Stagflation Nation

[Conan71]

There is no runaway government spending. There are runaway bush tax cuts that Obama doesn't have the balls to call for a total repeal of.

[guido911]

Nate, I'll take any positive news right now. And in hindsight, I wish I hadn't posted that Greenspan stuff, or even read it to begin with, because I am tired of hearing how sucky our economy is.  

[nathanm]

You snark, but the vast majority of the deficit is attributable to the tax cuts and the reduced receipts due to the economy. Were it not for those two factors, we'd have a 200-300 billion gap, which is largely covered (at least as a percentage of GDP) by growth in a "normal" post WWII economy for us.

The main drivers of our projected deficits are: The tax cuts, the crappy economy (which increases costs significantly for unemployment insurance, medicaid, and all other safety net spending) , the interest on what we're projected to borrow in the next 4 years or so, and the runaway cost of health care. Baby boomer retirement is a small part of it, and other increases in expenditures aren't much relative even to the no-tax-cut deficit.

Some adjustment downward in spending is clearly necessary, even with letting the Bush tax cuts expire, but it's not anything like what Ryan wants. The reason he needs so much spending cut is the $500 billion a year in tax cuts/extra interest built in to his proposal. And yes, I think the entirety of the Bush tax cuts should be repealed, even those parts that apply to the middle class.

[guido911]

Today I read the cost per job created by stimulus money was $278K and this story I cannot believe is accurate:

http://Hey buddy, can you spare a square?

The city is so hard up for cash that it's rationing toilet paper in women's public restrooms -- to the point where bathroom attendants are doling out a few measly squares per patron -- along the world-famous Coney Island boardwalk.

The Post witnessed stone-faced Parks Department employees leave toilet-paper dispensers empty last week and instead force astonished female beachgoers to form "ration lines" in the bathrooms.

Regina Ballone, 25, of Brooklyn visited a boardwalk bathroom at West 16th Street Wednesday and was "grossed out" at the thought of someone else handling her toilet paper.

"Never in my life have I experienced anything like this," she said. "I walked toward a stall, and a bathroom attendant stopped me by shouting, 'Hey, mami! There's no toilet paper here,' and she whipped out a big roll for me to grab some."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/ed_off_over_coney_tp_ration_ZLxvCQtk7PMMJa8wPtA39J#ixzz1R91vhVQU

[Teatownclown]

Take it a step closer and realize even if that number is correct, the money gets entered into the economy based on a 5 year payout on a hopefully 25 year job creation which ups the velocity of exchange. At least, that would be a theory.

As far as the local economy at Coney Island, it's obviously and literally in the sh!tter like the rest of America while congress diddles. 

[nathanm]

Today I read the cost per job created by stimulus money was $278K and this story I cannot believe is accurate:

Jobs are not the only tangible positive result of stimulus. There's things like..IDK..the bridges that are pretty nice to have, also.

[guido911]

Jobs are not the only tangible positive result of stimulus. There's things like..IDK..the bridges that are pretty nice to have, also.

And there are these things:

http://johnmccain.com/images/uploads/Stimulus_Report.pdf

Personally, I want a counter proposal to Ryan's budget instead of the other side just shooting arrows. Obama did present a budget earlier this year, but the Senate rejected in 97-0.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163347-senate-votes-unanimously-against-obama-budget

[heironymouspasparagus]

How many of those (directly or indirectly as is the case of minors) are in the "paying federal income taxes" category? But answer the question, why shouldn't all of us at least pay SOMETHING, rather than just focusing on one tax policy solution?

You mean like Exxon, GE, etc??  You really think they should have to pay something??  Or how about the "entitlement babies" - the 1%'ers amongst us who currently do pay less than the rest of us?? 

Wow!  Common cause with guido!!  How did that happen??

[heironymouspasparagus]

Taxing individuals by a percentage of their earning is fair an equatable.

Capitalism has created the highest standard of living ever known on earth. The evidence is incontrovertible. The contrast between West and East Berlin is the latest demonstration, like a laboratory experiment for all to see. Yet those who are loudest in proclaiming their desire to eliminate poverty are loudest in denouncing capitalism. Man's well-being is not their goal. – Ayn Rand, Theory and Practice[/i][/color]

Ayn didn't accept the reality that we don't have capitalism.  We have capitalistic monopolism.

Gaspar,
I am very glad to hear you say that - we agree SO absolutely that it is uncanny!  And the situation we have in this country is skewed so horribly toward the 1%ers with the mechanism in place that allows them to get away with paying MUCH less in percentage than everyone else (less than 18% compared to 20 to 25% and more for everyone else).  It is a grotesque mockery of ALL principles of fairness!

Even the poorest among us are required to pay the 14% payroll tax regardless of circumstance, while the richest enjoy that 14% tax break along with all the others.  And no, the payroll tax is not, nor has been a "separate" tax since the 80's when Social Security was "fixed".  (Yeah, fixed like a male dog so it can't make puppies.)

And no, the 7 and 7 is still a 14% tax on the poorest - as every company will tell you - it is part of the "total compensation", so it is their 7% extra 'contribution'.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I certainly don't think every poor person is lazy but do you have some percentages on your claims above?

Red,
You have been here since 1971...remember how in all those years up until about 1983, the Oklahoma unemployment rate (at least as reported...) ran in the 1 to 2% range averaged over many years.  We essentially enjoyed full employment.  So, the people out of work consisted of all the categories; medical, temp layoff, permanent layoff, shut down of business, etc, etc, and just too damn lazy to get a job.  

I submit that if ALL those categories, plus others I have missed add up to only 2% of the Oklahoma population, then it would be extremely unlikely that the too-damn-lazy category would exceed 1%.  This is a first shot at a guesstimate, and I bet it would be high.  

So, 1% just too lazy to work.  That means to me that first, 1% is probably to high, and second, even that means most people want to work.  Think it is too high or too low?  Make a case!

[guido911]

You mean like Exxon, GE, etc??  You really think they should have to pay something??  Or how about the "entitlement babies" - the 1%'ers amongst us who currently do pay less than the rest of us?? 

Wow!  Common cause with guido!!  How did that happen??

Here we go again.

[Red Arrow]

Red,
You have been here since 1971...remember how in all those years up until about 1983, the Oklahoma unemployment rate (at least as reported...) ran in the 1 to 2% range averaged over many years.  

I don't remember the unemployment numbers as I was employed by the US Navy for a few years and then went back to school until 79.  I found a job in 79 which I kept until 1992.

However, that was a generation ago.  Are you certain nothing has changed in OK?  In the USA?

[Conan71]

You snark, but the vast majority of the deficit is attributable to the tax cuts and the reduced receipts due to the economy. Were it not for those two factors, we'd have a 200-300 billion gap, which is largely covered (at least as a percentage of GDP) by growth in a "normal" post WWII economy for us.

The main drivers of our projected deficits are: The tax cuts, the crappy economy (which increases costs significantly for unemployment insurance, medicaid, and all other safety net spending) , the interest on what we're projected to borrow in the next 4 years or so, and the runaway cost of health care. Baby boomer retirement is a small part of it, and other increases in expenditures aren't much relative even to the no-tax-cut deficit.

Some adjustment downward in spending is clearly necessary, even with letting the Bush tax cuts expire, but it's not anything like what Ryan wants. The reason he needs so much spending cut is the $500 billion a year in tax cuts/extra interest built in to his proposal. And yes, I think the entirety of the Bush tax cuts should be repealed, even those parts that apply to the middle class.

You simply cannot ignore the obvious.  If we didn't spend so much damn money we would not need as much revenue.  One doesn't happen without the other.  Discretionary spending sky-rocketed after Bush put his tax cuts into place.  President Obama uses a really poor precedent to justify even worse deficit spending.  Almost every single Congressman in Washington is shifting money to pet projects and to their contributors and voting base because only a million here and a million there isn't real money anyhow.  

If you have ever worked as a contractor to the federal government you might actually become better aware of how much money gets wasted on virtually every single construction project, every energy savings upgrade, every emergency repair, every procurement, etc.  I work with the government on multiple projects each year and it's shocking to see the waste that gets incorporated into their projects and how much their red tape artificially inflates the cost of their projects simply due to the "pain-in-the-donkey" factor of having to do it their way.  There's far too much administration and bureaucracy involved in each project.  

Simply raising taxes is an incredibly lazy approach to the problem.  We've got to get the government interested in the far more difficult task of cutting it's outlays along with figuring out ways to increase revenue and pay down our debt.

[we vs us]

You simply cannot ignore the obvious.  If we didn't spend so much damn money we would not need as much revenue.  One doesn't happen without the other.  Discretionary spending sky-rocketed after Bush put his tax cuts into place.  President Obama uses a really poor precedent to justify even worse deficit spending.  Almost every single Congressman in Washington is shifting money to pet projects and to their contributors and voting base because only a million here and a million there isn't real money anyhow.  

If you have ever worked as a contractor to the federal government you might actually become better aware of how much money gets wasted on virtually every single construction project, every energy savings upgrade, every emergency repair, every procurement, etc.  I work with the government on multiple projects each year and it's shocking to see the waste that gets incorporated into their projects and how much their red tape artificially inflates the cost of their projects simply due to the "pain-in-the-donkey" factor of having to do it their way.  There's far too much administration and bureaucracy involved in each project.  

Simply raising taxes is an incredibly lazy approach to the problem.  We've got to get the government interested in the far more difficult task of cutting it's outlays along with figuring out ways to increase revenue and pay down our debt.

So you finally agree with Grover? "Starve the beast?"

[Conan71]

So you finally agree with Grover? "Starve the beast?"

I don't care what Norquist thinks, he's a demagogue and he doesn't have accountability to voters.  He considers ending ethanol subsidies as a tax increase, need I say more?

In addition to tax revenue increases, there needs to be an incentive for every department head within the government to look for ways to become more efficient and cut waste.  Instead, when budget cuts are mentioned every single one says: "We can't function on less."  The paradigm needs to shift to every supervisor and every employee figuring out how they can get by on less.  That's precisely what's kept a lot of private enterprises afloat the last few years.  That's also partially behind the persistent 9% unemployment, small business has thrived on sacrifice.

I think even some of the most astute conservatives are realizing there's no way out of this mess without raising taxes.  Problem is, most of them are afraid of not having a job come Jan. 2013 if they agree to tax increases.  The message needs to change.  The message needs to be everyone sacrifices.  Everyone pays in a little more and every department and entitlement gives up a little.