Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 30, 2016, 12:28:28 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
94240 Posts in 2307 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] Print
Author Topic: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process  (Read 154205 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13456


« Reply #900 on: August 15, 2015, 12:38:17 AM »


Kind of ignores the catastrophic debt, eh?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #901 on: August 15, 2015, 07:39:40 AM »

To a certain extent you are correct, yes it does.

Yet if the economy grows at 2% and the deficit is 2% at GDP, doesn't that imply a decline over time to the debt/GDP ratio? 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13456


« Reply #902 on: August 15, 2015, 08:17:58 PM »

How is that in anyway meaningful for the brokest nation in human history?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #903 on: August 15, 2015, 08:37:48 PM »

Forgive me the quibble with your hyperbole, but proportionally we are not even close to being the brokest nation in history.   For example, doesn't Japan have a debt/GDP ratio of something like 245%?

Anyway, if my math is correct, current numbers mean a very slight decline in debt/GDP ratio.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13456


« Reply #904 on: August 15, 2015, 08:45:35 PM »

Forgive me the quibble with your hyperbole, but proportionally we are not even close to being the brokest nation in history.   For example, doesn't Japan have a debt/GDP ratio of something like 245%?

Anyway, if my math is correct, current numbers mean a very slight decline in debt/GDP ratio.


http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/23/news/economy/japan-debt-imf/

Japan: Roughly 11 trillion in debt

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/study-true-size-of-federal-government-debt-is-210-trillion/article/2565559

US: approximately 210 trillion.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13456


« Reply #905 on: August 15, 2015, 08:59:53 PM »

Forgive me the quibble with your hyperbole, but proportionally we are not even close to being the brokest nation in history.   For example, doesn't Japan have a debt/GDP ratio of something like 245%?

Anyway, if my math is correct, current numbers mean a very slight decline in debt/GDP ratio.


http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/23/news/economy/japan-debt-imf/

Japan: Roughly 11 trillion in debt

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/study-true-size-of-federal-government-debt-is-210-trillion/article/2565559

US: approximately 210 trillion.



http://simonthorpesideas.blogspot.com/2015/02/global-debt-is-now-25-times-total-money.html

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mwjUm8Lz7Y4
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 917


« Reply #906 on: August 15, 2015, 09:33:58 PM »

LOL.  "Everything is Awesome" should be Wesbury's and Grannis' theme song.   grin

Because everything truly IS awesome "when you're living in a dream!"
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #907 on: August 15, 2015, 11:10:29 PM »

GM:

The WE piece you post says "U.S. government debt stands at $210 trillion, not the official $13.1 trillion". 

Ummm , , , aren't we at $18+T?   

A strange error to make , , ,

Still, of course I get the point about unfunded liabilities-- and it is quite valid-- but without a proper grasp of the numbers it is hard to know how accurate they are.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13456


« Reply #908 on: August 15, 2015, 11:37:17 PM »

GM:

The WE piece you post says "U.S. government debt stands at $210 trillion, not the official $13.1 trillion". 

Ummm , , , aren't we at $18+T?   

A strange error to make , , ,

Still, of course I get the point about unfunded liabilities-- and it is quite valid-- but without a proper grasp of the numbers it is hard to know how accurate they are.

I doubt anyone has the real numbers at this point. The key element is how severe a situation we are facing.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #909 on: August 16, 2015, 06:19:48 AM »

And only Chris Christie is talking about reigning in entitlements , , ,
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #910 on: August 16, 2015, 10:10:20 PM »

Yes, crazy discrepancy measuring 2 different things, the debt we owe today versus the fiscal gap projecting forward.

Debt at 18T is really only $13T owed to the public.  Even that isn't owed to anyone in the sense of it ever being paid it back when the target is to always run permanent deficits.  It's just an interest cost burden that could easily double or quadruple as interest rates go up, even without further deficits.

Where did GM's $210T number come from?  A few sources below and this description:

"using the Congressional Budget Office’s July 2014 75-year Alternate Fiscal Scenario projection, Kotlikoff calculated that the U.S.’ “fiscal gap” –which he defines as “the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts”

http://teapartyeconomist.com/2015/03/12/washingtons-210-trillion-deficit/
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/04/08-federal-debt-worse-than-you-think-haskins
http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/Kotlikoff-GDP-debt-deficit/2015/03/10/id/629314/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/05/13/ben-carsons-claim-that-the-u-s-owes-211-trillion-beyond-the-reported-federal-debt/
http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/7986/is-the-210-trillion-fiscal-gap-measurement-valid-true-and-is-it-possible-to-fix

I have doubts about that methodology (75 years projections?) but the current problem is a hell of a lot bigger than amount currently owed.


More importantly to me is the growth figure.  2% growth is exaggerated.  2% now is after 0% over the winter and it doesn't even average 2%, and that isn't even breakeven growth.  

The current revenue surge is temporary, and so is the narrowing deficit.  Growth has nowhere to go but down under anti-growth policies and the deficit is already projected to double back up by the end of the decade.

Seems like an odd time to see a grown economists do an endzone dance.

The good news is that if we were to get our act together starting now, we could survive all our self-inflicted wounds.  The bad new is that it seems like a physical impossibility that we can get our act together now.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2015, 10:24:32 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #911 on: September 12, 2015, 11:40:54 AM »

http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2015/09/budget-deficit-on-track-for-2-of-gdp.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FtMBeq+%28Calafia+Beach+Pundit%29
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #912 on: September 19, 2015, 02:15:11 PM »

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/anaheim-and-santa-ana-put-moratorium-on-constitutional-right-to-use-private-property/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13456


« Reply #913 on: September 20, 2015, 08:21:14 AM »


So how can such a smart guy like Grannis ignore the DEBT?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/16/government-debt-threatens-to-send-us-economy-into-/?page=all
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #914 on: September 28, 2015, 03:35:36 PM »

Monday Morning Outlook
________________________________________
A Shutdown Would Be Positive To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Deputy Chief Economist
Date: 9/28/2015

Sometimes, news really is important. The Pope’s visit to the U.S. was big, but the resignation of House Speaker John Boehner, effective October 30, was huge.
If you were worried about a government shutdown this fall, now it’s less likely. Boehner is free to work with Democrats, ignoring conservatives who want to defund Planned Parenthood, and pass a “continuing resolution.” This will keep the current budget fully funded through early December.

Just avoiding vetoes infuriates conservatives (and most of the GOP presidential field). They say the “establishment GOP” is ignoring Congress’s Constitutional power of the purse and capitulating to Democrats. The GOP leadership says it has to give in to “get something done.” It also says this will help elect a Republican president, who will then work in tandem with a Republican Congress to make drastic changes in fiscal policy.

The problem with this strategy is that the last time the GOP controlled the White House, it enacted No Child Left Behind, which federalized primary education, expanded Medicare, passed TARP (instead of changing mark-to-market accounting) and spent big during 2001-08. In other words, the GOP does not have a good track record on spending.

But Boehner’s resignation means a government shutdown is more likely in the longer-run. The GOP majority now has a chance to elect a speaker who will be more combative on spending and deficits. These budget battles will take place later this year, and if Republicans want to cut spending, they probably can’t avoid a government shutdown.

If Congress passes bills that cut spending, President Obama will veto them and a more combative Republican majority will get “blamed” by the media and Democrats for causing a fight that results in a government shutdown.

In that scenario, instead of trying to “avoid the blame,” conservatives should “take the credit” for any shutdown.

Yes, that’s right, take the credit. Shutdowns are not as scary as they’re portrayed. Money still flows into the Treasury Department and money still flows out, for Social Security or to make interest payments on the debt, for example. The military, border control, food inspections, air traffic, prisons, weather service, and post office, all keep running.

The downside is that if you need a passport or want to get into a national park, you are out of luck. Non-essential services stop and non-essential federal workers get furloughed. Meanwhile, the budget deficit drops.

Some say a shutdown will hurt the economy, but history doesn’t agree. The longest shutdown was from mid-December 1995 to early January 1996. Real GDP grew 2.7% in the year before the shutdown, and then at a 2.8% annualized rate in Q4-1995 and Q1-1996, in spite of the shutdown and a massive East Coast Blizzard. And after the shutdown, the U.S. passed welfare reform and moved to budget surpluses.

The government shut down in October 2013 and the economy grew at a 3.8% rate that quarter. Again, no problem.

The U.S. faces a future of trillion dollar annual deficits if we don’t cut spending. If shutting down the government helps alter that path, the U.S. economy will not only survive the short-term, but thrive in the longer term. So, if Boehner’s resignation finally makes that possible, a shutdown will be a positive for the U.S. economy.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #915 on: September 28, 2015, 04:36:22 PM »

That is an odd approach.  More simply, they could perform their constitutional responsibility according to direction given to them by the voters who elected them, and then refuse to let Obama escape blame for vetoing reasonable and generous funding bills.

The last one was a 17% partial shutdown for 16 days and cost us a net gain of 10 Senators.  If both sides were resolute, it would last considerably longer.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #916 on: September 28, 2015, 05:42:49 PM »

FWIW I think our efforts in this regard should be preceded by a HUGE educational/propaganda push explaining that Congress in general and the House of Reps in particular has control of the purse strings and why this is so.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #917 on: December 18, 2015, 04:20:43 PM »

Already posted elsewhere but pasted here to for reasons of thread coherency:

I've been sympathetic to Ryan, but this is pretty awful.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/16/paul-ryan-betrays-america-1-1-trillion-2000-plus-page-omnibus-bill-funds-fundamental-transformation-america/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #918 on: December 18, 2015, 08:39:34 PM »

"but this is pretty awful."

That is an understatement.   (So are the kind of people Krauthammer supports.) 

From Breitbart:  Jeff Sessions says basically FOUR people wrote this trillion dollar bill and once again no one is clear as to what is in it except for lobbyists.

Oh my God!   

We are done for.  I don't want empty platitudes.  I want change.  I want action.  I don't want compromise.  Every time the right compromises the left takes a step forward and then put their shoulders down and start driving us backwards again for the next fight.  The right compromises and it happens again.

How can anyone be optimistic?

Unless your an illegal, Chinese national, or Russian national.

 

Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #919 on: December 18, 2015, 08:55:30 PM »

Why is anyone surprised by what Ryan did? He was picked for that position so he could do just what he did.

Logged

PPulatie
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #920 on: December 18, 2015, 11:22:39 PM »

Here is more detail on the spending bill.  The only thing I read that I like is allowing us to export oil.  But that is coupled with more tax breaks for more favored green leftist projects.  Probably all the liberals have family members invested in this stuff.   More extended tax breaks for *lower earning income* families and for those with children and college students.  (Don't they already get a bunch);  Got to love these too:
"Other extended tax cuts include breaks for some teachers, commuters, timber investors, electric vehicle owners and makers of hard cider drinks.
(Why teachers?  They don't make a ton but their benefits have been quite good and they only work a shortened year.  This must be a payoff to their unions.) How about this:
People in the seven states without income taxes will be able to deduct local sales taxes on their federal returns."  (Where did this come from?)  If this ain't fair I don't know what is.
Hey if you go to a state without income tax (which itself is a big break) now you can write off your sales tax?  If people in those states would rather live in a state where they pay income tax they can move there to get the deduction.   But why fuck over the rest of us who pay state income and sales tax?  (The answer is because they can - because it benefits their benefactors somehow)
Just simplify the Damn tax code!

Anyway before I explode see for yourselves:

Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., right, walks to the chamber for final votes as the House and Senate rush to send President Barack Obama a budget package, at the Capitol in Washington, Friday, Dec. 18, 2015. The House easily passed a $1.14 trillion spending bill to fund the government through next September, capping a peaceful end to a yearlong struggle over the budget, taxes, and Republican demands of President Barack Obama. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

WASHINGTON - Congress on Friday sent President Barack Obama a bipartisan but deficit draining year-end budget package that boosts federal agency spending and awards tax cuts to both families and a sweeping array of business interests.

A 65-33 Senate vote on the measure was the last act that shipped the measure, combining $1.14 trillion in new spending in 2016 and $680 billion in tax cuts over the coming decade, to Obama. It had earlier swept through the House on a pair of decisive votes on Thursday and Friday, marking a peaceful end to a yearlong struggle over the budget, taxes, and Republican efforts to derail his regulatory agenda.

Obama will sign the measure, which includes many of the spending increases he fought for all year and is largely cleansed of GOP attempts to block his moves on the environment, financial regulation, and consumer protection. Republicans won increases for the military and an end to a ban on exporting U.S. oil, as well as permanent tax cuts for business investment.

Republicans were evenly split with 27 of them voting in favour and 26 against the bill. Presidential contender Marco Rubio was absent. Only six Democrats and Independent Bernie Sanders, another presidential hopeful, voted against the measure.

With the votes, lawmakers wrapped up a surprisingly productive, bipartisan burst of late-session legislation in a divided Congress.

The measure received big bipartisan majorities in both House and Senate. It capped an impressive first few weeks for new Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who got the benefit of the doubt from most Republicans, who by a wide margin opposed earlier legislation that established the framework for the budget package. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, a key negotiator, swung forcefully behind the measure after showing initial frustration over its lifting of an oil export ban and lack of action on helping Puerto Rico address its fiscal woes.

"They wanted big oil so much that they gave away the store," Pelosi said. But she cited successes in driving away most GOP policy proposals from the measure. Democratic also pushed through higher domestic budgets and tax breaks for working families and renewable energy.

"This bipartisan compromise secures meaningful wins for Republicans and the American people, such as the repeal of the outdated, anti-growth ban on oil exports," Ryan said, citing a large increase for the Pentagon and curbs on the activities of the Environmental Protection Agency and the IRS.

Some tea party lawmakers were dismayed by the burst of spending and a lack of wins for conservatives.

"There are so many things in this bill that will be surprising and shocking to the American people," said Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C. "Maybe there is a Santa Claus. At least in the House."

The House voted on the spending portion of the measure on Friday, when it won support from House Republicans by a 150-95 margin. Democrats followed Pelosi's lead and backed the bill by a 166-18 margin. In a procedural quirk, the House passed most of the tax cuts — virtually all of them financed with deficit dollars — on Thursday.

The bill extends more than 50 expiring tax cuts, with more than 20 becoming permanent, including credits for companies' expenditures for research and equipment purchases and reductions for lower-earning families and households with children and college students.

The spending measure would fund the operations of every Cabinet agency. It awards increases of about 6 per cent, on average, above tight spending caps that were a relic of a 2011 budget and debt deal — and were opposed by both GOP defence hawks and Democrats seeking boosts in domestic spending.

The House vote bundled with the spending measure a tax bill that passed on Thursday.

The budget pact was the last major item in a late-session flurry of bipartisanship in Washington, including easy passage of long-stalled legislation funding highway programs and a rewrite of education programs.

Many on each side saw the budget deal as the best they could get under divided government. The need to win Obama's signature helped rid the measure of most of the controversial GOP provisions: killing federal money for Planned Parenthood, limiting the flow of Syrian refugees and undoing dozens of Obama actions on the environment, labour, financial regulation and relations with Cuba.

The measure contains large spending boosts for veterans and medical research, and funds a familiar roster of grants for transportation projects, first responders and community development.

It also clears away an almost $1 billion backlog of federal courthouse projects and sends hundreds of millions of dollars to the states and districts of a handful of powerful lawmakers such as Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky., the chairmen of the Appropriations committees.

Also crammed into the two bills are provisions trimming some of the levies that help finance Obama's prized 2010 health care overhaul. The White House opposed the rollbacks, but Republicans and many Democrats savored them. A tax on medical devices would be suspended for two years, a levy on health insurers would stop for a year and, in a victory for unions, a tax on higher-cost insurance policies would be postponed two years until 2020.

In exchange for ending the oil export ban, Democrats won extensions of tax breaks for alternative power sources such as solar and wind energy.

Other extended tax cuts include breaks for some teachers, commuters, timber investors, electric vehicle owners and makers of hard cider drinks. People in the seven states without income taxes will be able to deduct local sales taxes on their federal returns.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #921 on: December 18, 2015, 11:53:04 PM »

For the record, this budget is really Boner's parting gift.

That doesn't change what an utter traitorous fustercluck it is but to be fair the true test will come in January 2017.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #922 on: December 19, 2015, 06:34:34 AM »

Yes and GM was right.  Ryan was the pick to get Boehner's plan through.  Only Republicans "can hold up the government".   Nothing said about Democrats filibustering their way to control the Senate.

Not clear if we will have the Senate by then.

I could deal with Bernie Sanders populism more than Hillary's sleaze.

At least he seems to be honest.   We need that.  Not sleaze.  Not from the right either - Boehner and McConnell.

Just too little of that in the world.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #923 on: December 19, 2015, 06:43:49 AM »

Naturally Obama is emboldened to go after gun control with his summary win with the omnibus bill:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/self-assured-obama-leave-field-100000228.html
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #924 on: December 19, 2015, 09:09:12 AM »

CD,

So let me get this straight...............Ryan had no ability to change or revise the Omnibus Bill?  B.S.

Ryan could have made changes, allowed revisions, etc. Then it would have gone to reconciliation. Of course, there would have been a battle, and in the end if changes had been severe, Obama would veto it. But is that bad?  Hell no!

Ryan wanted to be the Speaker so bad, he was willing to sell out the base of the party. This is just one more rollover and one more FU to the base from the GOPe.
and that is why I support Trump.



Logged

PPulatie
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #925 on: December 19, 2015, 10:41:57 AM »

I agree.

I suppose my point is simply that OTOH I do get that do we really want to distract from the presidential campaign with a shut down battle in this moment?  It's a valid concern.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #926 on: December 19, 2015, 11:58:29 AM »

"to be fair the true test will come in January 2017"

Terrible bill but I think Crafty has this right.  This was already in motion.  There already was a decision to do more of the same to ride out the Obama Presidency.  They didn't have the votes or the backbone to showdown a President who has nothing to lose.  I don't like it but this congress was not going to upstage the Presidential election a month before it starts.

I don't know why our side with the power of the purse fears the Obama veto and fails to exercise our power and responsibility, but the time for a showdown was on the first votes of 2011 and for the Senate on the first vote of 2015, and every vote after.  The other side already knows our side doesn't have a backbone.  You only pick the fight that you will win.

The point now is not to get angry but to show resolve.  Some express it with support for Trump and I will express it by holding my candidate to a funding standard above what we have seen for a very long time.  The top 3 right now are people that won't be pushed around IMHO if we win the Presidency.  Christy probably too.

Pulling out the nuclear option over an issue you will lose on anyway doesn't make sense or accomplish anything.  We can change policy through 'reconciliation' after the election - only if we win.
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #927 on: December 19, 2015, 12:46:14 PM »

Quote
"Why didn't Reps ever use the filibuster when the Dems controlled everything?"

I'm under they impression they did e.g. on Obamacare but the Dems did an evasionary end run via budget reconciliation.

The budget reconciliation was not done to avoid the filibuster. All spending bills are originated in the House and not in the Senate. The House was not going to put together what Obama wanted. So the Senate took a House Bill, stripped everything out of it, and put in the Obama Care regulations. Then they passed it and sent it to the House. And under reconciliation, 51% was all that was needed to pass it.

Pure manipulation. Same thing that was done with TPA and with TPP.

Logged

PPulatie
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #928 on: December 19, 2015, 12:59:14 PM »

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/comic/the-farce-awakens/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DayByDayCartoon+%28Day+by+Day+Cartoon+by+Chris+Muir%29
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13456


« Reply #929 on: December 19, 2015, 09:55:06 PM »


It's one thing to get screwed by your enemies, another to get it from those that are supposed to be on your side.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13456


« Reply #930 on: December 19, 2015, 09:59:41 PM »

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #931 on: December 31, 2015, 04:46:46 PM »

The value of property that police departments seized through civil asset forfeiture — usually without accusing, let alone convicting, the property owners of a crime — exceeded the value of property stolen by private government burglars.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #932 on: December 31, 2015, 06:21:58 PM »

 shocked shocked shocked angry angry angry
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #933 on: January 27, 2016, 03:39:37 PM »

We should needs test this country...

http://townhall.com/columnists/terryjeffrey/2016/01/27/federal-report-40-percent-qualify-for-needtested-benefits-n2110500?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #934 on: January 27, 2016, 04:04:26 PM »

 We know most of them ain't goin' to vote for Cruz Rubio or any other.

I certainly think we should all pay for college, single payer and Oscar voting rights  for all.  Vote Bernie
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13456


« Reply #935 on: January 27, 2016, 04:49:32 PM »

We know most of them ain't goin' to vote for Cruz Rubio or any other.

I certainly think we should all pay for college, single payer and Oscar voting rights  for all.  Vote Bernie

A Prius in every garage, an Oscar on every mantle!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #936 on: January 28, 2016, 11:24:42 AM »

We know most of them ain't goin' to vote for Cruz Rubio or any other.
...

True because you wrote most, not all.  Now that I qualify for programs, O'care and FAFSA come to mind, I can tell you that designation makes me angry, not needy.

I 'spend' more on TAXES than on food, shelter, clothing, transportation combined, by far!  And now I need 'help' from the government.  Good grief.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13456


« Reply #937 on: January 30, 2016, 06:56:24 AM »

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/va-to-reinstate-official-who-stole-130000-from-agency/article/2581840?custom_click=rss

Nice work, if you can get it.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #938 on: February 01, 2016, 08:36:02 PM »

While Iowans were voting...  National Debt hit $19 TRILLION

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/national-debt-hits-19-trillion/article/2582097

The national debt hit $19 trillion for the first time ever on Friday, and came in at $19.012 trillion.

It took a little more than 13 months for the debt to climb by $1 trillion. The national debt hit $18 trillion on Dec. 15, 2014.



Obama is expected to leave office with a total national debt of nearly $20 trillion by the time he leaves office.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #939 on: February 02, 2016, 06:27:04 AM »

Yes to me the debt is our biggest problem.  Was this topic brought up in the last debate by either party?  I didn't really see more than a few minutes of either debate or staged last minute Hillary show ("town hall" - from her pals at CNN).

Socialism Communism and the loss of freedom might be second

My third biggest concern is cyber attacks.

economy is up there.

immigration is up there

terrorism is lower down for me.  Isis is a big threat but it isn't WW3

Climate "change" is in the basement.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #940 on: February 03, 2016, 06:25:24 AM »

In DC it may become "Crime and Reward"

Libs just stop at nothing"

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CRIME_STIPENDS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-02-02-13-17-17
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #941 on: February 13, 2016, 10:33:56 AM »

Except in a big general way, we have not really been focused on the deficit and the national debt for a while.  We all knew that the reduced deficits of recent years due to the Sequester also decimated our military.  I suspect most of us favor substantial increases in military spending.  We also all knew that the reduced deficits were temporary and that CBO and other projections had them starting to go up dramatically after Obama left office, especially as the illegally deferred lies of Obamacare finally come home to roost, spiced with a topping of the last Boener budget.

What brings these thoughts on is it would appear that we are now entering the era of increasing deficits in a big way.

Does someone have a good summary of where we are with all of this?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #942 on: February 13, 2016, 12:02:11 PM »

Summary - me - no?

Yet I post just to point out it was brought up on cable a day or two ago that the ONLY candidate who even was talking about this stuff was Rand Paul .

Christie did speak about Soc Sec solvency but that was is as far as  I know.

The implication is that :

Everyone thinks we can through capitalism grow our way out of this or/and the truth is political suicide.

Bill Gates who is annoying with his politics aka Buffett stated capitalism will not get us out of this mess (so what does?)

Amazing how no one is discussing this in debates town halls or campaign trail.  The questions are not even being asked of the candidates!
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13456


« Reply #943 on: February 14, 2016, 09:26:33 AM »

Except in a big general way, we have not really been focused on the deficit and the national debt for a while.  We all knew that the reduced deficits of recent years due to the Sequester also decimated our military.  I suspect most of us favor substantial increases in military spending.  We also all knew that the reduced deficits were temporary and that CBO and other projections had them starting to go up dramatically after Obama left office, especially as the illegally deferred lies of Obamacare finally come home to roost, spiced with a topping of the last Boener budget.

What brings these thoughts on is it would appear that we are now entering the era of increasing deficits in a big way.

Does someone have a good summary of where we are with all of this?

The US military needs to be fundamentally restructured to deal with the new realities we are just beginning to see.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #944 on: February 14, 2016, 10:17:13 AM »

CD:  "... it would appear that we are now entering the era of increasing deficits in a big way."

G M:  "The US military needs to be fundamentally restructured to deal with the new realities we are just beginning to see."
--------------------

I was wondering who might be best positioned to address this, I went through the faces on the stage and came back with the idea that maybe it is Paul Ryan.  Isn't defense spending and thinking outside of old, established ways right in his wheelhouse?  I am also looking for him to bring forward a consensus, conservative tax reform plan, taking the best components we are seeing and combining it with spending and entitlement reform (that can pass) and dynamic scoring(!) to address the debt concern that seems to only come up when Republicans want to rebuild the military or cut and simplify tax rates.

He has promised to come up with serious, specific proposals for the country.  Defense is job one.  We will see.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #945 on: March 28, 2016, 10:46:35 AM »

US Needs Sensible Debt Financing To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Deputy Chief Economist
Date: 3/28/2016

Instead of imposing strict fiduciary rules on Wall Street, banks, investment houses, and financial advisors, the government should apply similar rules to the managers of the federal debt. This is particularly true because unlike the private sector – which faces tough market competition every day – the debt managers at the Treasury Department have a monopoly.

These federal debt managers have been flagrantly violating what should be their fiduciary responsibility to manage the debt in the best long-term interests of the US taxpayer.

Despite a roughly $19 trillion federal debt, the interest cost of the debt remains low relative to fundamentals. In Fiscal Year 2015, interest was 1.2% of GDP and 6.9% of federal revenue, both the lowest since the late 1960s. To put this in perspective, in 1991 debt service hit a post-World War II peak of 3.2% of GDP and 18.4% of federal revenue.

In other words, for the time being low interest rates have kept down the servicing cost of the debt even as the debt itself has soared.

You would think that in a situation like this, with federal debt set to continue to increase rapidly in the future, that the government’s debt managers would bend over backwards to lock-in current low interest rates for as long as possible.

But you would be wrong. The average maturity of outstanding marketable Treasury debt (which doesn’t include debt held in government Trust Funds, like Social Security) is only 5 years and 9 months. That’s certainly higher than the average maturity of 4 years and 1 month at the end of the Bush Administration, but still way too low given the level of interest rates.

The government’s debt managers have a built-in bias in favor of using short-term debt: because the yield curve normally slopes upward, the government can save a little bit of money each year by issuing shorter term debt. In turn, that means politicians get to show smaller budget deficits or get to shift spending to pet programs.

But this is short-sighted. The US government should instead lock-in relatively low interest rates for multiple decades, by issuing more 30-year bonds, and perhaps by introducing bonds the mature in 50 years or even longer.

At present, we find ourselves in the fortunate situation of being able to easily pay the interest on the federal debt. But this isn’t going to last forever. If the government locks-in low rates for an extended period it would give us time to catch our breath and fix our long-term fiscal problems, like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

There’s no reason this has to be a partisan issue. The government’s debt managers should just treat the debt like it’s their own. If the government is determined to hold many others to a stricter standard, it should lead by example.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #946 on: March 28, 2016, 11:34:03 AM »

Another way of sensibly financing our debt might have been to keep the total amount of it within reason. 

What would the cost of our debt be today at normal if not for our outrageous and counter-productive monetary policy?

Monetary policy failure enabled fiscal policy failure and now it is a federal government responsibility larger than providing for our common, national defense.  I wonder if that is what the Founders intended...

I wonder if Congress having the power to pay our debts, Article I, section 8, implied the power to slough 20-30 trillion US$ off on the next generation, as if it was unimportant.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #947 on: April 21, 2016, 01:43:28 PM »

TSA paid $1.4 million for Randomizer app that chooses left or right

http://www.geek.com/apps/tsa-paid-1-4-million-for-randomizer-app-that-chooses-left-or-right-1651337/

Or you could spend about $10 out on the free market.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2016, 05:03:26 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!