A question for Republicans

[gonewt2012]

They don't have to buy U.S. bonds with those dollars. That's the point. They can buy Eurobonds or Libyan oil leases or real estate in Brazil. Instead they've bought U.S. Bonds.

Which they can sell.

On a very liquid and fast moving market.

At any instant.

If they dumped our bonds every other interest rate paid would suddenly spike across the board.

Like I said -- before trying to estimate the effects of Chinese bond dump, why don't you do some research and find out what problem they were trying to solve by buying the US debt in the first place. Not that I haven't explained it already

I think you're smart enough to realize that this is nothing but facile propaganda. Are the forex and bond markets completely independent? No, obviously not.

But the fact is that the USG grousing to the Chinese has been about the pegging of the currency. They don't want them to sell their treasuries but they want them to float the RMB.

You can't make the problem go away by ignoring it.

Look, it was the dollar peg that forced China to buy 3 trillions dollars. And there is not many places were you can park such a huge sum. I am sure they bought some eurobonds or some real estate in Brasil. But they had no other choice than to park one trillion in the US debt at low interest.

They can sell their holdings, but then they will be faced with the same problem -- what to do with a trillion dollars? That's why they are not going to do it.

It's a big wide 'ole world out there hun' ... there's PLENTY of ways they could spend those dollars.

It's the high debt that has put us in the position of needing, what is, by your argument (which isn't quite correct, as the bond and forex markets do not move in lockstep) a conflicting set of actions on the part of the Chinese: float the RMB but hold our debt.

The problem is that the Chinese have made it quite clear that the dollar peg isn't permanent, and have taken action to try to move away from it. Eventually, an aggregate alternative to the dollar will emerge. When it does, they'll both float the RMB and sell our debt.

If they're smart they'll optimize the process because as the RMB rises, they'll get less for the dollars they've hoarded. That's the 2nd reason it hasn't happened yet.

But unless we order our own house, this scenario is inevitable. Repeating a mantra that it will never happen won't keep it from happening.

Every dollar you tax out of the economy slows us down. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these fools that doesn't see what is in the form of the road that rolls up right to my door and the pipes that bring water and electricity right to me and shit downhill and the role governments play in all of that not to mention keeping those same fools from killing each other out on the streets over nothing. I understand the need for government.

But this pattern of a machine that gets beyond the control of the people who it originally benefited is one that is repeated over and over and over and over again throughout history and to ignore it when you are inches away from it is self-destructive madness.

 

[Liability]

The debt is growing not because we overspend, but because we do not collect enough of revenue.

We "take in" fucking PLENTY. We spend vastly more.

We spend vastly more than we "take in" means we don't "take in" enough, you dickhead.

And shut up already. Nobody loves you, and nobody cares about your silly hissy-fits.

It does, you flaming asshole, if you abide by the LIMITED part of a LIMITED constitutional Republic and the ENUMERATED Powers we grant to the Federal Government, you vagina head.

So, put the tampon back in, stem the flow, take a Midol and eat another huge helping of shit, you meltdown queen.

 

[ilia25]

They don't have to buy U.S. bonds with those dollars. That's the point. They can buy Eurobonds or Libyan oil leases or real estate in Brazil. Instead they've bought U.S. Bonds.

Which they can sell.

On a very liquid and fast moving market.

At any instant.





I think you're smart enough to realize that this is nothing but facile propaganda. Are the forex and bond markets completely independent? No, obviously not.

But the fact is that the USG grousing to the Chinese has been about the pegging of the currency. They don't want them to sell their treasuries but they want them to float the RMB.

You can't make the problem go away by ignoring it.

Look, it was the dollar peg that forced China to buy 3 trillions dollars. And there is not many places were you can park such a huge sum. I am sure they bought some eurobonds or some real estate in Brasil. But they had no other choice than to park one trillion in the US debt at low interest.

They can sell their holdings, but then they will be faced with the same problem -- what to do with a trillion dollars? That's why they are not going to do it.

It's a big wide 'ole world out there hun' ... there's PLENTY of ways they could spend those dollars.

It's the high debt that has put us in the position of needing, what is, by your argument (which isn't quite correct, as the bond and forex markets do not move in lockstep) a conflicting set of actions on the part of the Chinese: float the RMB but hold our debt.

The problem is that the Chinese have made it quite clear that the dollar peg isn't permanent, and have taken action to try to move away from it. Eventually, an aggregate alternative to the dollar will emerge. When it does, they'll both float the RMB and sell our debt.

If they're smart they'll optimize the process because as the RMB rises, they'll get less for the dollars they've hoarded. That's the 2nd reason it hasn't happened yet.

But unless we order our own house, this scenario is inevitable. Repeating a mantra that it will never happen won't keep it from happening.

Every dollar you tax out of the economy slows us down. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these fools that doesn't see what is in the form of the road that rolls up right to my door and the pipes that bring water and electricity right to me and shit downhill and the role governments play in all of that not to mention keeping those same fools from killing each other out on the streets over nothing. I understand the need for government.

But this pattern of a machine that gets beyond the control of the people who it originally benefited is one that is repeated over and over and over and over again throughout history and to ignore it when you are inches away from it is self-destructive madness.

Well, don't get me wrong either -- I am not saying that the debt does not matter. I am just saying that there is no urgency in solving it before the economy gets back on solid footing in a few years. And the solution might be as simple as letting Bush's tax cuts expire:

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/126xx/doc12699/OutlookSlides.pdf

One thing to remember that we do not have to pay off the debt -- just as we haven't paid off the huge debt after WWII.

 

[bayoubill]

Should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

I assume you're referring to people who make their money in investments... and pay capital gains taxes on the money made from those investments, when they make money...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I want you to stop playing dumb. We need to restore the taxes to Clinton levels, but I think I have explained to you personally (though it should be obvious) that government expenditures cannot stay at the same level, they have to rise -- as they have been since 1 million in 1789.



What is a smaller government? A government that do not provide social security or Medicare, or you want a smaller army? What program you would like to see terminated?

How much additional revenue will be raised at the Clinton rates? Spell it out.

As you can imagine, coming out with a hard number like that is not easy, but we are in luck. CBO makes the deficit projection for the years to come and and calculates alternative scenarios:

The BLUE area shows deficits assuming the current laws remain in place -- meaning the expiration of Bush's tax cuts. The BROWN area shows the impact of making those tax cuts permanent.

In other words, making Bush tax cuts permanent are going to increase our deficit by about 5% of GDP (for this year it is about 800 billions).

Yes, as it stands now, the shortfall in Social Security and Medicare shows that we can't afford those programs as currently structured.

That is simply not true. We more than capable of paying for Social Security and Medicare in their current form. The question is whether we are willing to.

I'd eliminate the Departments of Education and Energy, for starters.
Eliminate agricultural subsidies, "green energy" subsidies and a slew of other multibillion dollar pork barrel programs.

OK, that saves you maybe 200 billions, or 6% of the government expenditures, most it comes from eliminating the Department of Education -- thank for willing to invest in the American future, BTW.

Still, do you thing that anyone will even notice a 6% reduction in spending (although the kids will sure notice that they cannot afford a college anymore)?

Eliminating the Bush tax cuts will raise $800 billion a year in additional revenue?
You have a link?
Really? How do we afford Social Security as the boomers retire?
How do we close the Medicare shortfall?
Only $200 billion? I could triple that.
As far as the "investment in America's future", can you show what return we get from the Federal government's education spending?
Has anything improved since they got involved with a local function?
Has college been more affordable since the Feds have been shoveling money at it?
Same results as seen when the government pushed its way into medical care.
Rates of inflation skyrocket and deficits pile up. Yeah, let's give them a bigger chunk of GDP.

 

[Chris]

Here's another question for Republicans...

Are you happy to pay more in taxes, so the idle rich can pay less?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here's another question for Republicans...

Are you happy to pay more in taxes, so the idle rich can pay less?

If Michelle Obama pays more in taxes, how does that help me?

 

[bayoubill]

Here's another question for Republicans...

Are you happy to pay more in taxes, so the idle rich can pay less?

When did you stop beating your wife, Chris...?

 

[ilia25]

How much additional revenue will be raised at the Clinton rates? Spell it out.

As you can imagine, coming out with a hard number like that is not easy, but we are in luck. CBO makes the deficit projection for the years to come and and calculates alternative scenarios:

The BLUE area shows deficits assuming the current laws remain in place -- meaning the expiration of Bush's tax cuts. The BROWN area shows the impact of making those tax cuts permanent.

In other words, making Bush tax cuts permanent are going to increase our deficit by about 5% of GDP (for this year it is about 800 billions).



That is simply not true. We more than capable of paying for Social Security and Medicare in their current form. The question is whether we are willing to.

I'd eliminate the Departments of Education and Energy, for starters.
Eliminate agricultural subsidies, "green energy" subsidies and a slew of other multibillion dollar pork barrel programs.

OK, that saves you maybe 200 billions, or 6% of the government expenditures, most it comes from eliminating the Department of Education -- thank for willing to invest in the American future, BTW.

Still, do you thing that anyone will even notice a 6% reduction in spending (although the kids will sure notice that they cannot afford a college anymore)?

Eliminating the Bush tax cuts will raise $800 billion a year in additional revenue?
You have a link?

A link to Congressional Budget Office site? It's on their front page:
Congressional Budget Office - Home Page

Really? How do we afford Social Security as the boomers retire?
How do we close the Medicare shortfall?

As you see in the chart, returning to the Clinton era taxes would take us through the next 10-20 years. I don't think it makes much sense in planning for a longer term -- too many unknowns.

Only $200 billion? I could triple that.

How? What other programs you think we can live without -- NASA, or maybe Homeland Security?

You will need to eliminate all discretionary spending except the military in order to get to 800 billions you can get by letting simply returning to the Clinton tax levels!

What you suggest is a complete madness -- cutting important programs that are perfectly affordable, just to prove that we can make the cuts.

Has college been more affordable since the Feds have been shoveling money at it?

No, but it will become even more expensive w/o Feds help.

Same results as seen when the government pushed its way into medical care.

Not true -- the cost of Medicare was rising twice as slow as that of private insurance. Government cannot stop the rise, but it can slow it down dramatically.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As you can imagine, coming out with a hard number like that is not easy, but we are in luck. CBO makes the deficit projection for the years to come and and calculates alternative scenarios:

The BLUE area shows deficits assuming the current laws remain in place -- meaning the expiration of Bush's tax cuts. The BROWN area shows the impact of making those tax cuts permanent.

In other words, making Bush tax cuts permanent are going to increase our deficit by about 5% of GDP (for this year it is about 800 billions).



That is simply not true. We more than capable of paying for Social Security and Medicare in their current form. The question is whether we are willing to.



OK, that saves you maybe 200 billions, or 6% of the government expenditures, most it comes from eliminating the Department of Education -- thank for willing to invest in the American future, BTW.

Still, do you thing that anyone will even notice a 6% reduction in spending (although the kids will sure notice that they cannot afford a college anymore)?

Eliminating the Bush tax cuts will raise $800 billion a year in additional revenue?
You have a link?

A link to Congressional Budget Office site? It's on their front page:
Congressional Budget Office - Home Page

Really? How do we afford Social Security as the boomers retire?
How do we close the Medicare shortfall?

As you see in the chart, returning to the Clinton era taxes would take us through the next 10-20 years. I don't think it makes much sense in planning for a longer term -- too many unknowns.



How? What other programs you think we can live without -- NASA, or maybe Homeland Security?

You will need to eliminate all discretionary spending except the military in order to get to 800 billions you can get by letting simply returning to the Clinton tax levels!

What you suggest is a complete madness -- cutting important programs that are perfectly affordable, just to prove that we can make the cuts.

Has college been more affordable since the Feds have been shoveling money at it?

No, but it will become even more expensive w/o Feds help.

Same results as seen when the government pushed its way into medical care.

Not true -- the cost of Medicare was rising twice as slow as that of private insurance. Government cannot stop the rise, but it can slow it down dramatically.

You're confused about the impact of the Bush tax cuts. The CBO scenario included much more than just the expiration of the cuts.

Not true

Yes true. Look at historical prices in medical care before 1964 and after.

If colleges have to actually compete on price, tuition will fall.
Of course lots of cushy professor jobs will go away.

We'll also have to privatize Social Security.
Medicare too.

 

[logical4u]

That's an excellent idea.
We'll return tax rates to the Clinton numbers but first we have to reduce expenditures to the Clinton numbers.

Like we needed another proof of your dishonesty.

What baffles me is what the Republicans are really after? It is obvious that they don't care about the debt. They only use it as a pretext for dismantling the welfare state. But why? Why would they need the US government to stop caring for seniors and the poor?

I think it is because of people Krugman calls "political entrepreneurs". The sell a message -- and so they invent a message that would sell well. But they really don't care about the message itself -- the policy that the message promotes and the implications of actually implementing that policy.

So if political entrepreneurs notice that some message is resonating among many voters, they start promoting it even though they know that it will hurt those very people, and the US as a country. That would not be their problem.

Add the fact that so many Americans got fooled by their card companies, and we are looking at a pretty grim picture.

THE GOV'T DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE POOR OR THE SENIORS. They use "scams" to trick the poor and the seniors into voting for them. Once the politicians are in office, they cut benefits to the poor and seniors, raise the taxes and automatic withdrawals from social security, and decline more medical treatments. Instead of "intellectuals" (like yourself) opening your eyes and seeing what the "gov't" is doing, you walk around repeating the "parts" you want to believe (that is not necessarily factual).

Conservatives are after:
laws that apply to all, and are equally enforced
individual rights
freedom to make choices and live with those choices (not run crying to gov't to help when we fall)
The Bill of Rights used as a standard for new law (and to eliminate any laws that infringe on the FIRST TEN AMENDMENTS)
A gov't that is small and as efficient as possible (if it is going to regulate, then don't pick winners to give money while punishing others of similar ilk with fines)
an educated (in this country's history) and thinking population

 

[logical4u]

How did you came to such a conclusion?

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

The debt is growing not because we overspend, but because we do not collect enough of revenue.

Yeah ...... Why doesn't your "One" concentrate on increasing revenues by eliminating regulations that are strangling the job market? That would increase the amount of taxes paid without raising anyone's taxes, and allow the irresponsible wackos in DC to spend more.

 

[logical4u]

Here's another question for Republicans...

Are you happy to pay more in taxes, so the idle rich can pay less?

How about you answer the question: where are all these "idle" rich? How about naming some?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

The debt is growing not because we overspend, but because we do not collect enough of revenue.

Yeah ...... Why doesn't your "One" concentrate on increasing revenues by eliminating regulations that are strangling the job market? That would increase the amount of taxes paid without raising anyone's taxes, and allow the irresponsible wackos in DC to spend more.

More drilling would add a flood of revenue and jobs.

 

[Listening]

The debt is growing not because we overspend, but because we do not collect enough of revenue.

Yeah ...... Why doesn't your "One" concentrate on increasing revenues by eliminating regulations that are strangling the job market? That would increase the amount of taxes paid without raising anyone's taxes, and allow the irresponsible wackos in DC to spend more.

More drilling would add a flood of revenue and jobs.

Only if you have the crude pipelines to transport the stuff.

Ooops.

 

[ilia25]

That's an excellent idea.
We'll return tax rates to the Clinton numbers but first we have to reduce expenditures to the Clinton numbers.

Like we needed another proof of your dishonesty.

What baffles me is what the Republicans are really after? It is obvious that they don't care about the debt. They only use it as a pretext for dismantling the welfare state. But why? Why would they need the US government to stop caring for seniors and the poor?

I think it is because of people Krugman calls "political entrepreneurs". The sell a message -- and so they invent a message that would sell well. But they really don't care about the message itself -- the policy that the message promotes and the implications of actually implementing that policy.

So if political entrepreneurs notice that some message is resonating among many voters, they start promoting it even though they know that it will hurt those very people, and the US as a country. That would not be their problem.

Add the fact that so many Americans got fooled by their card companies, and we are looking at a pretty grim picture.

THE GOV'T DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE POOR OR THE SENIORS.

It is pretty amazing how the rights, for all their talk about Constitution, do not believe that democracy is real. That the government for the people, by the people is anything more than a pretty slogan.

 

[ilia25]

Eliminating the Bush tax cuts will raise $800 billion a year in additional revenue?
You have a link?

A link to Congressional Budget Office site? It's on their front page:
Congressional Budget Office - Home Page

Really? How do we afford Social Security as the boomers retire?
How do we close the Medicare shortfall?

As you see in the chart, returning to the Clinton era taxes would take us through the next 10-20 years. I don't think it makes much sense in planning for a longer term -- too many unknowns.



How? What other programs you think we can live without -- NASA, or maybe Homeland Security?

You will need to eliminate all discretionary spending except the military in order to get to 800 billions you can get by letting simply returning to the Clinton tax levels!

What you suggest is a complete madness -- cutting important programs that are perfectly affordable, just to prove that we can make the cuts.



No, but it will become even more expensive w/o Feds help.

Same results as seen when the government pushed its way into medical care.

Not true -- the cost of Medicare was rising twice as slow as that of private insurance. Government cannot stop the rise, but it can slow it down dramatically.

You're confused about the impact of the Bush tax cuts. The CBO scenario included much more than just the expiration of the cuts.

Well, then what else, aside from the expiration of the tax cuts, could have a significant impact on the deficits?

Not true

Yes true. Look at historical prices in medical care before 1964 and after.

The cost of medical care increased because now we treat people that we could not in 1964.

But the costs of Medicare have been rising slower that those of private insurance. So privatizing Medicare, as you suggest, would only make it more expensive.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A link to Congressional Budget Office site? It's on their front page:
Congressional Budget Office - Home Page

Really? How do we afford Social Security as the boomers retire?
How do we close the Medicare shortfall?

As you see in the chart, returning to the Clinton era taxes would take us through the next 10-20 years. I don't think it makes much sense in planning for a longer term -- too many unknowns.



How? What other programs you think we can live without -- NASA, or maybe Homeland Security?

You will need to eliminate all discretionary spending except the military in order to get to 800 billions you can get by letting simply returning to the Clinton tax levels!

What you suggest is a complete madness -- cutting important programs that are perfectly affordable, just to prove that we can make the cuts.



No, but it will become even more expensive w/o Feds help.



Not true -- the cost of Medicare was rising twice as slow as that of private insurance. Government cannot stop the rise, but it can slow it down dramatically.

You're confused about the impact of the Bush tax cuts. The CBO scenario included much more than just the expiration of the cuts.

Well, then what else, aside from the expiration of the tax cuts, could have a significant impact on the deficits?

Not true

Yes true. Look at historical prices in medical care before 1964 and after.

The cost of medical care increased because now we treat people that we could not in 1964.

But the costs of Medicare have been rising slower that those of private insurance. So privatizing Medicare, as you suggest, would only make it more expensive.

The CBO scenario also included Obamacare taxes, AMT and Medicare reimbursement changes.

If you look at medical costs before and after 1964, there was an obvious inflection point.

When you say "costs of Medicare have been rising slower that those of private insurance" you ignore the ever increasing long-term shortfall in Medicare.
Anyone who thinks increased government involvement makes anything less expensive hasn't been paying attention.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yeah ...... Why doesn't your "One" concentrate on increasing revenues by eliminating regulations that are strangling the job market? That would increase the amount of taxes paid without raising anyone's taxes, and allow the irresponsible wackos in DC to spend more.

More drilling would add a flood of revenue and jobs.

Only if you have the crude pipelines to transport the stuff.

Ooops.

The pipeline jobs will profit this nation even more, then.

 

[Big Fitz]

So we've heard the constant refrain from certain named dumbasses here that we have a revenue problem, not a spending problem. Well, if you think that this information from the Heritage Foundation is the RIGHT direction for this country, you will have your heart warmed with what's gone on under Obama.

The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government

Of course, if you're a sane and/or rational human being who knows this is a BAD thing... you will probably be justifiably upset.