My God, you are an idiot.

[Replaced_Texan]

Ideas on Medicare cuts from the Incidental Economist. Doesn't seem to touch the beneficiary side of things.

I highly recommend this blog for health policy stuff. These guys are great.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

As Adder has already said -- Boehner did not have the Republican votes. That's it. His idea of compromise, apparently, was that he needed something that a majority of Rs in the House, rather than a majority of the House, would support.

That's partisanship, in its pure form. And given the current R party, where the extreme is now the majority, it's a recipe for disaster.

Are you really this green? That simply doesn't happen in DC. Please give me one example where the Speaker did not get a majority of his own party on a piece of legislation. Seriously, you have to be kidding.

So -- do you think they dealt with our fiscal situation in this deal?

Uh, no. That is why I have been saying the deal is a joke on both sides, and all of the belly-aching is just posturing. But this could be a first towards a more rational fiscal situation. Maybe, just maybe, the Ds will pass a budget this year. It's been a while. Perhaps they've forgotten how.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Are you really this green? That simply doesn't happen in DC. Please give me one example where the Speaker did not get a majority of his own party on a piece of legislation. Seriously, you have to be kidding.

The first bill he passed without ANY democrats supporting it. He wasn't going for a majority/majority bill until he had no other choice. He played to the right from the beginning.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The first bill he passed without ANY democrats supporting it. He wasn't going for a majority/majority bill until he had no other choice. He played to the right from the beginning.

I'll take that as "Sorry Club, you are right, I cannot produce any examples. My bad."

756-4

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I'll take that as "Sorry Club, you are right, I cannot produce any examples. My bad."

756-4

Lowering yourself to recyling used up old Hank routines?

Look, even on the healthcare bill, where the Dems had to go it alone (well, with Rep. Cao), the whole process leading up to it was a courting of republicans and a playing to the center. But if you're looking for examples, go back to the main one I focused on for a model, Gramm Rudman.

Sheesh.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Lowering yourself to recyling used up old Hank routines?

Look, even on the healthcare bill, where the Dems had to go it alone (well, with Rep. Cao), the whole process leading up to it was a courting of republicans and a playing to the center. But if you're looking for examples, go back to the main one I focused on for a model, Gramm Rudman.

Sheesh.

Please keep up. I'm looking for examples where the Speaker passed a bill without a majority of his or her party.

You really think the Ds courted the Rs on HCA? Really? This place has really become bizzaro world. Are you fake GGG?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Please keep up. I'm looking for examples where the Speaker passed a bill without a majority of his or her party.

You really think the Ds courted the Rs on HCA? Really? This place has really become bizzaro world. Are you fake GGG?

I've quit counting beating him. It's sad. But you do this board, and surely him, no good when you engage him. YOU MUST IGNORE THE TROLLS.

I mean he waxed poetic about that HC board w/o realizing the Dems in congress realize it's poison. What sort companies hire him to advise them?

[sgtclub]

This pretty well sums up my thoughts - From FT:

Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/78abaf5c-b...#ixzz1U18YHJnQ

The global crises of financial and housing markets are now being superseded by new crises of governments. The fiscal challenges for the weaker members of the eurozone are early warnings, as are analogous problems in American state governments weighed down by unfunded pension and healthcare liabilities. Without action, this new crisis of state competence could soon become just as damaging as its recent financial predecessor.

This week’s US debt deal, along with the prospect of debate on fiscal solutions in the run-up to the 2012 elections, provides some room for optimism. But America’s fiscal problems have deep roots. The recession of 2007-09 stemmed from the unprecedented bust in the housing market, driven by reduced lending standards and propelled by congressional pressures on private lenders and the reckless expansions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is, however, important to recognise that this mistake is now understood and will not be repeated.
More
On this story

Analysis Employment: A fix that functions
Global insight Slippery US cuts
Defence cuts could ‘do real damage’
Gavyn Davies A ray of light from US core inflation
US investors wary on global outlook

In the aftermath of the debt ceiling agreement there will be calls for further stimulus for America’s economy. This would be a grave mistake. In the financial turmoil of 2008, bail-outs by the US and other governments were unfortunate, but necessary. However, the subsequent $800bn American stimulus package was largely a waste of money that sharply enlarged the fiscal hole now facing our economy.

President Barack Obama’s administration has consistently overestimated the benefits of stimulus, by using an unrealistically high spending multiplier. According to this Keynesian logic, government expenditure is more than a free lunch. This idea, if correct, would be more brilliant than the creation of triple A paper out of garbage. In any event, the elimination of the temporary spending is now contractionary and, more importantly, the resulting expansion of public debt eventually requires higher taxes, retarding growth.

I agree that budget deficits were appropriate during the great recession and, for that reason, the kind of balanced-budget rule currently proposed by some Republicans should be avoided. However, since government spending is warranted only if it passes the usual hurdles of social rates of return, the fiscal deficit should have concentrated on tax reductions, especially those that emphasised falls in marginal tax rates, which encourage investment and growth.

Despite relief at the debt-ceiling agreement, America’s fiscal situation remains deeply problematic. Any attempt to head off a crisis of government competence must begin with serious long-term reform. Reductions in the long-term path of entitlement outlays have to be put on the table, with increases in ages of eligibility a part of any solution.

We also need sharp reductions in spending programmes initiated or expanded by Mr Obama and his extravagant predecessor, George W. Bush. Given the inevitable growth of the main entitlement programmes, especially healthcare, increases in long-term federal revenue must be part of an overall reform.

So what, specifically, can be done? An effective future tax package would begin by setting US corporate and estate tax rates permanently to zero, given these taxes are inefficient and generate little revenue. Next, it would gradually phase out major “tax-expenditure” items, such as tax preferences for home-mortgage interest, state and local income taxes, and employee fringe benefits.

The structure of marginal income-tax rates should then be lowered. Marginal rates should particularly not increase where they are already high, such as at upper incomes. The bulk of any extra revenue needed to make up the difference should then be raised via a broad-based, flat-rate expenditure tax, such as a value added tax. A rate of 10 per cent, with few exemptions, would raise about 5 per cent of gross domestic product.

Of course, such a new tax would be a two-edged sword: a highly efficient tax, but politically dangerous. To paraphrase Larry Summers from long ago, we don’t have VAT in the US because Democrats think it is regressive, and Republicans think it is a money machine. We will get VAT when Democrats realise it is a money machine, and Republicans realise it is regressive. Obviously, I worry about the money machine property, but I see no serious alternative for raising the revenue needed for an overall next-stage reform package.

The raucous debt-ceiling debate represents a good start in forging a serious long-term fiscal plan. Substantial additional progress will be needed, sadly much of which will probably have to await the outcome of the next US election. Yet progress must be made – or the impending crises of governments, signalled by possible downgrades of US debt, will make the 2008-09 recession look mild.



The writer is a professor of economics at Harvard University and a senior fellow of Stanford’s Hoover Institution

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Please keep up. I'm looking for examples where the Speaker passed a bill without a majority of his or her party.

You really think the Ds courted the Rs on HCA? Really? This place has really become bizzaro world. Are you fake GGG?

Who ever suggested he go without a majority of his party? My suggestion was simply that he play to the center instead of the right.

Yes, there are a lot of provisions added to the Affordable Care Act in order to garner Republican support. You may want to start by noting that the model for ACA was the leading Republican alternative to Clinton's HC plan. Obama's strategy throughout was to seek bi-partisanship, and he only moved to a Dem only plan with reluctance and under a lot of pressure from Pelosi.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

This pretty well sums up my thoughts - From FT:

I thought you said you thought there did need to be an increase in taxes? Now you're looking for eliminating corporate and estate taxes altogether? And a move toward flat rates and consumption taxes?

This looks like recycled busted theories from the 1980s.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

This pretty well sums up my thoughts - From FT:

obama is a one-termer, which is sad. the only thing we can hope for now is that the r candidate is not actually insane, because em will be president.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Are you really this green? That simply doesn't happen in DC. Please give me one example where the Speaker did not get a majority of his own party on a piece of legislation. Seriously, you have to be kidding.

On health care, the Dems fricking begged for any R support. Granted, it was the Senate, but they purposefully crafted a bill that would get all the Dems and try to get a few Rs too. The Rs told them to fuck off, but it was still an exercise in trying to compromise.

And that's what Boehner could have done. He could have tried to craft a coalition of most of his caucus and just enough Dems to win.

Note, that's still a majority of his caucus. He chose to go for unanimity instead.

Maybe, just maybe, the Ds will pass a budget this year. It's been a while. Perhaps they've forgotten how.

Yeah. It's the Ds standing in the way. Right.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Please keep up. I'm looking for examples where the Speaker passed a bill without a majority of his or her party.

Straw man much? No one is asking Boehner to not get a majority of his own party.

You really think the Ds courted the Rs on HCA? Really? This place has really become bizzaro world. Are you fake GGG?

Bizarro world is that anyone would deny this. So, yeah, really. Obama practically blew Grassley and Snowe in public.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

This pretty well sums up my thoughts - From FT:

Really??? This is demonstrable drivel.

driven by reduced lending standards and propelled by congressional pressures on private lenders and the reckless expansions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Nice slight of hand to maintain plausible deniability, but reduced lending standards were the result of securitization and the irrational belief that housing prices never went down. Despite the clearly intended implication that they were the result of "congressional pressures."

Moreover, actual "congressional pressures" were minuscule. Tiny amounts of less than fully prime lending via the GSEs were overwhelmed by massive floods of private label mortgages.

But that's fine, don't let facts get in the way of the government is always the problem story.

However, the subsequent $800bn American stimulus package was largely a waste of money that sharply enlarged the fiscal hole now facing our economy.

Sharply enlarged?? Again, 40% of that is tax cuts. So roughly $500 billion in one-time spending. Or something like 3% of year's GDP (spread over two years) is "sharply enlarged?" That's absurd. It's a rounding error, especially compared to our actual fiscal challenges in health care.

President Barack Obama’s administration has consistently overestimated the benefits of stimulus, by using an unrealistically high spending multiplier. According to this Keynesian logic, government expenditure is more than a free lunch. This idea, if correct, would be more brilliant than the creation of triple A paper out of garbage. In any event, the elimination of the temporary spending is now contractionary and, more importantly, the resulting expansion of public debt eventually requires higher taxes, retarding growth.

No, they under estimated how bad the economy was, not the effect of the spending. And they underestimated how much damage state government were going to do.

Moreover, if not doing it is contractionary, you are conceding that doing it is stimulative. So in one paragraph you have contradicted yourself.

However, since government spending is warranted only if it passes the usual hurdles of social rates of return, the fiscal deficit should have concentrated on tax reductions, especially those that emphasised falls in marginal tax rates, which encourage investment and growth.

Yeah, because trickle down supply side increases in available loanable funds are going to work when rates are already zero.

Or, in English, giving people more money to put in the bank doesn't help when there is already tons of money in the bank to be borrowed at cheap rates if anyone wanted to borrow it.

Or, "social rates of return" when demand is inadequate are any rate of return.

Reductions in the long-term path of entitlement outlays have to be put on the table, with increases in ages of eligibility a part of any solution.

Which Obama put on the table, and Boehner and Cantor ran screaming from the room.

The rest of it amounts to a fairy tale belief that lower taxes fix everything.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

obama is a one-termer, which is sad. the only thing we can hope for now is that the r candidate is not actually insane, because em will be president.

How many months of board support do you want to wager?