Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Life, the Universe and Everything
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Life, the Universe and Everything Post comments about everything else here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-27-2011, 07:42 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default debt ceiling

This is so scary because I doubt anyone will join in my thread and then I'll feel like a big fat loser.

I just wanted to post this link because it is an amazingly non partisan podcast description of the debt ceiling and budget process. It tells, from a staffer's view, about what is involved and the process by which the these issues get decided as well as the duties of the various members of the Congress.

Warning: It's over an hour and I couldn't figure out how to pause it.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 07-27-2011 at 07:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-27-2011, 09:38 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post

Warning: It's over an hour and I couldn't figure out how to pause it.
This, more than anything about you, would explain why there aren't many people responding, if that turns out to be the case.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-28-2011, 02:07 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
This, more than anything about you, would explain why there aren't many people responding, if that turns out to be the case.
And this, if true, also explains why some of us are pissed off at liberals for spending so much time consuming opinion politics and not asking substantive questions.

If this is somehow related to the technical problem of "pausing," then it's easily paused in a separate tab in Chrome. Don't know about another browser.


Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
This is so scary because I doubt anyone will join in my thread and then I'll feel like a big fat loser.
Well, are you fat?
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-28-2011, 02:15 AM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
This, more than anything about you, would explain why there aren't many people responding, if that turns out to be the case.
edit: I'm sorry...misread, my very bad.

Last edited by look; 07-28-2011 at 09:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-28-2011, 03:53 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: debt ceiling

I'm half way through, I've made notes and an outline.
Oh yeah. I'm pissed off.
Who wants to know the truth?

EDIT: I just noticed, "somebody" rated this thread ONE star. And that's for a non-ideological interview. Just remember: if it's neutral or has facts in it, it's right wing.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.

Last edited by sugarkang; 07-28-2011 at 10:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-28-2011, 11:41 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
And this, if true, also explains why some of us are pissed off at liberals for spending so much time consuming opinion politics and not asking substantive questions.
Huh?

I didn't say "why liberals wouldn't respond"

I said "why people wouldn't respond."

This my team/your team stuff is I have to say the least charming thing about you.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-28-2011, 12:16 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
Huh?

I didn't say "why liberals wouldn't respond"

I said "why people wouldn't respond."

This my team/your team stuff is I have to say the least charming thing about you.
You misunderstood as that wasn't the charge at all. The general bhtv board members can not respond, as you say, but aren't liberals included - particularly when most of the board members are lefties?

And if the charge is that I lack charm, I'm comfortable with that. And if the sin is for what you say it is, then there are orders of magnitude dished out by liberals in comparison to what I've put out. Regardless, I promise you my response had nothing to do with assuming you said "liberals." It's the general apathy that liberals have about substantive issues that pisses me off. Just look at the fact that someone marked this thread ONE star. How childish is that? And I bet you didn't notice.

Then, there's the thread about who's to blame for the deficit. Notice I've acknowledged that it was all Bush. I mean if your car breaks down in the middle of the road, it's normal to argue about whose fault it is for why the car broke down, but at some point, don't you have to try to figure out how to fix it? What do you think the Democrats' solution to fixing the budget mess is? And who besides Obama has come up with a spending plan? Do you know how irresponsible your party is? Do you think that Democrats being silent on debt cuts is "doing their part" in fiscal management? Does "cut, cap and balance" sound like an unreasonable plan if it applied to a family budget? Then is it really insane for a government budget, in principle?
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.

Last edited by sugarkang; 07-28-2011 at 12:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-28-2011, 12:24 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
The general bhtv board members can not respond, as you say, but aren't liberals included - particularly when most of the board members are lefties?
The general bhtv members include a wide swath of people, and I don't think the majority are "lefties" in any meaningful sense.

The charge is that your eagerness to reduce everything to us vs. liberals/them, based on your personal conflicts with a very small segment of the people here is not charming. It is not that you lack charm. In general, you're more charming than average here. Just this particular aspect of your persona is kind of tiresome.

There's also the matter of the difference between teh numer of people who already have a good idea how this works, the number of people who will follow badhat's link and the number of people who will do some meaningless "I watched it" check-in here.

And you have no idea whether the person who downrated the thread is a lefty or righty or what, or why they did it, but that doesn't stop the extrapolation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Does "cut, cap and balance" sound like an unreasonable plan if it applied to a family budget? Then is it really insane for a government budget, in principle?
Absolutely forbidding the family members from getting a raise, indeed, demanding a pay cut, is completely irresponsible for a family in financial trouble, and such an insane position that no one even thinks of it in the context of the family to government analogy.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-28-2011, 12:43 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
And you have no idea whether the person who downrated the thread is a lefty or righty or what, or why they did it, but that doesn't stop the extrapolation.
Do you have any idea?

Quote:
Absolutely forbidding the family members from getting a raise, indeed, demanding a pay cut, is completely irresponsible for a family in financial trouble, and such an insane position that no one even thinks of it in the context of the family to government analogy.
Explain. The actual chance of "default" is minuscule.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-28-2011, 12:47 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Do you have any idea?

No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Explain. The actual chance of "default" is minuscule.
The issue is the analogy of family finances. I am saying that the right also doesn't approach the nation's finances in a way that is consistent with this analogy. no one would improve their family's finances by demanding a pay cut, or refusing a pay raise. But they are absolutely unwilling to raise revenue to improve the nation's finances.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-28-2011, 01:06 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
No.
You think there was any chance that it was any of the one libertarians here or any conservatives?

Quote:
The issue is the analogy of family finances. I am saying that the right also doesn't approach the nation's finances in a way that is consistent with this analogy. no one would improve their family's finances by demanding a pay cut, or refusing a pay raise. But they are absolutely unwilling to raise revenue to improve the nation's finances.
You're right about raising taxes. I might even want more progressive taxes and closing of tax loopholes than most liberals here. But the reality is that for the past two months I've been fighting liberals about how we don't have money and it's only been recently that people have gone quiet about it. Well if the left is okay with cutting now, what about the left's intransigence two months ago? If you have kids, think if you're always telling your kids "no," even if it breaks your heart to do it, but your wife just gives in to their whining and tells them "yes." You become the bad guy even though you're trying establish long term good habits in them. You don't think that would piss you off? One, your kids hate you. Two, it's bad for the kids.

The truth is that the Democrats want to cut nothing. You're right about raising the debt ceiling in the short run. GOP is just playing hardball. The ceiling will get raised no matter what. If not, I'll PayPal you $5. That's not the point. This is the time to get our fiscal house in order.

Imagine that the GOP was okay with raising the ceiling and raising taxes in the short term. Do you think the Democrats would approve "cut, cap and balance" then? They aren't talking about that at all and they haven't made the deal. This is why I can't fully get mad at the GOP. Krugman just wrote a post about how he's always followed Keynesian rules (saving for a rainy day). But this is why he's also a dick. He knows that Democrats (the constituency) wouldn't do that. And if he thinks they would, he's out of his fucking mind. How do I know? Tell me if you've ever met a liberal that said that we should cut some part of government other than defense?
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-28-2011, 01:18 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
You think there was any chance that it was any of the one libertarians here or any conservatives?
I have no frigging clue who did it and neither do you.

Maybe it was badhat, who was disappointed about the lack of substance in discussing the link. Maybe it was a flyby by operative, who disagrees with the video. Maybe it was someone who was annoyed that this turned into a Festivus Airing of Grievances session.

I have no idea. I know it wasn't me. And I assume if you asking, it wasn't you. Beyond that, no clue.

The democrats agreed to massive cuts earlier this spring. Whether they "really want to" or not, doesn't matter- Reid's proposal has massive cuts, as does Obama.The fact that they are willing to do something they don't want to do, would make them more, not less, responsible, IMO.

But the side that is grudgingly going against their preferences and doing the responsible thing (whether that's their inclination or not), while the other side refuses to do even a token of the piece of the responsible thing that's against their inclination, strikes me as the less intransigent group.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Tell me if you've ever met a liberal that said that we should cut some part of government other than defense?
Lots of liberals were against the huge expenditure that was the medicare drug benefit. Lots of liberals are against the subsidies to oil and gas. And lots are against farm subsidies (although that's an equal opportunity boondoggle- but the point is there are plenty of government expenditures that liberals are against).
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-28-2011, 01:40 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
I have no frigging clue who did it and neither do you.

Maybe it was badhat, who was disappointed about the lack of substance in discussing the link. Maybe it was a flyby by operative, who disagrees with the video. Maybe it was someone who was annoyed that this turned into a Festivus Airing of Grievances session.

I have no idea. I know it wasn't me. And I assume if you asking, it wasn't you. Beyond that, no clue.
If this were a real court, I wouldn't be assigning blame because that has real implications for freedom. I take even my adversaries' rights very seriously. However, this isn't a real court. All I'm saying is there isn't a 50-50 chance that either side did it. Could it be anyone? Of course. Likely? If you think the odds are split, I'm sorry, that's not a reasonable position to hold.

Quote:
The democrats agreed to massive cuts earlier this spring.
Millions, billions or trillions? If it's not trillions, it doesn't matter.

Quote:
But the side that is grudgingly going against their preferences and doing the responsible thing (whether that's their inclination or not), while the other side refuses to do even a token of the piece of the responsible thing that's against their inclination, strikes me as the less intransigent group.
The only person that's normal in your party is the President, himself (and Ezra Klein somewhat). Even Krugman calls him a moderate Republican and your party is pissed off at Obama. And I'm fine with spending in the short run. But show me one Democrat that's even offered huge long-term spending cuts in exchange for big spending now and revenue increase now? You know, because that's the standard Keynesian position that Krugman would take. Show me anyone besides an economist that says we should do that?

Quote:
Lots of liberals were against the huge expenditure that was the medicare drug benefit. Lots of liberals are against the subsidies to oil and gas. And lots are against farm subsidies (although that's an equal opportunity boondoggle- but the point is there are plenty of government expenditures that liberals are against).
Do these add up to millions, billions or trillions? I'll tell you for a fact that it doesn't begin with a "T."
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.

Last edited by sugarkang; 07-28-2011 at 01:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-28-2011, 01:58 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
All I'm saying is there isn't a 50-50 chance that either side did it. Could it be anyone? Of course. Likely? If you think the odds are split, I'm sorry, that's not a reasonable position to hold.

Again with the sides. I have no idea who did it, and which side they are on. What's clear is that one "side" didn't do it. One individual did it, and how it makes sense to generalize from that to "liberals" or even "liberals on this site" is beyond me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
But show me one Democrat that's even offered huge long-term spending cuts in exchange for big spending now and revenue increase now?

You mean, other than Obama, the actual head of the party, by most metrics? The guy who is NOT going to face a serious primary challenge in the next election? Other than him? And didn't the gang of six include three democrats? Alice Rivlin? nothing?

You can't pretend Obama isn't a democrat when he does something you like and forget that he's "not really a democrat" when he does something you don't like.

And, again, Trillions vs. billions in spending cuts. Zero vs. anything in terms of revenue increases.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-28-2011, 02:16 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
One individual did it, and how it makes sense to generalize from that to "liberals" or even "liberals on this site" is beyond me.
Have you seen the Gang of 12? Did you distinguish between the Tea Party and moderate Republicans? And did I get angry about it?

Quote:
You mean, other than Obama, the actual head of the party, by most metrics? The guy who is NOT going to face a serious primary challenge in the next election? Other than him? And didn't the gang of six include three democrats? Alice Rivlin? nothing?
No, no. I'm talking about the standard Keynesian plan, that I support. I want a big short term spending increase, but real cuts over the long term. Show me a Democrat that's supported that. This is Krugman's defense in the past few days, but I'm saying it means nothing when he's the only one that advocates it. He's delusional about his own party. That is, I read him. I really do. But none of the Democrats do. That is, they only internalize the parts that they want to see.

Quote:
You can't pretend Obama isn't a democrat when he does something you like and forget that he's "not really a democrat" when he does something you don't like.
What? I'm referring to this. I was giving him credit over Krugman. I've defended him multiple times on the board against the "wingnuts" if you haven't noticed. He's in my sig for 2012 if you haven't noticed.

Quote:
And, again, Trillions vs. billions in spending cuts. Zero vs. anything in terms of revenue increases.
You may have missed this, but I've already given my support for the original $4 trillion offer a week ago while discussing with whburgess. When it comes down to it, I'm 60% liberal and 40% other. I do care about fiscal matters a lot as it's the moral issue of our time. In the end, I'm actually on your side and I wish you would remember this. It just makes me mad that liberals don't bother to consider the right wing's valid points. It's fine and good to be a liberal. But Jesus man, your party is full of dickheads. You're cool, though. And I wish you wouldn't forget that we are on good terms.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.

Last edited by sugarkang; 07-28-2011 at 02:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-28-2011, 02:23 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Have you seen the Gang of 12? Did you distinguish between the Tea Party and moderate Republicans? And did I get angry about it?
Give it a rest Koch King. The one liberal you've dubbed reasonable and willing to entertain your tripe is repeatedly telling you to ease up on the labeling and cordoning. Try it, or get thee some help.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-28-2011, 02:40 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
Again with the sides. I have no idea who did it, and which side they are on. What's clear is that one "side" didn't do it. One individual did it, and how it makes sense to generalize from that to "liberals" or even "liberals on this site" is beyond me.
I've noticed you have a habit of chiming in to defend certain liberal posters. For example, when I said TS directed that 'white women have a problem with Obama' post at me. And when harry posted to Ocean in the Rebecca Walton thread, and when sk questioned Wonderment's intent in the toenails post. You've been a member since 2008, but over half your posts have been posted since about June. Do you think that maybe you don't have adequate historical context to be taking sides?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-28-2011, 02:50 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Have you seen the Gang of 12? Did you distinguish between the Tea Party and moderate Republicans? And did I get angry about it?
?? When? Where?
I make a mental distinction between republicans of various moderate degrees and tea partiers. I have no idea where you are asking about however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
No, no. I'm talking about the standard Keynesian plan, that I support. I want a big short term spending increase, but real cuts over the long term. Show me a Democrat that's supported that.
Well, we agree Obama does and that he's a democrat (perhaps the only democrat that the average voter could pick out of a lineup). But how about Kent Conrad? Or Alice Rivlin?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-28-2011, 02:53 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
I've noticed you have a habit of chiming in to defend certain liberal posters. For example, when I said TS directed that 'white women have a problem with Obama' post at me. And when harry posted to Ocean in the Rebecca Walton thread, and when sk questioned Wonderment's intent in the toenails post. You've been a member since 2008, but over half your posts have been posted since about June. Do you think that maybe you don't have adequate historical context to be taking sides?
Of course, the fact that I was a member for much longer than I was posting regularly couldn't possibly mean that I read stuff but rarely commented.

I have also chimed in to defend conservative posters (and commenters) when I thought they were being treated unfairly.

But as to the context, well, I guess I take Mr. Wright's approach. Whatever Ocean may have done to badhat in the spring of 1995, it doesn't really change the nature of what I was responding to.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-28-2011, 02:53 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
I've noticed you have a habit of chiming in to defend certain liberal posters. For example, when I said TS directed that 'white women have a problem with Obama' post at me. And when harry posted to Ocean in the Rebecca Walton thread, and when sk questioned Wonderment's intent in the toenails post. You've been a member since 2008, but over half your posts have been posted since about June. Do you think that maybe you don't have adequate historical context to be taking sides?
The hall monitor weighs in!

Although, she's unable to credit the posts where you defended sk because of her idiot-logical blinders. Her job is never ending and challenging. We're all too unappreciative. She deserves better.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-28-2011, 03:04 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
Of course, the fact that I was a member for much longer than I was posting regularly couldn't possibly mean that I read stuff but rarely commented.

I have also chimed in to defend conservative posters (and commenters) when I thought they were being treated unfairly.

But as to the context, well, I guess I take Mr. Wright's approach. Whatever Ocean may have done to badhat in the spring of 1995, it doesn't really change the nature of what I was responding to.
Then perhaps you didn't need to step in between TS and me.

My point is that you stepping in to arbitrate badly misses the underlying history.

(Wonderment is a friend; he wouldn't deny that he can throw out zings from time to time.)
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-28-2011, 03:05 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by graz View Post
The hall monitor weighs in!

Although, she's unable to credit the posts where you defended sk because of her idiot-logical blinders. Her job is never ending and challenging. We're all too unappreciative. She deserves better.
Graz, it's so generous of you to interact with duplicitous little me. You're a peach.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-28-2011, 03:17 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
Then perhaps you didn't need to step in between TS and me.
Well, no one *needs* to do anything. You certainly didn't need to direct your comment at me.

:-p
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-28-2011, 06:49 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
?? When? Where?
I make a mental distinction between republicans of various moderate degrees and tea partiers. I have no idea where you are asking about however.
You said all Republicans were blocking the deal. And I asked you to make the distinction between Tea Partiers and moderate Republicans. Then you did. It's not a big deal.

I'm saying we're both guilty of doing the same things from time to time, and so how about you cut me some slack like I cut you some slack? Particularly between us, I don't see the need to say things like "I'm not talking about you" or "except you" and the like.

Regarding the Gang of 12:




Quote:
Well, we agree Obama does and that he's a democrat (perhaps the only democrat that the average voter could pick out of a lineup). But how about Kent Conrad? Or Alice Rivlin?
See, actually I don't agree at all. And this is the liberal part of me. I actually think we need more spending right now. I said Obama has been very reasonable, but I never said that he's doing what I want. Because he is not. I want him to be the Keynesian that Krugman wants him to be. But I want some real assurances that they're going to cut for the long term.

He's actually pissing me off because he doesn't have any fucking balls. And your Democrats are doing it all wrong.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-28-2011, 06:59 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
See, actually I don't agree at all. And this is the liberal part of me. I actually think we need more spending right now. I said Obama has been very reasonable, but I never said that he's doing what I want. Because he is not. I want him to be the Keynesian that Krugman wants him to be. But I want some real assurances that they're going to cut for the long term.

He's actually pissing me off because he doesn't have any fucking balls. And your Democrats are doing it all wrong.
See, the irony is that on that, you probably agree with nearly every one of your interlocutors.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-28-2011, 07:32 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
See, the irony is that on that, you probably agree with nearly every one of your interlocutors.
No, there's no irony when I've been saying this from the very beginning. I actually read Paul Krugman; the Democrats read pieces of Paul Krugman.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-29-2011, 08:11 PM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Highly informative, but...

It was highly informative. I confess though I don't understand the point about whether something can be considered "a cut" or not depending on what baseline is used. It seems like they were conflating subjects.

Let's say we were talking about the trend in the size of the state. Then it does seem relevant what baseline is used to calculate if a President is increasing or decreasing the size of the state. The analogy used in the podcast about a store advertising a % sale that raised their prices the day before is valid.

But when talking about deficits & debt...

State expenditures through time is a curve. Likewise projected state revenue is a curve. The deficit is a point on another curve that is constructed by subtracting every point on the revenue curve with it's corresponding point on the expenditures curve. The debt is the cumulative function (Integration) of the deficit curve. Now here is the point; All of those curves are dynamically updated with whatever the latest budget is. It doesn't matter at all if some point on the future curve is higher then another point on the curve in some arbitrary point in the past. Either way the value at some arbitrary point in the future on the debt curve goes down. You can argue there are not enough cuts. You can argue cuts in the future may not materialize. They are however all cuts! This baseline argument in bunk.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants

Last edited by Starwatcher162536; 07-29-2011 at 08:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-29-2011, 09:44 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Highly informative, but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
State expenditures through time is a curve. Likewise projected state revenue is a curve. The deficit is a point on another curve that is constructed by subtracting every point on the revenue curve with it's corresponding point on the expenditures curve. The debt is the cumulative function (Integration) of the deficit curve. Now here is the point; All of those curves are dynamically updated with whatever the latest budget is. It doesn't matter at all if some point on the future curve is higher then another point on the curve in some arbitrary point in the past. Either way the value at some arbitrary point in the future on the debt curve goes down. You can argue there are not enough cuts. You can argue cuts in the future may not materialize. They are however all cuts! This baseline argument in bunk.
I am with you in this. The future conditional gets a little out there at some point.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-31-2011, 11:59 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Highly informative, but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
It was highly informative. I confess though I don't understand the point about whether something can be considered "a cut" or not depending on what baseline is used. It seems like they were conflating subjects.
Yeah it's pretty hard to understand. Let Mark Steyn and Nancy Pelosi explain it all to you:

It's always good to have things explained in terms we simpletons can understand. After a while, all the stuff about debt-to-GDP ratio and CBO alternative baseline scenarios starts to give you a bit of a headache, so we should be grateful to the House Minority Leader for putting it in layman's terms: What's at stake is "life on this planet as we know it today." So, if right now you're living anywhere in the general vicinity of this planet, it's good to know Nancy's in there pitching for you.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-01-2011, 05:38 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: debt ceiling

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
The truth is that the Democrats want to cut nothing. You're right about raising the debt ceiling in the short run. GOP is just playing hardball. The ceiling will get raised no matter what. If not, I'll PayPal you $5.
Oh jeebus. Who saw this coming?

Nikkei up on the U.S. debt deal.
A Democrat who works in finance explains why she's angry with Democrats.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.