Believer and Writerbuckeye have yelled without providing evidence that "we have a spending problem." Well the CBO just came out to report that if we simply allow the Bush tax cuts to expire...do as is already planned under current law....Congress does nothing (which everybody claims to always want), then the deficit disappears!!! Sounds like we don't have a spending problem lol.


Oh Noes! How can I make baseless claims with evidence to the contrary???

On Wednesday, the Congressional Budget Office released its updated long-term budget forecast, which looked surprisingly like the previous version of its long-term budget forecast.

It showed, as one might expect, that if the Bush tax-cuts remain in effect and Medicare and Medicaid spending isn't constrained in some way, the country will topple into a genuine fiscal crisis -- not the fake one the Congress is pretending the country's in right now.

Republicans, of course, seized on that particular projection, and claimed (a bit ridiculously) that it proved the government must adopt their precise policy views: major spending cuts, particularly to entitlement programs.

While all this -- from the findings to the politicization of them -- is perfectly expected, the forecast also presents another opportunity to remind people that the medium-term budget outlook is perfectly fine if Congress adheres to the law as it's currently written. That means no repealing the health care law, for one, but more significantly it means allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, and (unfathomably) allowing Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors to fall to the levels prescribed by the formula Congress wrote almost 15 years ago. In other words, no more "doc fixes."

Helpfully, CBO juxtaposed these two alternative futures in a pair of graphs and, just as last time, it projects that deficits will disappear entirely by the end of President Obama's second term (if he gets a second term) if Congress were to just sit on its hands and do nothing.

Take a look.



But here are the facts: The republican party would rather bring the tax rate for the top 10% down effectively to zero; lower rates than average ordinary income earning republicans and turn medicare into an inadequate voucher system that will not allow people to cover their health insurance costs and falsely claim the reason they're doing so is because of the deficit. And in the other thread I posted, if the Reagan and Clinton tax raises are any evidence, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire won't have a disastrous effect that the R's will claim so please don't bother. And yet, they are convinced they are right. Truly maddening times.


But now we will hear claims about how the CBO is wrong and blah blah...that's fine, but at least it is something other than a baseless claim about the size of the government.

Hmmm....

I have no idea whether the CBO projections are accurate or not. With them, it's truly "garbage in, garbage out" so...depending on WHAT data was provided for this analysis will determine if it's accurate.

Remember, the CBO has been DEADLY WRONG on many occasions, so I don't think I'd cream my jeans over this report just yet. If it's true, that's great -- but it doesn't mean we still don't have a spending problem.

I'm sorry, but I simply do not believe that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will be sustainable long-term, with or without the cuts in place.

Well, you have to start with their growth projections....With high enough growth and compliance, you can make any level of spending look sustainable. But what I do know is I believe Obama is calling for receipts of like 24% of GDP, which is not only unsustainable but some 2-3% higher than anything we've ever collected.

I think you have to target like 19% of GDP (which is still a bit above historical averages) and earmark 1% of that to pay down the debt, which leaves 18% for spending.

Yes, the CBO has been well off the mark many times, but don't forget it's not exactly a completely objective and unbiased report.


The cold, ugly truth is many of the developed/leading economies are starting fail under the crushing weight of years of entitlements. The govt as a means of redistributing wealth is simply proving to be inadequate, unless you consider screwing everyone when an economy collapses or the govt defaults to be a desired outcome.

Okay, now I'm confused. Here's a report on the two CBO forecasts from a RELIABLE site (not some made up place boat sent us to) and it says the following:

In the other scenario, in which the Bush tax rates expire and Medicare payments are slashed, total federal debt held by the public still would grow from an estimated 69 percent of GDP this year to 84 percent by 2035.


So, which is it?

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/167965-dems-call-for-stimulus-in-debt-deal-as-cbo-offers-warnings

Yeah, everything is fine, move along, nothing to see here.

Are you kidding me? We might lose our AAA rating, and we still aren't creating jobs or doing anything about our debt. Magical pixie dust isn't going to fix this. We could raise taxes across the board, if incomes remain stagnant and unemployment remains high we're taxing air.

But oh noes, I guess I'm just wrong, everything will be ok if we just go to sleep and wake up in the morning, didn't William Shatner's character say that in Airplane II?

Manhattan Buckeye;815904 wrote:Yeah, everything is fine, move along, nothing to see here.

Are you kidding me? We might lose our AAA rating, and we still aren't creating jobs or doing anything about our debt. Magical pixie dust isn't going to fix this. We could raise taxes across the board, if incomes remain stagnant and unemployment remains high we're taxing air.

But oh noes, I guess I'm just wrong, everything will be ok if we just go to sleep and wake up in the morning, didn't William Shatner's character say that in Airplane II?

We might lose our triple AAA rating because investors know that Republicans are too stupid to actually risk playing chicken with the Full Faith and Credit of the United States and pledge to never tap the near $200 trillion in national assets we have to pay for government services or risk losing an election.

Keep making the claims about raising taxes...blah blah...I covered that in the other thread I posted...as if you care anyways because it has the same fiscal result on aggregate demand as if you cut spending...which is exactly what you want and you're a smart guy and yet you're wallowing in contradiction!

BoatShoes;815920 wrote:We might lose our triple AAA rating because investors know that Republicans are too stupid to actually risk playing chicken with the Full Faith and Credit of the United States and pledge to never tap the near $200 trillion in national assets we have to pay for government services or risk losing an election.

Keep making the claims about raising taxes...blah blah...I covered that in the other thread I posted...as if you care anyways because it has the same fiscal result on aggregate demand as if you cut spending...which is exactly what you want and you're a smart guy and yet you're wallowing in contradiction!

Yes it is the Republicans' fault, after all they had full control of the country from '08-'10 and we're just doing dandy. Posting 2000 word posts don't make you persuasive. The US economy sucks right now, and the short, medium and long term future is grim - but we're better than Western Europe so we have that going for us.

Manhattan Buckeye;815957 wrote:Yes it is the Republicans' fault, after all they had full control of the country from '08-'10 and we're just doing dandy. Posting 2000 word posts don't make you persuasive. The US economy sucks right now, and the short, medium and long term future is grim - but we're better than Western Europe so we have that going for us.

They didn't have full control because, oh that's right they didn't have one more seat in the senate and the filibuster was used more than ever despite Obama towing the Conservative line of the 1990s. But yeah you're right, it is the democrats fault because they had the audacity to think that Republicans were reasonable people and wasted month after month negotiating for nothing.

"But yeah you're right, it is the democrats fault because they had the audacity to think that Republicans were reasonable people and wasted month after month negotiating for nothing. "

Well they are unreasonable, if that's your point have at it. The audacity that folks wouldn't pray to your messiah. Haven't they read his book? Its the Audacity of Hope. You know. Hope. Change. Come on, get with the program already!

There are many GOP'ers I don't like, but this country might not survive 4 more years of Obama, and please: Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Weiner (well that wasn't his fault, the GOP set him up).

You're shilling for a loser, and a losing strategy, at least Romney might turn the tide. Obama is a disaster, there's no other word for it.

All this thread tells me is Boatshoes knows absolutely nothing about the federal debt and how grim it really is.

70.7 trillion in unfunded liabilities, good luck fixing that with just repealing the Bush tax cuts.

ooooh, 1.65 Trillion deficit but yet letting the tax rate go up from 35 to 39% for the rich is going to miraculously fix that. Has no one seen the numbers I posted? You could tax the rich at 50% and it wouldn't cover half the deficit, the idea of doing nothing fixing the problem is fucking laughable.

The CBO as an unbiased and reliable source of economic information? It stuns me that there are actually intelligent, articulate people out there who buy off on this flawed nonsense.

The danger in giving the Feds even more money to play with is they create ways to SPEND it. It's simple. Let the people keep more of THEIR money so their "diminishing marginal utility" isn't quite as painful when they lose that $10 bill. Hence the need to extend the eeeeeevil Bush tax cuts.

By the way, I haven't seen a conservative on OC in quite some time advocating more tax cuts, but many of us are indeed saying the obvious: Big Government doesn't have a tax revenue problem...it SPENDS TOO MUCH.

Anyone who believes that a tax raise would ever be followed by Congress "doing nothing" in terms of spending hasn't been paying attention. Whether the numbers are accurate or not, it's a dimwitted fantasy scenario from those with no real answers.

"But here are the facts: The republican party would rather bring the tax rate for the top 10% down effectively to zero; lower rates than average ordinary income earning republicans and turn medicare into an inadequate voucher system that will not allow people to cover their health insurance costs and falsely claim the reason they're doing so is because of the deficit"

That is absolutely and completely false on all counts.

Try again.

What CBO report are we to adhere to? This one that states on June 22 2011

Quote: “Our nation’s debt, driven by years of overspending, threatens us with a Greece-like calamity,” Sessions said in a statement. “CBO’s unnerving projections, released 784 days since the Democrat-led Senate has passed a budget, paint a sobering picture of what will occur if we do not act immediately to bring our spending under control.”
“Today’s report only further highlights the Democrats’ inexcusable refusal to pass a budget in 784 days, during which time we’ve spent more than $7 trillion. Making matters worse, Democrats haven’t scheduled a hearing to discuss this outlook—a hearing the GOP-led House Budget Committee has planned for tomorrow—another stunning decision in a time of fiscal crisis. I hope it’s a decision they will reverse.”



http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270229/cbo-report-us-budget-outlook-daunting-andrew-stiles

Writerbuckeye;815881 wrote:Okay, now I'm confused. Here's a report on the two CBO forecasts from a RELIABLE site (not some made up place boat sent us to) and it says the following:

In the other scenario, in which the Bush tax rates expire and Medicare payments are slashed, total federal debt held by the public still would grow from an estimated 69 percent of GDP this year to 84 percent by 2035.


So, which is it?

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/167965-dems-call-for-stimulus-in-debt-deal-as-cbo-offers-warnings

Come on, Boat -- look at the quote I bolded from the article I've got linked. It's about the same CBO projection you are trying to tell us says we can basically do nothing and all will be okay. Obviously, that is NOT what the CBO said. The Hill is a very reliable web site on these matters, and they aren't saying what you are claiming.

Someone is lying here, and I don't believe it's the report I linked to.

BoatShoes;815025 wrote:
But here are the facts: The republican party would rather bring the tax rate for the top 10% down effectively to zero; lower rates than average ordinary income earning republicans and turn medicare into an inadequate voucher system that will not allow people to cover their health insurance costs and falsely claim the reason they're doing so is because of the deficit. And in the other thread I posted, if the Reagan and Clinton tax raises are any evidence, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire won't have a disastrous effect that the R's will claim so please don't bother. And yet, they are convinced they are right. Truly maddening times.


But now we will hear claims about how the CBO is wrong and blah blah...that's fine, but at least it is something other than a baseless claim about the size of the government.

You were doing ok until this BS laden rant. You can't call out someone for baseless/no proof assertations and then spew a baseless assertation laden paragraph of your own.

So lets get this right boat shoes you are ok with letting all of the bush tax cuts go including those on the middle class and lower middle class? Because that is what this projection is based on. It is not based on the liberal view of just letting the ones for the "rich" expire.

jmog;816248 wrote:You were doing ok until this BS laden rant. You can't call out someone for baseless/no proof assertations and then spew a baseless assertation laden paragraph of your own.

So lets get this right boat shoes you are ok with letting all of the bush tax cuts go including those on the middle class and lower middle class? Because that is what this projection is based on. It is not based on the liberal view of just letting the ones for the "rich" expire.

Boat doesn't say anything about the CBO projection including slashing Medicare funding...and it doesn't address Social Security at all.

The whole piece is a sham and a lie.

We can't just let the tax cuts expire and do nothing...we'll still end up in a much worse place economically.

gut;815873 wrote:Well, you have to start with their growth projections....With high enough growth and compliance, you can make any level of spending look sustainable. But what I do know is I believe Obama is calling for receipts of like 24% of GDP, which is not only unsustainable but some 2-3% higher than anything we've ever collected.

I think you have to target like 19% of GDP (which is still a bit above historical averages) and earmark 1% of that to pay down the debt, which leaves 18% for spending.

Yes, the CBO has been well off the mark many times, but don't forget it's not exactly a completely objective and unbiased report.


The cold, ugly truth is many of the developed/leading economies are starting fail under the crushing weight of years of entitlements. The govt as a means of redistributing wealth is simply proving to be inadequate, unless you consider screwing everyone when an economy collapses or the govt defaults to be a desired outcome.

You're right, Obama's revenue projections are outrageous and inexcusable...they are similar to Paul Ryan's claims about what his plan will do to the unemployment rate....both totally implausible...and it's not accurate to compare the U.S. welfare state to other economies...the pittance that is Social Security is small compared to other countries in the OECD.

But either way it suggest that there is indeed both a bit of a spending problem, AND a revenue problem.

Writerbuckeye;816259 wrote:Boat doesn't say anything about the CBO projection including slashing Medicare funding...and it doesn't address Social Security at all.

The whole piece is a sham and a lie.

We can't just let the tax cuts expire and do nothing...we'll still end up in a much worse place economically.

I mentioned how the piece includes Congress no longer doing Doc Fixes...

jmog;816248 wrote:You were doing ok until this BS laden rant. You can't call out someone for baseless/no proof assertations and then spew a baseless assertation laden paragraph of your own.

So lets get this right boat shoes you are ok with letting all of the bush tax cuts go including those on the middle class and lower middle class? Because that is what this projection is based on. It is not based on the liberal view of just letting the ones for the "rich" expire.

There is nothing Baseless about it....Paul Ryan released his path to Prosperity and in it he offers the Republican position....capital gains rates go to 0% which would allow the majority top 1% of income earners to have a 0% effective income tax rate and also destroying medicare from a fee-for-service system to a voucher system like our student loan system which if evidence is of any use, as we've seen with Medicare Advantage, will be drastically inadequate. The plan is to eliminate the most decent social program of our time and run deficits for 30 years so that the top 1% of income earners can have a 0% effective tax rate. It is all right in his plan.

And if I had to choose, I would let the bush tax cuts expire for everyone before I would destroy medicare especially considering that we have enough national wealth that a directly apportioned wealth tax of some sort like we did after the Civil War when we amazingly had more patriotism than we do today and our fiscal problems would be erased because the whole national conversation is focused on our yearly national debt to income ratio as opposed to our national debt to asset ratio.

And also, you cant' come in here complaining about how the Bush tax cuts would effect the middle and lower class when in the other thread TK41 has, every conservative is decrying the bottom 50% of income earners for their lack of contribution to the Treasury's coffers.

QuakerOats;816204 wrote:"But here are the facts: The republican party would rather bring the tax rate for the top 10% down effectively to zero; lower rates than average ordinary income earning republicans and turn medicare into an inadequate voucher system that will not allow people to cover their health insurance costs and falsely claim the reason they're doing so is because of the deficit"

That is absolutely and completely false on all counts.

Try again.

In another thread you talked about how great Paul Ryan's plan was. This is his plan. Medicare destroyed and 0% Capital Gains rate. I should have said 1% instead of 10%.

sleeper;816041 wrote:All this thread tells me is Boatshoes knows absolutely nothing about the federal debt and how grim it really is.

70.7 trillion in unfunded liabilities, good luck fixing that with just repealing the Bush tax cuts.

LOL well all those shows is that you don't know how to read a balance sheet. Those 70 trillion in unfunded liabilities (which aren't really liabilities because as Paul Ryan proves...you can erase them through legislation), could be paid for TODAY If we so desired and had the political will as we already have $200 trillion in national assets more than half of which are readily liquid. But of course that would be silly to do because we earn over $14 trillion dollars every year and that increases on average by about 3% per year and we could pay for those when the time comes. But yeah you're right, probably couldn't fix that with just the Bush tax cuts. A directly apportioned wealth tax makes more sense.

"could be paid for TODAY If we so desired and had the political will as we already have $200 trillion in national assets more than half of which are readily liquid."

I'm going to guess you're in the minority with the political will opinion. If you want to start taxing people's CDs and checking accounts have at it. It will go over like a lead balloon.