30 Jul 2011, 5:59 am
By the way, when looking at this it occurred to me that we will need a 2012 budget by Oct. 1st. So, we are going to have a similar drama in just 2 short months, or perhaps they will be 2 long months.
2012 Budget: Let the Demagoguery Begin (Democrats Unite)!
- Posted on
- by Doctor Fate
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 4965
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 4965
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
30 Jul 2011, 6:33 am
Geo:
I'm sure there are some tea partiers that fit this description, but it's hard to figure out how many people you are referring to. Per Wiki, there are 60 members of the Tea Party Caucus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus. Although, I did notice that Ron Paul is not on the TPC list, so perhaps there are a few who are more conservative than the tea party caucus members? Boehner was able to get 1/2 of these votes to pass his bill without the BBA, but that wasn't enough so he had to add the BBA, so perhaps only 30 Tea Partiers are too ideological (nutters in your view) to cut a rational deal. That suggests there are about 210 members of the house who are more typical Republicans. Therefore, to get a majority, we only need 15 out of 193 Democrats in the House to get a deal.
It's interesting to me that many of the media sources that I take in (NPR, BBC, Boston Globe, NYT) are basically blaming these 30 TP's for all our troubles, but until Reid passes a deal, or Obama proposes one that isn't jello, or just 10% of House Democrats cross party lines, I'm more inclined to blame the Democrats at this point. As far as I can tell, they've done nothing but PR.
I spent much of Wednesday in a car listening to the radio where several of these Tea Party Reps were interviewed. My take-away is that they were completely nuts. It reminded me when I was young and I would debate religious people about religion. I learned the hard way that you can't argue issues of faith because at issue is FAITH.
These guys seem to be adopting a faith-based approach to political ideology. You can use logic on them all day long, but if it's outside their orthodoxy, it's bad, the political equivalent of sin, or worse. I think leadership is doing what they can, but they are like the Pope and the Protestants at the time of Martin Luther.
A week ago I would have said that they would figure out some kind of compromise, but now I agree with Ray, I don't think they're going to get it done. Complete dumbsh*ts all of them, but especially these ignorant faith-based ideologues.
I'm sure there are some tea partiers that fit this description, but it's hard to figure out how many people you are referring to. Per Wiki, there are 60 members of the Tea Party Caucus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus. Although, I did notice that Ron Paul is not on the TPC list, so perhaps there are a few who are more conservative than the tea party caucus members? Boehner was able to get 1/2 of these votes to pass his bill without the BBA, but that wasn't enough so he had to add the BBA, so perhaps only 30 Tea Partiers are too ideological (nutters in your view) to cut a rational deal. That suggests there are about 210 members of the house who are more typical Republicans. Therefore, to get a majority, we only need 15 out of 193 Democrats in the House to get a deal.
It's interesting to me that many of the media sources that I take in (NPR, BBC, Boston Globe, NYT) are basically blaming these 30 TP's for all our troubles, but until Reid passes a deal, or Obama proposes one that isn't jello, or just 10% of House Democrats cross party lines, I'm more inclined to blame the Democrats at this point. As far as I can tell, they've done nothing but PR.
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7390
- Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm
30 Jul 2011, 8:00 am
Geo,
Are you saying that the BBA is a bad idea and idealogical?
Are you saying that the BBA is a bad idea and idealogical?
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 4965
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
30 Jul 2011, 8:22 am
Even the WSJ thinks that. From their lead editorial today:
By the way, I don't know the details of this BBA, but I suspect it is much harsher than the one Brad suggested.
Instead of such a useful reform, a GOP faction is fixated on a balanced budget amendment. After Thursday's stall, the new Boehner plan will only authorize the second tranche of debt if two-thirds of both chambers pass such an amendment and send it to the states for ratification. This will not happen.
These columns drew much notice after John McCain quoted our July 27 "tea party hobbits" line on the Senate floor. Senator (sic) Sharron Angle responded that "it is the hobbits who are the heroes and save the land." Well, okay, but our point was that there's no such thing as a hobbit. Passing a balanced budget amendment this year is a similar fantasy. Yet outfits like the Club for Growth used the amendment as an excuse to flip from opposing the Boehner plan to supporting it. Maybe it should be the Club for Futile Fiscal Gestures.
The main result of this pointless crusade has been to damage Mr. Boehner's leverage and push the final debt-limit increase in Mr. Reid's direction. The Speaker may now have to seek the tender mercies of Nancy Pelosi to get a final bill through the House, and who knows what her price will be.
The debt-limit hobbits should also realize that at this point the Washington fracas they are prolonging isn't helping their cause. Republicans are not looking like adults to whom voters can entrust the government.
By the way, I don't know the details of this BBA, but I suspect it is much harsher than the one Brad suggested.
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 15994
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
30 Jul 2011, 9:57 am
Based on anything they've said. Some looks familiar to me..bbauska wrote:As the BBA has not been legislated yet, it is only conjecture as to what politicos put forth. Therefore the following is opinion only...
This means a zero deficit. So without caveats, it's contradicted by the later ideasThe BBA would require the Federal government to not spent more than it takes in.
Surely all bills need a Presidential signature? Supermajorities are a great idea - given the difficulty getting a majority to pass a cutting budget already, it's a recipe for inaction. I know tax increases are unpopular, but this could hogtie the government (and mean that a small minority of members representing a smaller proportion of the population could override the will of the vast majority. 34 Senators representing 17 small states could lock the whole thing up.Taxes could not be increased w/o 2/3 approval from both houses and a Presidential signature.
8% of what? Deficits are currently about 12% of GDP, 40% of spending, 65% of income...Deficits must be decreased by 8% every year.
Did it really take Congress to have two full votes to allow a response to Pearl Harbor? Jeez, your enemies would love that kind of block on reactions! And see the above.Deficits spending is allowable if 2/3 majority of both houses approve it. (i.e. Pearl Harbor / WW2)
Well, if it's indicative of the likely BBA, I can see some problems with it.The preceding represent the views of bbauska only. We now return you to your normally scheduled programming.
But an Amendment would take some time to pass as well, would it not?
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 4965
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
30 Jul 2011, 12:04 pm
I don't know if anyone else has clued into this. When they score the savings on these bills, it is compared to a projection of future expenses over the next 10 years. These future projections assumed inflation, including medical inflation, and population growth based on US demographics (which means more medical inflation). So the savings are relative to a rapidly increasing government spending, and not to some sort of flat line.
Under Boehner's bill, of the $900 billion in savings, only $74 billion is in the 1st 2 years. The other $826 billion in savings is starting with fiscal year 2014, no doubt back ended to the year 2021. So, even the Republicans are suggesting small cuts in the scheme of things.
Under Boehner's bill, of the $900 billion in savings, only $74 billion is in the 1st 2 years. The other $826 billion in savings is starting with fiscal year 2014, no doubt back ended to the year 2021. So, even the Republicans are suggesting small cuts in the scheme of things.
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7390
- Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm
30 Jul 2011, 12:05 pm
Ray Jay wrote:I don't know if anyone else has clued into this. When they score the savings on these bills, it is compared to a projection of future expenses over the next 10 years. These future projections assumed inflation, including medical inflation, and population growth based on US demographics (which means more medical inflation). So the savings are relative to a rapidly increasing government spending, and not to some sort of flat line.
Under Boehner's bill, of the $900 billion in savings, only $74 billion is in the 1st 2 years. The other $826 billion in savings is starting with fiscal year 2014, no doubt back ended to the year 2021. So, even the Republicans are suggesting small cuts in the scheme of things.
Reason #1776 I should be writing fiscal policy...
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 4965
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
30 Jul 2011, 12:21 pm
That's the spirit
-
- Dignitary
- Posts: 3490
- Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am
30 Jul 2011, 3:54 pm
bbauska wrote:Geo,
Are you saying that the BBA is a bad idea and idealogical?
I've got to agree with the WSJ on this one. And besides, getting a constitutional amendment done takes a huge amount of time. Regardless of its value or lack thereof, it's not going to happen in a timeframe that would impact the current debate. It's so unrealistic, that I consider it a red herring to the current debate.
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7390
- Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm
30 Jul 2011, 7:36 pm
I agree that it will not help the debt ceiling right now. However, the US government has shown little ability to restrain itself when it comes to debt. That is exactly why it needs to be a part of this deal. Otherwise it will be a problem again.
I didn't understand your position based upon the non answer you gave. Do you think the Federal Government needs be have a balanced budget mandated by amendment to the Constitution?
I didn't understand your position based upon the non answer you gave. Do you think the Federal Government needs be have a balanced budget mandated by amendment to the Constitution?
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 15994
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
31 Jul 2011, 2:32 am
But surely that is also applied to income projections at the same time?Ray Jay wrote:I don't know if anyone else has clued into this. When they score the savings on these bills, it is compared to a projection of future expenses over the next 10 years. These future projections assumed inflation, including medical inflation, and population growth based on US demographics (which means more medical inflation). So the savings are relative to a rapidly increasing government spending, and not to some sort of flat line.
What are the projected increases in tax income with GDP growth over the same period? Do any of the plans have a knock-on effect on GDP?Under Boehner's bill, of the $900 billion in savings, only $74 billion is in the 1st 2 years. The other $826 billion in savings is starting with fiscal year 2014, no doubt back ended to the year 2021. So, even the Republicans are suggesting small cuts in the scheme of things.
-
- Dignitary
- Posts: 3490
- Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am
31 Jul 2011, 4:19 am
bbauska wrote:Do you think the Federal Government needs be have a balanced budget mandated by amendment to the Constitution?
No.
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 4965
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
31 Jul 2011, 4:53 am
Dan:
Yes, but income is growing more slowly than expenditures, partially because we are starting with a large deficit, and partially because of demographics.
Dan:
Re the 1st question, I don't know, but they are in there.
Re the 2nd, there is a lot of controversy in this area. Conservatives have wanted dynamic scoring for a long time. They feel that policies that support growth are not adequately supported because the CBO static scoring does not take into account these effects. Similarly, tax policies that stifle economic activity are worse than the CBO numbers indicate. However, calculating these knock-on effects is controversial (how much of the Laffer curve do you believe in?) that it is not done at all. The result is that we do not have a proper bias towards growth policies.
But surely that is also applied to income projections at the same time?
Yes, but income is growing more slowly than expenditures, partially because we are starting with a large deficit, and partially because of demographics.
Dan:
What are the projected increases in tax income with GDP growth over the same period? Do any of the plans have a knock-on effect on GDP?
Re the 1st question, I don't know, but they are in there.
Re the 2nd, there is a lot of controversy in this area. Conservatives have wanted dynamic scoring for a long time. They feel that policies that support growth are not adequately supported because the CBO static scoring does not take into account these effects. Similarly, tax policies that stifle economic activity are worse than the CBO numbers indicate. However, calculating these knock-on effects is controversial (how much of the Laffer curve do you believe in?) that it is not done at all. The result is that we do not have a proper bias towards growth policies.
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
01 Sep 2011, 3:24 pm
Setting a new world record for demagoguery by a Vice-President. Sadly, the Post only gave it two Pinocchios.
“We’re going to debate it. We’re going to debate it straight up. We’re not going to debate it in terms of just being a — political 30-second ads. Paul Ryan laid out their budget. Their budget eviscerates — it eliminates Medicare. They say it doesn’t. It makes it a voucher program. I call that eliminating Medicare in the next 10 years.”
— Vice President Biden, Aug. 30, 2011
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
