instead. Third because if the public was going to freak out about the national debt enough to actually force change they would have done it decades ago. Fourth because in a democracy the voters aren't a hassle that the real decision makers need to figure out a way to shove past, that is the end goal- government that does what the people want it to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447 View Post
    Think moreso about the definition of the term "fair share".
    The thing where conservatives kind of hint about what they mean and try to get liberals to guess what their position is never works. Whatever connections you are making are not going to be immediately apparent to somebody that sees the world very differently than you.

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •