Debt ceiling: why are the pubbies pissed?

[Maeglin]

@curlcoat

Extremely difficult to believe, since you came out asshole right off the bat.

Well sure. I read your previous posts in this thread. My inner asshole is usually very well motivated. I asked myself whether you really deserved it for maybe thirty seconds and came to the conclusion that you did. I have had no cause to repent this decision.

And suffer the consequences. Or not, since the taxpayers are expected to pick up the shortfall of many of those people. One would hope and expect the government to be far more responsible.

The government is not a giant abstraction. It is people. Who should suffer what consequences? The agencies? The legislature? The electorate? Who is “the government” here? Shouldn’t the fact that we have competitive elections mean that there is already a mechanism to punish legislators who fail? It turns out, failing to keep on budget is not something we tend to punish the legislature for. Maybe every other voter knows something you don’t know.

(snip stuff I’m not going to respond to because I am tired of you being an asshole.)

This is not the first time you actually did respond to the vitriol but not substantive explanation. Coincidence?

Exactly. So the statement I made way back when is correct - the government could stay on budget but it chooses not to for various, political reasons.

Still not correct. You seem to be uncomfortable pinning down exactly who you mean by government here.

I have been laboring under the assumption that you are at least middle-school educated and took a civics or social studies class that spent some time on the three branches of government and how they work. Am I in error? Did you go to middle school in the United States?

[Fear_Itself]

@curlcoat

I don’t support any of the entitlement or welfare programs…

You funny.

[Ludovic]

@curlcoat

I don’t support any of the entitlement or welfare programs, which you should know by now.

Wait, WHAT? I don’t even

[Ludovic]

No seriously, they’ll have to do an archaeological excavation to find my jaw.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@curlcoat

So, the things I listed out in my last post were too “general” for you? If you are expecting me to go look for the budgets of those agencies and then tell you exactly how much I’d cut from what programs, you are out of luck as I’m not going to spend the time on someone who is just looking to find fault.

Yeah. You and literally everyone else. No, seriously, this wouldn’t seem so disingenuous if you had anyone’s plan you could reasonably point to. But nobody has one. Nobody knows what to cut, and as such, the idea that we should just cut our way out of this is baloney on its face. Oh, great, pubbies could find $280 billion (which comes at a cost to society of around $560 billion) that they could cut from social services. That’s nice. It’s also the kind of policy proposal that would get the left laughed out if they proposed it as an austerity measure. So clearly, something is wrong here.

@curlcoat

I don’t support any of the entitlement or welfare programs, which you should know by now.

…That might just be it, actually.

[Trinopus]

curlcoat: as I see it, debt is a very useful financial tool. Heck, corporations know this, and generally maintain a degree of debt. It’s seed money, R&D money, a cushion against a bad year, leverage for use in a good year, and so on.

Nations use debt the same way. Instead of building a railroad line 1/20th of the way for 20 years, they borrow and build the whole line in two years. The line starts making money immediately, so some of the debt is repaid early.

Then there are unforeseen things: recessions and panics and hurricanes. And, yeah, wars.

Worst of all, we have voters who want the benefits but somehow imagine they can avoid paying for them. This cuts at both sides, liberal and conservative.

Hell, I’m a liberal, and I oppose high debt, because it has the effect of transferring wealth from the poor to the wealthy! (Hint: who is it that lends the money in the first place…and then gets the income from it? The lending class is not composed of the lower or middle classes!)

But I agree with the others here who have pointed out that you can’t really use other accounting comparisons – small businesses or households – and that governments operate on another model entirely.

The real disagreement comes when conservatives say that lower taxes promote a faster-growing economy, and thus makes up for the lower rates in higher overall revenues – and everybody else, who say this idea has been proven untrue ten ways from Sunday.

(The same people who claim that raising the minimum wage will result in more unemployment…even when that hasn’t happened in any of the times the minimum wage has been increased, or when it was first instituted either.)

Debt itself isn’t the enemy. The enemy is conservative economic fantasies.

[curlcoat]

@Maeglin

Well sure. I read your previous posts in this thread. My inner asshole is usually very well motivated. I asked myself whether you really deserved it for maybe thirty seconds and came to the conclusion that you did. I have had no cause to repent this decision.

As I said before, I feel sorry for your kids.

The government is not a giant abstraction. It is people. Who should suffer what consequences?

We are - we the people are the ones stuck paying off this giant deficit.

It turns out, failing to keep on budget is not something we tend to punish the legislature for.

Perhaps even tho a very large number of people would like the government to become responsible with our money, they have given up on it happening as I have.

This is not the first time you actually did respond to the vitriol but not substantive explanation. Coincidence?

I already explained the reason why so obviously it isn’t a coincidence.

Still not correct. You seem to be uncomfortable pinning down exactly who you mean by government here.

The hell? The government are those folks who are in a position to govern. Specific to this thread are those who are responsible for drawing up and approving and then ignoring the budget that will now require yet another raise to the deficit limit.

I have been laboring under the assumption that you are at least middle-school educated and took a civics or social studies class that spent some time on the three branches of government and how they work. Am I in error? Did you go to middle school in the United States?

Back then they called in Junior High.

@Ludovic

Wait, WHAT? I don’t even

Are you really such an idiot that you honestly think that social security is a welfare program?

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Yeah. You and literally everyone else. No, seriously, this wouldn’t seem so disingenuous if you had anyone’s plan you could reasonably point to. But nobody has one. Nobody knows what to cut, and as such, the idea that we should just cut our way out of this is baloney on its face. Oh, great, pubbies could find $280 billion (which comes at a cost to society of around $560 billion) that they could cut from social services. That’s nice. It’s also the kind of policy proposal that would get the left laughed out if they proposed it as an austerity measure. So clearly, something is wrong here.

I have quite a bit of trouble believing this. I’m sure that plenty of people know what could be cut, but are unwilling to do so because they are more worried about getting re-elected, or keeping promises to big donors.

Why is the idea of cutting costs baloney?

Why would a cut of $280 billion cost $560 billion?

[curlcoat]

@Trinopus

curlcoat: as I see it, debt is a very useful financial tool. Heck, corporations know this, and generally maintain a degree of debt. It’s seed money, R&D money, a cushion against a bad year, leverage for use in a good year, and so on.

Nations use debt the same way. Instead of building a railroad line 1/20th of the way for 20 years, they borrow and build the whole line in two years. The line starts making money immediately, so some of the debt is repaid early.

Then there are unforeseen things: recessions and panics and hurricanes. And, yeah, wars.

Yes, I get this. It is the level of debt the US has gotten to that I and many others believe is dangerous. Its one thing to carry debt but it’s a whole other thing for that debt to get to the point that it most likely will never be paid off, not even close. They need to stop deciding that everything needs to be done right now and quit running off to make war.

Worst of all, we have voters who want the benefits but somehow imagine they can avoid paying for them. This cuts at both sides, liberal and conservative.

Yes, that is a growing disease that many here refuse to believe is happening. Personal responsibility is getting rarer and rarer as the years go by.

Hell, I’m a liberal, and I oppose high debt, because it has the effect of transferring wealth from the poor to the wealthy! (Hint: who is it that lends the money in the first place…and then gets the income from it? The lending class is not composed of the lower or middle classes!)

But I agree with the others here who have pointed out that you can’t really use other accounting comparisons – small businesses or households – and that governments operate on another model entirely.

Not that anyone here has even tried to explain that model. No it’s far more fun to be jerks, which is pretty sad in a board that is supposed to be fighting ignorance. But, whatever the model, it still boils down to the government spends far more money than it takes in, and continues to do so. At what point will we be bankrupt and unable to float any more loans?

Debt itself isn’t the enemy. The enemy is conservative economic fantasies.

Well, that cannot be true, since any economic fantasies that conservatives have couldn’t be a factor during the times when the country was being run by liberals. Plus I’m not sure any conservatives really believe that stuff, it’s just what they tell us when they are trying to lower costs to the wealthy.

[Hellestal]

Social Security is an entitlement program.

@curlcoat

I don’t support any of the entitlement or welfare programs, which you should know by now.

Social Security is an entitlement program.

@curlcoat

Are you really such an idiot that you honestly think that social security is a welfare program?

Social Security is an entitlement program.

[Robot_Arm]

@curlcoat

Well, that cannot be true, since any economic fantasies that conservatives have couldn’t be a factor during the times when the country was being run by liberals.

When the country was run by liberals during Bill Clinton’s first year in office, they passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. The deficit began to decrease and continued for the next eight consecutive years.

[Maeglin]

@curlcoat

Not that anyone here has even tried to explain that model.

This is why I am glad you have no children and don’t vote. We have gone into exhaustive and elaborate detail about how this works. Being mean and informative are not mutually exclusive.

But at this point, just read the wiki and take a community college course on American government. You may not be ineducable in person, but you sure are here.

Oh, and it goes without saying that Hellestal is completely right about the gigantic entitlement that is Social Security. Hellestal is also right about pretty much everything, so keep that in mind.

Direct spending, also known as mandatory spending, refers to spending enacted by law, but not dependent on an annual or periodic appropriation bill. Most mandatory spending consists of entitlement programs such as Social Security benefits, Medicare, and Medicaid. These programs are called “entitlements” because individuals satisfying given eligibility requirements set by past legislation are entitled to federal government benefits or services.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

curlcoat, please take a minute to examine the charts in this link, especially the one entitled, “Falling tax rates 1945-2011.” The one directly below it, “Bush Tax Cuts, Annual Average Tax Savings 2012” is quite instructive as well. Really the whole link is great.

Once you look into the history behind these numbers, you will see that the Republicans have gutted government revenue to create a windfall for the super-wealthy. Predictably, this has led to a budget deficit. Now they dig in their heels and scream that the only way to solve the problem is to cut entitlements. (To the OP: the pubbies are pissed because their scheme is supposed to lead to cutting ‘entitlement’ programs, and right now that isn’t where things are headed, at least not enough for their tastes.)

I think it is quite clear what is going on. The solution doesn’t involve raising taxes on your or my income, or if it does, not much. Cutting Social Security and Medicare and the like aren’t terribly good ideas. For one, people’s husbands or parents up and die, leaving them screwed. People get old and can’t work. People get sick. These are the same people on whose backs the wealthy became wealthy. A society where only the top get all the benefits, down to the point where people can’t see a doctor for even routine issues or pay their damn rent, is unjust.

Yeah, people need to take personal responsibility. Yeah, these programs get abused. But at the very least you can’t preach personal responsibility and also refuse to participate in the government. Participating effectively requires a command of certain information. Please read the link, and please go back and re-read Maeglin’s informative posts instead of ‘skimming’ them.

[Hershele_Ostropoler]

@Hellestal

Social Security is an entitlement program.

Only by the actual definition. If you use “entitlement” to mean “money the government gives to people who aren’t me,” well…

[curlcoat]

@Maeglin

This is why I am glad you have no children and don’t vote. We have gone into exhaustive and elaborate detail about how this works. Being mean and informative are not mutually exclusive.

When you act like an asshole, I have no incentive to read what you write, and I definitely don’t feel like bothering to ask questions or for clarification as I have been with the couple of posters who have been polite.

But at this point, just read the wiki and take a community college course on American government. You may not be ineducable in person, but you sure are here.

You are assuming you have any skills at teaching.

Oh, and it goes without saying that Hellestal is completely right about the gigantic entitlement that is Social Security.

Not by the definition used here for “entitlement”.

@Try2B_Comprehensive

curlcoat, please take a minute to examine the charts in this link, especially the one entitled, “Falling tax rates 1945-2011.” The one directly below it, “Bush Tax Cuts, Annual Average Tax Savings 2012” is quite instructive as well. Really the whole link is great.

Once you look into the history behind these numbers, you will see that the Republicans have gutted government revenue to create a windfall for the super-wealthy.

I haven’t disagreed that the rich are paying far too little in taxes and have stated that the middle class carries far too much of the tax burden, so I’m not sure why you included this?

At what point in history did the US start carrying a significant deficit?

Yeah, people need to take personal responsibility. Yeah, these programs get abused. But at the very least you can’t preach personal responsibility and also refuse to participate in the government. .

Sure I can as there is simply nothing I can do personally to influence the government.

Participating effectively requires a command of certain information. Please read the link, and please go back and re-read Maeglin’s informative posts instead of ‘skimming’ them.

No. I have a high tolerance for bullshit and a thick skin, but there is still a limit to what I’ll put up with.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@curlcoat

I haven’t disagreed that the rich are paying far too little in taxes and have stated that the middle class carries far too much of the tax burden, so I’m not sure why you included this?

At what point in history did the US start carrying a significant deficit?

That one link tells most of the story to answer your question, “Why can’t the government stick to a budget?” Again, it is on purpose. Massive tax cuts began under Reagan, accompanied by big hikes in military spending. Bush cut taxes even more, got us into two wars, and left his successor with a crashed economy. Getting tax rates back to a more sensible level is a tough thing to do with our Congress, half of whom insist on cutting Social Security and Medicare to make up the difference their boys created.

Anyway, the country has had debts lots of times. After the Revolution. I think Polk paid off a debt. In modern times we had a big one after WWII, taxes went way up, we paid it off, then didn’t have a significant debt again until Reagan. If you want to balance the budget we don’t need to revoke the Bush tax cuts, we need to revoke the Reagan tax cuts.

Sure I can as there is simply nothing I can do personally to influence the government.

I disagree. And anyway, citizens have a duty to participate.

No. I have a high tolerance for bullshit and a thick skin, but there is still a limit to what I’ll put up with.

Well I can’t make you but clearly he knows what he’s talking about. Why ask questions in the Pit if you can’t take some shit with the answers?

[Maeglin]

curlcoat doesn’t come here looking for facts. She pretends to be looking for more information but instead just peddles her asinine opinions with growing conviction. I got news for you, sunshine. When you do this, people are going to be mean to you because it’s irritating.

You prove that you can lead a horticulture but you cannot make her think.

[Ravenman]

I vaguely remember the “my family makes lots of money but the reason we can’t afford anything nice is those damn gummint taxes” line from another thread. It’s an argument not even worth replying to.

[Oliveritaly]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

That one link tells most of the story to answer your question, “Why can’t the government stick to a budget?” Again, it is on purpose. Massive tax cuts began under Reagan, accompanied by big hikes in military spending. Bush cut taxes even more, got us into two wars, and left his successor with a crashed economy. Getting tax rates back to a more sensible level is a tough thing to do with our Congress, half of whom insist on cutting Social Security and Medicare to make up the difference their boys created.

Anyway, the country has had debts lots of times. After the Revolution. I think Polk paid off a debt. In modern times we had a big one after WWII, taxes went way up, we paid it off, then didn’t have a significant debt again until Reagan. If you want to balance the budget we don’t need to revoke the Bush tax cuts, we need to revoke the Reagan tax cuts.
I disagree. And anyway, citizens have a duty to participate.
Well I can’t make you but clearly he knows what he’s talking about. Why ask questions in the Pit if you can’t take some shit with the answers?

Ma’am I don’t know you. But really read this. It’s honest. Its boiled down a basic thought about things as a bigger picture. It’s well written and well said.

[curlcoat]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Well I can’t make you but clearly he knows what he’s talking about. Why ask questions in the Pit if you can’t take some shit with the answers?

Someday I will learn not to, since the signal to noise ratio in here is very low. Every so often something catches my eye as I’m looking at a thread and I get curious, but there are simply too many immature reactionary assholes in here for me to ever get a straight answer. Except this time, and I thank you for all of the information you provided.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Maeglin

And around and around and around. It is not that the government cannot be bothered to spend what it takes in. The government and the agencies are people, not abstractions. They have their own motivations and lines of accountability. The legislature is responsible to voters, who themselves tend to make shitty financial decisions and want to spend lots of money that benefits their parochial interests. The agencies are staffed by people who may be actually committed to public service but are certainly as self-motivated as anyone in private industry. They don’t want to be fired. The people who forecast budgets are not the people held accountable by voters when they fail. The legislature that punishes agencies is not necessarily the same as the one that gave the agencies their social mandates in the first place.

This is how modern representative government works. This is why institutions are so important.

Nice treatment, including your other posts. Institutions matter. And yet…

…and yet debt as a share of GDP declined consistently from 1945-1980. During this era, the Republican party had a constituency that favored balanced budgets, as did the Democrats. Reagan shattered that. After he left office GHWBush and BClinton again brought down debt as a share of GDP. Then GWBush (again) reversed that pattern.

So yes, I agree that institutions do matter. But so does ideology. And when Cheney said that “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter,” it reflected real policy preferences. Before this month, Republicans uniformly claimed that they dislike deficits but that any tax increases are automatically off the table. This is transparently non-serious. The only party that demonstrably cares about deficits are the Democrats, and they have competing considerations as well.