The Debt ceiling

[DevilMinder]

Cut it close, assuming no last minute dramatics.

[Guest BelieveinBrodeur]

Boo Obama, But debating Politics can get ugly, not something to take seriously like in a thread here.

[Jerrydevil]

Only in Washington can an agreement that increases spending from current levels, but not as much as originally scheduled, be considered a cut. Maybe it's the best that could be done right now, but it's woefully inadequate.

[squishyx]

Only in Washington can an agreement that increases spending from current levels, but not as much as originally scheduled, be considered a cut. Maybe it's the best that could be done right now, but it's woefully inadequate.

Oh jeez, could this be more hyperbolic? Raising the debt ceiling is not a license to spend more money, it allows us to pay for things we already promised. That's like saying making next months mortgage payment is increased spending because it's money you technically haven't spent yet.

[Jerrydevil]

I'm not talking about raising the debt ceiling, squishyx. I'm talking about the "cuts" that are part of the deal to raise the debt ceiling. It's a reduction in spending increases. It's not even a spending freeze. Totally lame.

[squishyx]

I'm not talking about raising the debt ceiling, squishyx. I'm talking about the "cuts" that are part of the deal to raise the debt ceiling. It's a reduction in spending increases. It's not even a spending freeze. Totally lame.

I see, I haven't seen the cuts yet so I can't comment. The CBO scored it to save 2.1 trillion over the next decade though so while I guess technically you are right in the sense that it doesn't reduce our spending below our revenues, I don't really think that was ever a goal. Even a spending freeze wouldn't do that.

[Devils731]

I see, I haven't seen the cuts yet so I can't comment. The CBO scored it to save 2.1 trillion over the next decade though so while I guess technically you are right in the sense that it doesn't reduce our spending below our revenues, I don't really think that was ever a goal. Even a spending freeze wouldn't do that.

I think you're still on a different page. It's not about revenue vs expenditure, it's about baseline accounting.

For example, if I was going to spend 10 dollars on something this year and 20 dollars on it next year. If I changed my projection to say 15 instead of 20, then CBO would score me as cutting 5 dollars from my budget despite an actual 5 dollar increase in spending.

This comes off as sort of silly since there wasn't a 5 million dollar cut but an actual 5 dollar increase. Both people are probably right, it is both a 5 dollar cut and silly to look at it that way, but silly is the only way to look at budget projections really.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Devils731

[squishyx]

I think you're still on a different page. It's not about revenue vs expenditure, it's about baseline accounting.

For example, if I was going to spend 10 dollars on something this year and 20 dollars on it next year. If I changed my projection to say 15 instead of 20, then CBO would score me as cutting 5 dollars from my budget despite an actual 5 dollar increase in spending.

This comes off as sort of silly since there wasn't a 5 million dollar cut but an actual 5 dollar increase. Both people are probably right, it is both a 5 dollar cut and silly to look at it that way, but silly is the only way to look at budget projections really.

I think you need to know what the cuts are first before declaring it silly. If that extra 10 dollars was going to something you needed to pay for like a medical procedure then paring it back by 5 is a very real cut to spending. If it's a cut to say, your Friday night entertainment budget then maybe not.

And those projections aren't figments of the CBO's imagination, it represent's the money we will spend unless cuts are made. It's not like they projected an extra 10 trillion to the budget so that we could spend 5T and call it a 50% reduction.

[Devils731]

I think you need to know what the cuts are first before declaring it silly. If that extra 10 dollars was going to something you needed to pay for like a medical procedure then paring it back by 5 is a very real cut to spending. If it's a cut to say, your Friday night entertainment budget then maybe not.

And those projections aren't figments of the CBO's imagination, it represent's the money we will spend unless cuts are made. It's not like they projected an extra 10 trillion to the budget so that we could spend 5T and call it a 50% reduction.

I wasn't calling the spending silly, I was saying many people find the terminology of a cut to be silly, since it most definitely is not a cut, but instead a reduction in increase. I also said that both sides are correct, it's both a cut, because it's easiest to think of it that way, and silly, since it's only a cut based on a made up number.

I haven't researched it, but I'm going to guess the 5 and 10 year budget projections that are given to the CBO to score never come close to the reality of what happens 5 and 10 years later.

[Jerrydevil]

And those projections aren't figments of the CBO's imagination, it represent's the money we will spend unless cuts are made.

That is true. But the idea is to actually reduce what the government spends. I wonder when Congress will come around to actually doing this ... the answer is that they won't unless they are forced to do so with a balanced-budget amendment. I think a lot of Democrats will have to lose seats in Congress before we get one.

[squishyx]

I wasn't calling the spending silly, I was saying many people find the terminology of a cut to be silly, since it most definitely is not a cut, but instead a reduction in increase. I also said that both sides are correct, it's both a cut, because it's easiest to think of it that way, and silly, since it's only a cut based on a made up number.

Agree to disagree, because while I realize you were trying to describe the terminology, I still disagree for the aforementioned reason.

I haven't researched it, but I'm going to guess the 5 and 10 year budget projections that are given to the CBO to score never come close to the reality of what happens 5 and 10 years later.

Maybe not, but at least both sides mostly agree they are a baseline to work something off of. If all we had was strictly partisan projections every time a budget issue was at hand nothing would ever get done as both sides entrench themselves defending their projections as "correct" let alone pass relative legislation.

[squishyx]

That is true. But the idea is to actually reduce what the government spends. I wonder when Congress will come around to actually doing this ... the answer is that they won't unless they are forced to do so with a balanced-budget amendment. I think a lot of Democrats will have to lose seats in Congress before we get one.

The only three years in recent history that we ever had a surplus came with no balanced budget amendment, I don't think that's the only way to go and in this highly hostile political environment it's going to be impossible to pass right now.

I don't think the issue here is some amendment, it's because over the last few elections we haven't been rewarding moderate politicians. There is no room to be a pragmatic anymore; look at this legislation, it includes no taxes, spending cuts to match the ceiling raise, no cuts to entitlements or defense and yet no one is happy, all people are focusing on is what their didn't get.

[Devils Dose]

Damn, I wrote up a long post about this last night, then my phone refused to connect to NJDevs again when I tried to post it.

Re Balanced Budget Amendment: Everybody's focused on spending cuts right now, but I think many of its supporters fail to realize that it's passage would all but garuantee higher taxes (which right now are almost the lowest anybody alive today has ever seen).

[CMONPETEYD]

And there goes the credit rating

[2L3MI3UX2]

And there goes the credit rating

All over a political pissing contest. Pathetic.

[Devils Dose]

An æside: I heard some analyst on RT (that´s Russia Today, a 24hr news channel) say that she thinks a default would mean lower borrowing rates for our government. Her logic: the market is too attached to the idea that US treasuries are the most secure investment in the world. If we default, that indicates far more global risk than we had ever assumed. Thus investors will send more money to the most secure investments --> US treasuries. I understand her argument, but does that make sense to anybody else?

I can't believe it, but this is sort of happening. We didn't default, but the country's credit rating was downgraded anyway. The result? Investors are plowing money into treasuries. That normally wouldn't make sense, for an investment to be considered riskier and to see Wall St's appetite for that investment go up, but the government's borrowing rate is now at an historically low level.

[ghdi]

Reagan started this malarkey.

[Jerrydevil]

I wouldn't blame Reagan for starting it. It started quite a few years before that. Blame the Baby Boomer generation, I usually do.

I kid, I kid. It does no good anyway to point fingers at people who are now history. It IS perfectly fine to point fingers at the people who don't have the stomach to stop the madness. Obama and the Democrats in Congress are personas non grata.

More Tea Partiers, please, in 2012.

[ghdi]

More Tea Partiers, please, in 2012.

Id rather be taken over by China. Obama sucks in every way possible, but the GOP/Tea party/whatevers. Yeah. No.

Edited August 10, 2011 by ghdi

[Guest BelieveinBrodeur]

Id rather be taken over by China. Obama sucks in every way possible, but the GOP/Tea party/whatevers. Yeah. No.

+1

[Jerrydevil]

Id rather be taken over by China. Obama sucks in every way possible, but the GOP/Tea party/whatevers. Yeah. No.

I don't think there's anything I could say to persuade you that the Tea Party members of the House and Senate are the leaders in the U.S. on debt reduction. They have substantially more political courage than anyone else in D.C. That's my opinion. From Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, etc., I see bankruptcy in many ways ... a bankruptcy of courage, honesty, good ideas, and, of course, fiscal policy.

[Jimmy Leeds]

I don't think there's anything I could say to persuade you that the Tea Party members of the House and Senate are the leaders in the U.S. on debt reduction. They have substantially more political courage than anyone else in D.C. That's my opinion. From Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, etc., I see bankruptcy in many ways ... a bankruptcy of courage, honesty, good ideas, and, of course, fiscal policy.

+1

[devilsfan26]

The Tea Partiers are beholden to their corporate sponsors just like all the other Republicans and Democrats. Real people are what we need in the government--third parties and independents--not more special interest.

Edited August 10, 2011 by devilsfan26

[Jerrydevil]

The Tea Partiers are beholden to their corporate sponsors just like all the other Republicans and Democrats. Real people are what we need in the government--third parties and independents--not more special interest.

Until we get that type of campaign reform, I'll stick with the people who have put forth plans to alleviate the debt that is suffocating the U.S.

[Devils Dose]

Until we get that type of campaign reform, I'll stick with the people who have put forth plans to alleviate the debt that is suffocating the U.S.

I'd rather see it be somebody else. Setting goals and following through are very important, but the Tea Party lacks pragmatism. There's more than one way to get this done.