Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

So, everyone expects SS to sell the bonds on the open market? Assuming that these have higher coupons than the current-issue bonds, doesn't that mess with our current year general fund debt issuance?

I've been under the assumption that Treasury issues new bonds to finance the maturing bonds held by the SSTF. It's a refi.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

It HAS stopped running a surplus.

If you think the level of current deficit matters not, then I respectfully disagree. If we were talking about $0 v. the amount of SS redemption, sure, that's nothing to concern anyone. But it's $500B v. $700B (soon enough) and current account matters to *some* in the global bond market. And, it's also the stated principal concern of many of our dear political leaders to reduce the *deficit*, not the *debt*.

I didn't say the level of deficit or debt doesn't matter. I was merely explaining that neither was off any books, imagined or real.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I've been under the assumption that Treasury issues new bonds to finance the maturing bonds held by the SSTF. It's a refi.

Exactly, except now it's a cash-out refi.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Does he have any chance?

This makes too much sense, tho.

cf:

On CNN just now, Indiana Gov. and probable presidential candidate Mitch Daniels (R) just suggested that the 2001 Bush tax cuts didn't have any role in the deficits that grew under Bush's watch. Specifically, he said that the deficits were caused by the collapse of the dot.com bubble.

TPM

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

cf:

TPM

So, Mitch understands that he needs to throw some redmeat out there, too. Means his prez aspirations aren't doa.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

I didn't say the level of deficit or debt doesn't matter. I was merely explaining that neither was off any books, imagined or real.

Haven't the "official" deficit numbers for the past 25+ years have treated the SS Bonds as off of the *deficit* books? The general fund takes the SS surplus and has not counted the bonds issued to SS as deficit.

Or am I imagining something?

[Gattigap]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

So, Mitch understands that he needs to throw some redmeat out there, too. Means his prez aspirations aren't doa.

Still, I don't see Mitch getting above, say, 8% in Iowa. Shame, because he sounds for the most part sane.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Haven't the "official" deficit numbers for the past 25+ years have treated the SS Bonds as off of the *deficit* books? The general fund takes the SS surplus and has not counted the bonds issued to SS as deficit.

Or am I imagining something?

I guess it depends on what "off books" means. The deficit figures commonly cited include the surplus revenue from social security, which makes the deficit seem smaller than it "actually" is (i.e., non-SS government spending is even more in deficit compared to non-SS revenue). Is that on book or off book?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

I guess it depends on what "off books" means. The deficit figures commonly cited include the surplus revenue from social security, which makes the deficit seem smaller than it "actually" is (i.e., non-SS government spending is even more in deficit compared to non-SS revenue). Is that on book or off book?

I think that is "off book" in an annual P&L conceptual sense, but it's clearly "on book" in an aggregate assets and liabilities sense. So we're both right!

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

Still, I don't see Mitch getting above, say, 8% in Iowa. Shame, because he sounds for the most part sane.

Amongst the potential R candidates (as listed here), he'd be my pick.

That is based on the assumption that Jimmy McMillan isn't seriously running, because, as we all know the real problem in this country is that the rent is *still* too damn high.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

So, Mitch understands that he needs to throw some redmeat out there, too. Means his prez aspirations aren't doa.

It's the same argument Ty makes for Obama - i.e., the Obama deficits are caused by the recession, rather than increased spending.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

It's the same argument Ty makes for Obama - i.e., the Obama deficits are caused by the recession, rather than increased spending.

Note that Ty then gets attacked for toeing the far left line. Is Mitch going to be attacked for being a lefty?

It is not wholly indefensible to assert that, had tax revenue projections properly forecast the post-dotcom bubble collapse, the Bush cuts would not have been as large and/or taken the same shape.

I don't believe that is true, but it's not pure fantasy like claiming that the Bush cuts paid for themselves and/or increased tax revenue over baseline. Or that we can balance the budget without tax increases or any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, defense, homeland security, veterans’ benefits, and interest on the debt.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

t is not wholly indefensible to assert that, had tax revenue projections properly forecast the post-dotcom bubble collapse, the Bush cuts would not have been as large and/or taken the same shape.

Huh? Presumably the Bush tax cuts would have been even larger on a gross dollar basis had the bubble not burst.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

So, everyone expects SS to sell the bonds on the open market? Assuming that these have higher coupons than the current-issue bonds, doesn't that mess with our current year general fund debt issuance?

Also, note that the $14T does *not* include the $5T+ of mortgage debt held by GSEs which ain't worth anything close to that. There's genuine potential of that being a backdoor $1T plus in additional federal debt.

How does SSTF sell bonds on the open market? Who would buy those bonds? SSTF has no ability to raise revenue on its own, and its commitments appear to outstrip its resources.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Note that Ty then gets attacked for toeing the far left line. Is Mitch going to be attacked for being a lefty?

It is not wholly indefensible to assert that, had tax revenue projections properly forecast the post-dotcom bubble collapse, the Bush cuts would not have been as large and/or taken the same shape.

I don't believe that is true, but it's not pure fantasy like claiming that the Bush cuts paid for themselves and/or increased tax revenue over baseline. Or that we can balance the budget without tax increases or any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, defense, homeland security, veterans’ benefits, and interest on the debt.

What revenue projections are you talking about? By the time of the Bush tax cuts, the projections had either changed dramatically from a year or two earlier, or only an idiot would have relied on them.