Page 22 of 23 FirstFirst ... 1220212223 LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 229

Thread: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

  1. #211
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    Lead by example. Offer your own plan.
    As I'm not in the Senate or Congress, I can't introduce legislation. Nonetheless, I will repeat what I have embraced in the past:

    1. Parametric Social Security and Medicare reforms: Raise the age of eligibility to 67 over 10 years and then peg the age to life expectancies.
    2. Index changes in Social Security benefits to prices, not wages.
    3. The remaining actuarial liability for Social Security--it would be modest once the above changes are implemented--should be closed by an increase in the payroll tax (raising the ceiling to where it had previously been and then pegging that ceiling to nominal wages so that it remains constant, rather than eroding in real terms).
    4. Medicare should be subject to means-testing.
    5. Introduce continual cost assessment to the Pentagon and other departments. Such a framework would reduce the risk of badly-managed projects such as the Joint Strike fighter program that are now running at more than twice the intended cost per jet, not to mention hobbled by delays. The Pentagon, like any other entity in the federal government, must learn to obtain more value per dollar of spending.

    While imperfect, a number of the above concepts have been cited by the IMF (e.g., parametric reforms to mandatory spending programs), Bowles-Simpson, GAO, among others. Those changes would represent a meaningful start to fiscal consolidation. Neither Senator Toomey nor the two Congressmen I mentioned in the message to which you have referred have introduced legislation to address Social Security's and Medicare's imbalances. None of them offered fiscal cliff legislation that would have dealt with spending-related issues.

    Finally, it should also be noted that comprehensive health reform that addresses supply-side and demand-side issues, including cost drivers, would be necessary to make the nation's health care system financially sustainable. Its costs cannot increase perpetually at a multiple of GDP as currently remains the case. Foreigners are not likely to subsidize the nation's health care imbalances indefinitely via deficit funding.

  2. #212
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,040

    Re: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    As I'm not in the Senate or Congress, I can't introduce legislation. Nonetheless, I will repeat what I have embraced in the past:

    1. Parametric Social Security and Medicare reforms: Raise the age of eligibility to 67 over 10 years and then peg the age to life expectancies.
    2. Index changes in Social Security benefits to prices, not wages.
    3. The remaining actuarial liability for Social Security--it would be modest once the above changes are implemented--should be closed by an increase in the payroll tax (raising the ceiling to where it had previously been and then pegging that ceiling to nominal wages so that it remains constant, rather than eroding in real terms).
    4. Medicare should be subject to means-testing.
    5. Introduce continual cost assessment to the Pentagon and other departments. Such a framework would reduce the risk of badly-managed projects such as the Joint Strike fighter program that are now running at more than twice the intended cost per jet, not to mention hobbled by delays. The Pentagon, like any other entity in the federal government, must learn to obtain more value per dollar of spending.

    While imperfect, a number of the above concepts have been cited by the IMF (e.g., parametric reforms to mandatory spending programs), Bowles-Simpson, GAO, among others. Those changes would represent a meaningful start to fiscal consolidation. Neither Senator Toomey nor the two Congressmen I mentioned in the message to which you have referred have introduced legislation to address Social Security's and Medicare's imbalances. None of them offered fiscal cliff legislation that would have dealt with spending-related issues.

    Finally, it should also be noted that comprehensive health reform that addresses supply-side and demand-side issues, including cost drivers, would be necessary to make the nation's health care system financially sustainable. Its costs cannot increase perpetually at a multiple of GDP as currently remains the case. Foreigners are not likely to subsidize the nation's health care imbalances indefinitely via deficit funding.
    Sounds like a good start. Get that passed to where it balances the budget and there is no need to raise the debt ceiling. So why are we even arguing about it? No money has been appropriated past March. The govt takes in enough revenue to pay interest on the debt and accomplished all of the mandatory duties of the govt required by law. So there is no need to raise the limit. The Executive branch will simply have to figure out how to enforce the law without spending more than they have.

  3. #213
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    That is what Presidents have historically done.
    because everyone knows that Obama has to do what every President has traditionally done
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  4. #214
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Nice try. It wasn't dishonest, and the truth remains, Democrats have repeatedly done what they are crying about Reps doing.
    It was dishonest. All you've shown is that one time, a few dems tried to do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    That's not what she said. She said "had nothing to do with" which is clearly not the case. Clinton attacked Iraq and created the US position of removing Saddam from power. Even a fool knows it's dishonest to ignore all that for the sake of partisanship.
    And Clinton had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. That was bush*
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  5. #215
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    I've been within the context of the discussion the entire time. It's not my problem you are having difficulty following along.
    Nonsense! As previously stated, you are simply incapable of having a relevant discussion that pertains to fiscal and macroeconomic policy.

    You believe nearly 6 trillion spent in 4 years wasn't enough. Obviously I disagree.
    Your disagreement is strictly based on ideology.

    You believe yearly trillion dollar deficits (when the government currently is receiving more than 2T annually) isn't enough spending. I disagree.
    I believe that current spending levels combined with a completely expansive/unconventional monetary policy initiative is enough to keep the economy from tumbling. Your disagreement is strictly based on ideology.

    You believe massive Keynesian Stimulus spending creates jobs, and sustained Economic Growth.
    I know that auto-stabilization policies along with fiscal stimulus has helped to overt a greater depression.

    It didn't work when FDR tried it.
    FDR didn't "try it" until the war (which is an inefficient but sometimes necessary path). The paper that you tried to link even confirmed as much.

    Any estimate is likely to be for a balanced-budget multiplier because the deficits were very small relative to the size of the problem. Scholars have repeatedly shown that the New Deal was not a Keynesian attempt to deal with the Depression
    It didn't work when Obama tried it. Both of those failures also led to enormous Opportunity Costs and Negative Externalities within the private economy that prolonged both recessions when that could have easily been avoided with more prudent economic policies. These are facts that are beyond dispute.
    Didn't work? The economy continues to grow, even though the response in the labor market has not been optimal (which is a symptom that the private sector is still faces demand shortfalls along with structural discontinuities in the labor market). The net worth of households and non-profits is close (after 4 years) to pre-recession levels (see line 16 and 31).

    Except the problem is your argument was a strawman that was easily refuted/debunked.
    How on earth can you label it as a strawman? I made a statement that the stimulus lacked magnitude and velocity, and backed it up with appropriate data. You proceeded to refute a point i did not make. I would refer to this as a red herring but that is giving you far too much credit; reason being you did not even understand my argument.

    You're trying to have a conversation in a box where you set all the rules.
    Nonsense! I am trying to establish a dialog yet you chose to go off on tangents that do not pertain to the discussion at hand.

    1.CBO also stated that the 800B was fully accounted for, meaning that the obligations for the appropriation of those funds were in place.
    Irrelevant! If my argument is that the appropriations were not large or fast enough, the fact that these slow/small appropriations were in place is irrelevant! It cannot be considered a refutation of my argument.

    So your assumption is they just needed to spend more of the Stimulus for job/economic growth is a red herring, (we know that didn't happen.)
    It is an inconvienent argument to those who disagree with fiscal stimulus that is proposed by an administration represented by their opposition party.

    2. Only 400K jobs will be sustained by Stimulus spending by the end of 2013. That's about 2 million per job. Again, obviously not a very good investment of taxpayer dollars. As time goes on, each job created by the "Stimulus" becomes more costly. The spending becomes more ineffective as time goes on. There are reasons for this. One being that Government doesn't operate with the same profit motive as the private sector, so therefore it doesn't appropriate resources in the most effective and efficient ways. I really don't understand why you are trying to dispute this. It's proven Economic Theory and a lot of it is explained in Buchanan's Public Choice Theory. In other words in reality, Stimulus Spending is really just Government giving money away, except the problem is it doesn't have a firm indicator on things such price/value for the things it's handing money to.

    That's why I provided multiple examples of Obama's "failed Green Job Investments". It doesn't get any clearer than that really. Obama made those investments for Ideological reasons, base upon voting. Not sound Economic Policy. It shows that the Stimulus spending in large part was dolled out to Special Interests and the people who got Obama voted into office. Unions, Campaign Bundlers, ect. This is beyond refute. The Stimulus was infested with cronyism. There was no competition or profit motive to discipline the allocation of resources by Government within Obama's Failed Stimulus Package.
    The motivation behind stimulus is to provide a short term boost in total economic activity as a means of shoring up aggregate demand. I do agree that the stimulus was not optimally designed, to which blame falls on both political parties. The first going towards the current administration for not identifying exactly how deep the economic contraction was, while the other goes to any politician that lacks the political will to support a stimulus package that is equipped to bridge the economic gap left by a plunge in aggregate demand. Providing sources that illustrate a per-cost for each job saved or lost by the actual stimulus does not refute this point whatsoever.

    The ARRA according to the WH's own projections only "created or saved" about 3 million jobs. That's about 260K per saved or created job. Obviously that money would have been invested more wisely by those in the private sector who created that wealth, than the Government who by it's own admission is squandering 125B a year in "improper payments". You want everyone to believe that if we only allowed Obama to spend more money, his Keynesian Policies would have worked. The evidence clearly shows otherwise.
    You simply do not understand how capital markets operate in a predominately free economy. The federal government borrowed (meaning private entities lent) excess capital accumulated by years of savings. With accommodative monetary policy by the Federal Reserve, there is/was not a capital shortfall for any private entity who had the desire to borrow. This can be illustrated by interest rate differentials within the corporate and sovereign debt markets. The cost of borrowing for the private sector has never been lower (even during the Great Depression). I am not here to argue whether or not the private sector is more efficient at investing. The point i am repeatedly making is that the private sector was in survival mode let alone expansion mode. This can be illustrated by declines in revenue and investment.

    800B is small? 260K per "saved or created job" is small?
    Did i say that $800 billion is small? Not once! I said that $800 billion spanned out primarily through 4 years was not nearly large enough to bridge the economic gap left by the private sector.

    Your only argument (which is nothing more than a Krugman talking point) is that it wasn't enough.
    Nope! This has been the sentiment by many well-to-do's on Wall Street as well:



    Except that they aren't minor at all. Maybe in fantasyland they are minor, but only a radical ideologue would make such a claim. The innovations, investment, job growth, wealth creation by Individuals pursuing their own self interests (Instead of Government confiscated their money and redistributing it) is not something that can be easily dismissed, nor is it something that can easily be calculated. You're assuming that a Centrally Planned Authority that controlled all that money made the best possible choices, investments, and use of that Capital. Your assumptions are incorrect.
    No i am not. I am simply providing the evidence; there is no crowding out of private investment. To make such an argument you are going to have to show that the user cost of capital is increasing in a linear fashion with the level of government spending. Is this the case? Can you show the spread between corporate paper/bonds and U.S. government debt is making expansion difficult? No you cannot! Can you show that corporate America is lacking capital for investment? Of course not! It is a simple case of you not being capable of understanding your own argument (crowding out is THE opportunity cost/negative externality of deficit spending).

    This is the problem with massive Keynesian Stimulus Packages. They are sugar highs.
    No ****! That is the point of short term fiscal stimulus; to temporarily bridge the economic output gap until the private sector is ready to lead the charge. So far, they are not up to the challenge which is understandable given the enormous hole they need to climb out of and the lack of fiscal support.

    That's why the % of Americans of working age who are employed right now (59%) is EXACTLY the same as it was before Obama passed his Stimulus.
    This is nonsense. The reason labor force participation is at this low level (actually it is at it's historical average!) is due to structural discontinuities that persist in the labor market; namely an aging population, prevalence of low-skilled/low-wage labor in Anglo economies, and a demand for skill sets that outpaces supply. To believe there is causality from deficit spending is rather naive.

    On the contrary Reagan saw GDP Growth as high 9% with a million jobs created on 1 month. As a matter of fact, during the same month and same year of Reagan's first term, the economy created a million jobs, where during Obama's first term ZERO jobs were created in that same month. Again, after the Stimulus was passed.
    You can't compare the worst financially driven recession since the Great Depression with the interest rate induced recession of the early 1980s. It makes no sense to do so. The Reagan administration never had to contend with wealth losses in the scope of 100% of GDP.



    You're all over the map here and you obviously completely misunderstood my point of contention. That much is obvious. I never claimed "crowding out" was risk, not sure why you're attempting another strawman here. You also once again conveniently ignore my main point, which is that LABOR was crowded out with Stimulus Funding. Where I mentioned risk is in regards to WHO invests/spends the money (Public Choice Theory). It really is quite a simple economic concept, which is probably why you can't comprehend it.
    The incoherent rambling continues!

    I'm sensing you really don't know what you are talking about at all here, and have been reduced to nothing more than a bunch of strawmen and red herrings while chirping away Krugman talking points you've read on his blog. Kind of a shame really. You also failed to address every point I made in my previous post, as well as numerous points made in the post before that. Clearly you are unable to offer any rebuttals. I stated previously that I wouldn't respond to you unless you addressed EVERY POINT I made in the previous post. I've gone ahead and made an exception here just once, but consider that a mulligan. From now on, if you are going to have any credibility with me beyond a Krugman Parrot, you must address EVERY POINT of contention like I have done with you.
    You have yet to make one relevant point.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  6. #216
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

    The incoherent rambling continues!



    You have yet to make one relevant point.
    The funniest thing he said was "LABOR was crowded out with Stimulus Funding.", an argument I've never heard anyone make
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  7. #217
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    And Clinton had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. That was bush*
    Why are you here?

    Bombing of Iraq (December 1998) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  8. #218
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    bombing<>invading
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  9. #219
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    An appropriations bill is a form of budgeting. I'm sorry if you got caught up in the semantics, but it doesn't really matter what you want to call it.



    If republicans wanted to be consistent in their position they would oppose the appropriations bills and shut the government down. They would not support the appropriations bills then oppose raising the debt ceiling to finance the spending they approved. That is hypocritical. Obama is not choosing to negotiate on this issue because it really should not be a problem to raise the debt ceiling to fund the spending that congress has already approved. That is why he is not negotiating. These talks should be within the context of the budget, not the debt ceiling.
    First we need a budget

  10. #220
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    Nonsense! As previously stated, you are simply incapable of having a relevant discussion that pertains to fiscal and macroeconomic policy.



    Your disagreement is strictly based on ideology.



    I believe that current spending levels combined with a completely expansive/unconventional monetary policy initiative is enough to keep the economy from tumbling. Your disagreement is strictly based on ideology.



    I know that auto-stabilization policies along with fiscal stimulus has helped to overt a greater depression.



    FDR didn't "try it" until the war (which is an inefficient but sometimes necessary path). The paper that you tried to link even confirmed as much.





    Didn't work? The economy continues to grow, even though the response in the labor market has not been optimal (which is a symptom that the private sector is still faces demand shortfalls along with structural discontinuities in the labor market). The net worth of households and non-profits is close (after 4 years) to pre-recession levels (see line 16 and 31).



    How on earth can you label it as a strawman? I made a statement that the stimulus lacked magnitude and velocity, and backed it up with appropriate data. You proceeded to refute a point i did not make. I would refer to this as a red herring but that is giving you far too much credit; reason being you did not even understand my argument.



    Nonsense! I am trying to establish a dialog yet you chose to go off on tangents that do not pertain to the discussion at hand.



    Irrelevant! If my argument is that the appropriations were not large or fast enough, the fact that these slow/small appropriations were in place is irrelevant! It cannot be considered a refutation of my argument.



    It is an inconvienent argument to those who disagree with fiscal stimulus that is proposed by an administration represented by their opposition party.



    The motivation behind stimulus is to provide a short term boost in total economic activity as a means of shoring up aggregate demand. I do agree that the stimulus was not optimally designed, to which blame falls on both political parties. The first going towards the current administration for not identifying exactly how deep the economic contraction was, while the other goes to any politician that lacks the political will to support a stimulus package that is equipped to bridge the economic gap left by a plunge in aggregate demand. Providing sources that illustrate a per-cost for each job saved or lost by the actual stimulus does not refute this point whatsoever.



    You simply do not understand how capital markets operate in a predominately free economy. The federal government borrowed (meaning private entities lent) excess capital accumulated by years of savings. With accommodative monetary policy by the Federal Reserve, there is/was not a capital shortfall for any private entity who had the desire to borrow. This can be illustrated by interest rate differentials within the corporate and sovereign debt markets. The cost of borrowing for the private sector has never been lower (even during the Great Depression). I am not here to argue whether or not the private sector is more efficient at investing. The point i am repeatedly making is that the private sector was in survival mode let alone expansion mode. This can be illustrated by declines in revenue and investment.



    Did i say that $800 billion is small? Not once! I said that $800 billion spanned out primarily through 4 years was not nearly large enough to bridge the economic gap left by the private sector.



    Nope! This has been the sentiment by many well-to-do's on Wall Street as well:





    No i am not. I am simply providing the evidence; there is no crowding out of private investment. To make such an argument you are going to have to show that the user cost of capital is increasing in a linear fashion with the level of government spending. Is this the case? Can you show the spread between corporate paper/bonds and U.S. government debt is making expansion difficult? No you cannot! Can you show that corporate America is lacking capital for investment? Of course not! It is a simple case of you not being capable of understanding your own argument (crowding out is THE opportunity cost/negative externality of deficit spending).



    No ****! That is the point of short term fiscal stimulus; to temporarily bridge the economic output gap until the private sector is ready to lead the charge. So far, they are not up to the challenge which is understandable given the enormous hole they need to climb out of and the lack of fiscal support.



    This is nonsense. The reason labor force participation is at this low level (actually it is at it's historical average!) is due to structural discontinuities that persist in the labor market; namely an aging population, prevalence of low-skilled/low-wage labor in Anglo economies, and a demand for skill sets that outpaces supply. To believe there is causality from deficit spending is rather naive.



    You can't compare the worst financially driven recession since the Great Depression with the interest rate induced recession of the early 1980s. It makes no sense to do so. The Reagan administration never had to contend with wealth losses in the scope of 100% of GDP.





    The incoherent rambling continues!



    You have yet to make one relevant point.
    I think he is missing the difference between deficit spending during growth periods with deficit spending during recessions. I wouldn't argue that the stimulus was too big, I agree, it was too small. The stimulus should have been (by my guestimates) ~$1.5-1.8T over a 18 month period, with a majority of it being spending, rather than tax cuts.

    Tax cuts along with spending cuts are for good economic times.

    I pound the fact that our spending is too high in this country. But, its not that we spend too much on investments, infrastructure, or research. If anything we spend too little on those. But, we spend too much on permanent expenditures; maintaining foreign bases, Medicare, and the welfare state.

Page 22 of 23 FirstFirst ... 1220212223 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
  •