BoatShoes;1519161 wrote: 3. Cutting government spending and raising taxes as was done in the fiscal cliff is what is the anti-growth policy. Using the Debt Ceiling as a political football is an anti-growth policy.

"Language in a draft of the McConnell-Reid deal (see page 13, section 123) provided to WFPL News shows a provision that increases funding for the massive Olmsted Dam Lock in Louisville from $775 million to nearly $2. 9 billion.
The dam is considered an important project for the state and region in regards to water traffic along the Ohio River."

gut;1519174 wrote:There are a number of things that can and WILL be done, eventually. I suspect most of America would not be supporting some of these policies if they had to pay for it. The reality is the tax base and revenue sources are far below that of Europe. Take FICA - approx. 50% higher in Europe (@22%). Europe also has a 19% VAT. And when you look at FICA, the contribution to SS is 5X that of Medicare, but Medicare outlays are actually greater than SS - which implies we are only paying about 20% of our Medicare premiums (which is a strong justification to cut SS benefits since people have not nearly paid for their Medicare benefits)

1) Increases to FICA gradually over time
2) SS will not be cut, but the rate of increases will ultimately be slowed to effectively cut the future real value of the benefits. It really must go hand-in-hand with increasing FICA...but increasing the benefits at slower than the rate of inflation is more hidden and will probably go mostly unnoticed by the electorate.
3) I believe we will see a VAT within 5-10 years. It might start out at only @ 5% rate, and maybe only 40-50% of gdp (i.e. exclude food, energy and healthcare). But ultimately to grow revenues you need to add new sources. This is going to be necessary to service the debt.

There is a lot of fat in the budget, and much has been added in just the last 4-5 years (they basically incorporated what was to be one-time stimulus/TARP/bailout into the baseline permanent spending). It's only a little over a decade since we had a balanced budget. Even prior to the massive one-timers, Bush deficits over 7 years averaged about $240B. And that's with $1T+ on wars and his tax cuts.

Failure to address the deficits is just going to commit more and more future revenues to the complete waste of debt service. With all the other priorities and liabilities, where will $1T come from 10 years from now just to pay interest on our debt? This is all starting to look and play very much like the final stages of a ponzi scheme.

gut;1519181 wrote: !@#$%^&*....We were really going gang-busters before all this. Actually cutting spending and reducing the deficit are longer-term PRO GROWTH policies. You can't grasp that. When you pull growth forward with stimulus and deficit spending you're actually siphoning the fuel from future growth

gut;1519180 wrote:More ignorance. Rates WILL rise because the fed will not and cannot continue the extraordinary measures indefinitely. No one know the length and depth ultimately of global deflationary pressures, but unless you want/believe the US economy is permanently in the shitter rates will return to a normative 4.5% or so. Rates on the 10UST, incidentally, have been as low as 1.5% and recently breached 3% so, ummm, rates have risen.

You're again confusing the debate between rates and inflation. And while core CPI has been stable, everyone with a brain sees the inflation materializing in asset prices.

We've had global deflation pressures since about 2000 or so, but rates have been 2-2.5pts higher than they have been recently. We're going to blow out public debt by another $5-$10T over the next decade....so we are talking $250B more in interest on existing debt, and another $250B or so on the new debt. $500B more just in debt service, conservatively.

Even if we can continue to monetize the debt without consequence, likely not enough to absorb much of the new debt we will be creating.

gut;1519175 wrote:Can you ever be right? Just even once?

Excluding intragovt debt and that held by the Fed, approx $10T of US debt is held by the "public"

Of that $10T, $5.7T is held by FOREIGN govt and investors. The amount actually held by US citizens thru mutual funds, pensions funds and personal holdings is probably closer to $2T. The remaining $2T or so is held mostly by banks, corporations, insurance companies and GSE's.

I don't know why I even continue to argue with you. You are almost ALWAYS wrong when it comes to economics.

gut;1519174 wrote:There are a number of things that can and WILL be done, eventually. I suspect most of America would not be supporting some of these policies if they had to pay for it. The reality is the tax base and revenue sources are far below that of Europe. Take FICA - approx. 50% higher in Europe (@22%). Europe also has a 19% VAT. And when you look at FICA, the contribution to SS is 5X that of Medicare, but Medicare outlays are actually greater than SS - which implies we are only paying about 20% of our Medicare premiums (which is a strong justification to cut SS benefits since people have not nearly paid for their Medicare benefits)

1) Increases to FICA gradually over time
2) SS will not be cut, but the rate of increases will ultimately be slowed to effectively cut the future real value of the benefits. It really must go hand-in-hand with increasing FICA...but increasing the benefits at slower than the rate of inflation is more hidden and will probably go mostly unnoticed by the electorate.
3) I believe we will see a VAT within 5-10 years. It might start out at only @ 5% rate, and maybe only 40-50% of gdp (i.e. exclude food, energy and healthcare). But ultimately to grow revenues you need to add new sources. This is going to be necessary to service the debt.

There is a lot of fat in the budget, and much has been added in just the last 4-5 years (they basically incorporated what was to be one-time stimulus/TARP/bailout into the baseline permanent spending). It's only a little over a decade since we had a balanced budget. Even prior to the massive one-timers, Bush deficits over 7 years averaged about $240B. And that's with $1T+ on wars and his tax cuts.

Failure to address the deficits is just going to commit more and more future revenues to the complete waste of debt service. With all the other priorities and liabilities, where will $1T come from 10 years from now just to pay interest on our debt? This is all starting to look and play very much like the final stages of a ponzi scheme.

Bush deficits over 7 years averaged about $240B. And that's with $1T+ on wars and his tax cuts.

IggyPride00;1519133 wrote:Martin Bashir comparing Ted Cruz to David Koresh.

Sen. Ted Cruz's father Rafael Cruz took the stage at a Freedom Works Free the People event this summer and gave a speech in which he compared President Obama to Fidel Castro numerous times.

BoatShoes;1519200 wrote:The opposite is true. When you allow output to be lost forever as in the trillions of dollars worth of wealth that we've failed to produce...that is what fuels future growth.

IggyPride00;1519196 wrote:Welcome to the "Kentucky Kickback".


McConnell gave his state a $2 billion dollar earmark.

I Wear Pants;1519416 wrote:

like_that;1519423 wrote:Oh boy! Let's celebrate! This us vs them mentality obviously has been great for this country the last 15 years /sarcasm.

I Wear Pants;1519416 wrote:

jmog;1519467 wrote:Proof that no matter what the media wanted to tell the sheeple, the shutdown and near miss on the debt ceiling was the democrats doing (mostly, not all).

Refusal to budge on ANYTHING and negotiate on ANYTHING, and then have the gall to ask for MORE (re-establishing pre-sequestor baseline budgets) is just proof which side was the "just say no" crowd.

IggyPride00;1519225 wrote:The massive yearly social security surplus went a long way towards making Clinton/Bush deficits look better than they really were when you stripped it out. Bush's deficits also didn't include any war costs, as Karl Rove specifically did them as emergency legislation and not something that was budgeted for (even though he knew the money would be spent) to make the deficit look smaller. It was nothing more than an accounting trick.

Now that the boomers are retiring and it is gone, we are getting a much more accurate picture of what the real yearly deficit really is since their is no more SS surplus artificially holding down the deficit number and war costs are in the budget.

jmog;1519467 wrote:Proof that no matter what the media wanted to tell the sheeple, the shutdown and near miss on the debt ceiling was the democrats doing (mostly, not all).

Refusal to budge on ANYTHING and negotiate on ANYTHING, and then have the gall to ask for MORE (re-establishing pre-sequestor baseline budgets) is just proof which side was the "just say no" crowd.

queencitybuckeye;1519483 wrote:I don't remember them asking to deny anyone in government coverage, I remember them wanting to do the exact opposite of that.

ptown_trojans_1;1519215 wrote:I follow ya, but I highly doubt a VAT will occur.I don't see the broad political will for it.

BoatShoes;1519211 wrote:excluding intra-govt debt is a pretty big caveat eh...