Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I'm not so sure about this. There is a block of tea partiers that will not vote for raising the debt ceiling unless it is tied to budget cuts/deficit reduction.

They are not seriously in favor of deficit reduction, as demonstrated by their position on taxes. They do want budget cuts, but they will use that to justify additional tax cuts which will do nothing for deficit reduction.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

The fiscal credibility of the parties in two paragraphs (per Ezra Klein):



Where's club been anyway?

Sorry, I have been busy preparing for the coup.

But please, will you stop posting this nonsense. The amount of debt that was amassed over the last two years is unprecedented. And I will bet any amount of money that Obamacare will not only not save money, it will cost 10x what they are predicting.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I'm not so sure about this. There is a block of tea partiers that will not vote for raising the debt ceiling unless it is tied to budget cuts/deficit reduction. Normally, I would think this is posturing, but I think a lot of these guys are nuts enough to play chicken.

There is, and I'm waiting to see if they have any legislative juice at all. The initial indications are that they do not, and that the GOP leadership believes they have no where else to go.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

They are not seriously in favor of deficit reduction, as demonstrated by their position on taxes. They do want budget cuts, but they will use that to justify additional tax cuts which will do nothing for deficit reduction.

You may be right, but I'm not convinced. I think they want both, and will slash and burn to get there.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

(Okay, I understand your point. Honestly, I'm just pissed off that more people haven't taken up, loudly, the fact that Reagan massively increased taxes on the working poor and middle class, pretended it didn't matter because those were payroll taxes that were going into SS, then debt-financed the government and now the day of reckoning is getting closer. That piece of shit set the tone for fiscal irresponsibility that will doom this country.)

The irresponsibility argument I understand. What that has to do with tax increases on the working poor and middle class I don't. Are you suggesting the portion of Reagan's spending not financed with debt could have been covered exclusively by those outside the middle class and working poor?

A deficit's a holiday from tax obligations for all, not just for the rich, or the poor, or the middle. And even that's generous, as it can be argued the poor and middle get more in terms of services and as a result see a much bigger free lunch from deficit spending than do their wealthy counterparts.

Reagan ballooned deficits, yes. And this is worthy of criticism. But the argument he did so by fucking the poor and middle class doesn't hold water. You wreck a good point stretching to make that argument.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There is, and I'm waiting to see if they have any legislative juice at all. The initial indications are that they do not, and that the GOP leadership believes they have no where else to go.

The first 6 months of the new congress will tell the tale. I think this will be a battle, and I'm not sure yet who prevails. If the establishment prevails, it will be business as usual. If the insurgents prevail, it will be very interesting, though I hope the establishment can reign in the nuttier positions.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Sorry, I have been busy preparing for the coup.

But please, will you stop posting this nonsense. The amount of debt that was amassed over the last two years is unprecedented. And I will bet any amount of money that Obamacare will not only not save money, it will cost 10x what they are predicting.

starting this month my firm will need to start reporting vendors of goods to the IRS.

part of the obamacare "savings" is that this will catch 20 billion in tax cheats (not my firm alone you understand). it's a made up number. if that is any indication of the rest of the "savings," people who supported HCR should be ashamed.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Sorry, I have been busy preparing for the coup.

But please, will you stop posting this nonsense. The amount of debt that was amassed over the last two years is unprecedented. And I will bet any amount of money that Obamacare will not only not save money, it will cost 10x what they are predicting.

Obamacare's projections are also based on unemployment dropping to 7.7% this year, and following a similar downward trend in coming years. I'd be curious to see how the numbers change with 9.5% unemployment through 2011 and 2012 followed with 9.0 in 2013, 8.5 in 2014 and 8.0 in 2015.

And that's not even touching underemployment. God knows the size of the canyon between the tax revenue anticipated from the employed and what is actually going to be delivered over the next decade.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Sorry, I have been busy preparing for the coup.

But please, will you stop posting this nonsense. The amount of debt that was amassed over the last two years is unprecedented. And I will bet any amount of money that Obamacare will not only not save money, it will cost 10x what they are predicting.

What provisions do you think are going to result in substantial government expense?

The one you might expect, broadening coverage, is modeled on a Massachusetts provision (Romneycare in your parlence) and budgetting was done with full knowledge of the outcomes there. Note that Romneycare has been slightly more expensive and slightly more successful in terms of expanding coverage than originally projected, but its overall costs, even without the fed's rate-setting voodoo, have been modest.

Absent that provision, I'm not sure where you think the cost overruns are going to be.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

And I will bet any amount of money that Obamacare will not only not save money, it will cost 10x what they are predicting.

The projected cost for 2019 is ~$167B, with savings (from Medicare exclusively) of ~$125B.

You're really projecting that (1) if no changes are made, the Medicare savings will be zero (no fair saying that the Rs will gut the changes--that's a different issue) and (2) that the actual cost will be north of $1.6T, in 2010 dollars? PUt another way, you're saying that the *Federal budget* cost of ACA will be over 2/3s of *AGGREGATE* US HC spending in 2008?

You haven't been preparing for the coup, you've been on a really impressive bender.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

The first 6 months of the new congress will tell the tale. I think this will be a battle, and I'm not sure yet who prevails. If the establishment prevails, it will be business as usual. If the insurgents prevail, it will be very interesting, though I hope the establishment can reign in the nuttier positions.

Give the establishment round 1 in the rules just adopted.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

You may be right, but I'm not convinced. I think they want both, and will slash and burn to get there.

If defense, SS and medicare are untouched, and no new revenue is permissible, there's no realistic way to accomplish their (supposed) goal.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The irresponsibility argument I understand. What that has to do with tax increases on the working poor and middle class I don't. Are you suggesting the portion of Reagan's spending not financed with debt could have been covered exclusively by those outside the middle class and working poor?

A deficit's a holiday from tax obligations for all, not just for the rich, or the poor, or the middle. And even that's generous, as it can be argued the poor and middle get more in terms of services and as a result see a much bigger free lunch from deficit spending than do their wealthy counterparts.

Reagan ballooned deficits, yes. And this is worthy of criticism. But the argument he did so by fucking the poor and middle class doesn't hold water. You wreck a good point stretching to make that argument.

You are missing the point completely. Reagan and Reaganites argued that he cut taxes for everyone (a paraphrase, but that's the gist). The reality is that Reagan cut income taxes, while raising payroll taxes. Unlike income taxes, payroll taxes are not progressive; in fact, they are regressive because of the cap on the amount subject to the tax.

Reagan and the Reaganites justified this by arguing that the payroll tax wasn't a "real" tax because it went into SS and Medicare, and people paying it would get it back. (Echoes of this argument are heard today, when people claim that x%% of Americans pay no taxes at all. It's bullshit.)

But, in reality, those payroll taxes went to cover the spending increases and income tax decreases that Reagan put into place.

In other woreds, it wasn't just that the stated deficit ballooned. Another, and possibly greater, problem was the "off-budget" deficit that came from "borrowing" -- really, stealing -- money from SS that came in as a result of the increased payroll taxes.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

If defense, SS and medicare are untouched, and no new revenue is permissible, there's no realistic way to accomplish their (supposed) goal.

The word "realistic" is a undeserved caveat. There is no way they can get there. No way at all. No device, no accounting gimmick. The Big Three have to be cut. Which in what amounts, who knows. But they do need to be cut.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

But please, will you stop posting this nonsense.

Nonsense? Dude. I know it hurts your head, but the members of one party have a track record of actually doing stuff about the cost of its proposals and the other one doesn't.

The amount of debt that was amassed over the last two years is unprecedented.

Leaving aside that I don't think it actually is unprecedented (see the '40s), the question is why it freaks you out more to add to the debt because of (1) soft revenues resulting from a poor economy, (2) automatic stabilizer payments (resulting from the poor econmy), and (3) one-time stimulus spending and targetted tax cuts (resulting from the poor economy) than it does to add to it by (a) creating a new entitlement, (b) cutting income tax rates without cutting spending, and (c) fighting two wars without doing anything to pay for them.

You may disagree with rationale for first grouping, but they're temporary and done intentionally on credit for a reason (except 1 obviously). The second grouping, on the other hand, was the work of those who claim to abhor deficit spending (except when they do it).

And I will bet any amount of money that Obamacare will not only not save money, it will cost 10x what they are predicting.

That's great. You have a personal conviction contrary to the best available non-partisan analysis. The new house leadership apparently disagrees with you. Maybe they should check with your gut first next time?