The Republican Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

Trillions in spending once you factor in everything didn't do anything, and I am supposed to believe that trillions more will?

Oh stop it, I know you disagree with Balta on... everything... but this time you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Of course tax increases have an effect, as do tax cuts, as do increases or decreases in government spending. So let's put aside the silliness about none of this having any effect, or that somehow tax cuts in the stimulus failed but reverting off part of the cuts would be a disaster.

 

[southsider2k5]

Oh stop it, I know you disagree with Balta on... everything... but this time you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Of course tax increases have an effect, as do tax cuts, as do increases or decreases in government spending. So let's put aside the silliness about none of this having any effect, or that somehow tax cuts in the stimulus failed but reverting off part of the cuts would be a disaster.

 

The biggest problem with writing off the tax cuts as non-productive is that they were in large part counteracted by the states and municipalities increasing taxes and fees on everything under the sun. Most people haven't seen it.

[Balta1701]

The biggest problem with writing off the tax cuts as non-productive is that they were in large part counteracted by the states and municipalities increasing taxes and fees on everything under the sun. Most people haven't seen it.

Which, of course, argues for deficit spending at the federal level and much larger assistance to states and local governments (which was in the stimulus but was cut back a lot in the final agreement).

 

A lot of people also saw those tax cuts, but like me, have about $3-$4 k extra sitting in the bank because there's little compelling reason to spend it right now.

[StrangeSox]

Which, of course, argues for deficit spending at the federal level and much larger assistance to states and local governments (which was in the stimulus but was cut back a lot in the final agreement).

 

A lot of people also saw those tax cuts, but like me, have about $3-$4 k extra sitting in the bank because there's little compelling reason to spend it right now.

iPad2

[southsider2k5]

Which, of course, argues for deficit spending at the federal level and much larger assistance to states and local governments (which was in the stimulus but was cut back a lot in the final agreement).

 

A lot of people also saw those tax cuts, but like me, have about $3-$4 k extra sitting in the bank because there's little compelling reason to spend it right now.

 

We are deficit spending to the tune of a trillion and a half a year. That is without the trillions that the fed has pushed into the economy and isn't on the books in the deficit. In reality our GDP vs debt is probably close to Greek levels if we actually put that fed spending on the books. It isn't like we are running a surplus here.

[StrangeSox]

The biggest problem with writing off the tax cuts as non-productive is that they were in large part counteracted by the states and municipalities increasing taxes and fees on everything under the sun. Most people haven't seen it.

 

What about the original Bush tax cuts that were supposed to usher in economic golden times?

[southsider2k5]

What about the original Bush tax cuts that were supposed to usher in economic golden times?

 

You mean back when we had low unemployment and a solid economy?

[Balta1701]

We are deficit spending to the tune of a trillion and a half a year. That is without the trillions that the fed has pushed into the economy and isn't on the books in the deficit. In reality our GDP vs debt is probably close to Greek levels if we actually put that fed spending on the books. It isn't like we are running a surplus here.

No, we're no where close to Greek levels, they're at 167% and we're still below 100%, the amount the fed has dumped in still gets counted by all the debt clocks, and furthermore, since we have our own currency whether or not we're at Greek levels matters less.

[southsider2k5]

No, we're no where close to Greek levels, they're at 167% and we're still below 100%, the amount the fed has dumped in still gets counted by all the debt clocks, and furthermore, since we have our own currency whether or not we're at Greek levels matters less.

 

It doesn't get counted. No one has any idea exactly how much it is.

[Balta1701]

It doesn't get counted. No one has any idea exactly how much it is.

Yes it does. We don't know how much of the debt the Fed has bought, but the number of bonds that the Treasury department has sold off is the number that gets reported. There's no secret path for the Fed to send money to the Treasury, they do it by buying up U.S. bonds.

[NorthSideSox72]

You mean back when we had low unemployment and a solid economy?

I would contend that the economy "recovery" in the 2003-2006 time period was created mostly by three unsustainable forces: the housing bubble, too-free lending and the unregulated trade on debt. They created a hollow recovery that did not actually help the long term economy via industry or long term job growth. I give Bush near-zero credit for that "recovery", and in fact blame him (a little), Congress and the regulatory agencies for letting much of that get out of control, causing this much worse recession.

 

The 2003-2006/7 economy was not at all solid, it was a ticking time bomb. The 90's run-up also bubbled, but, it had some degree of fundamental strength as well, which is why it was such a dramatic run-up.

 

Of course, I don't necessarily credit Clinton for that either, he only played a small part.

 

[southsider2k5]

Yes it does. We don't know how much of the debt the Fed has bought, but the number of bonds that the Treasury department has sold off is the number that gets reported. There's no secret path for the Fed to send money to the Treasury, they do it by buying up U.S. bonds.

 

The Feds numbers are not on the books. It is why they are controversial in the first place.

[Jenksismyhero]

The biggest problem with writing off the tax cuts as non-productive is that they were in large part counteracted by the states and municipalities increasing taxes and fees on everything under the sun. Most people haven't seen it.

 

Like my property taxes

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

The Feds numbers are not on the books. It is why they are controversial in the first place.

But the Treasury's are. That's what gets counted as the "national Debt".

 

I don't care how much the Fed is holding, I really don't. The only way it matters is if they buy up so much that they wind up pushing inflation, which clearly, they have not done.

[southsider2k5]

I would contend that the economy "recovery" in the 2003-2006 time period was created mostly by three unsustainable forces: the housing bubble, too-free lending and the unregulated trade on debt. They created a hollow recovery that did not actually help the long term economy via industry or long term job growth. I give Bush near-zero credit for that "recovery", and in fact blame him (a little), Congress and the regulatory agencies for letting much of that get out of control, causing this much worse recession.

 

The 2003-2006/7 economy was not at all solid, it was a ticking time bomb. The 90's run-up also bubbled, but, it had some degree of fundamental strength as well, which is why it was such a dramatic run-up.

 

Of course, I don't necessarily credit Clinton for that either, he only played a small part.

 

Two of those three things still exist, probably stronger than they did in the 00's.

[StrangeSox]

You mean back when we had low unemployment and a solid economy?

you mean a giant bubble and still-huge deficits?

[Balta1701]

you mean a giant bubble and still-huge deficits?

To be fair...$400 billion deficits being called huge would require a different word be applied to $1.2 trillion deficits.

[southsider2k5]

But the Treasury's are. That's what gets counted as the "national Debt".

 

I don't care how much the Fed is holding, I really don't. The only way it matters is if they buy up so much that they wind up pushing inflation, which clearly, they have not done.

 

If that were true, there would be no one wondering what the Fed has spent.

[southsider2k5]

you mean a giant bubble and still-huge deficits?

 

So what exactly would you term this deficit as?

[NorthSideSox72]

Two of those three things still exist, probably stronger than they did in the 00's.

Two? You can't be serious. Housing is certainly no bubble now, and lending is still very restrictive for any real purpose. The unregulated trade on debt, I will grant you is only partially addressed, and still represents a real danger.

 

[southsider2k5]

Two? You can't be serious. Housing is certainly no bubble now, and lending is still very restrictive for any real purpose. The unregulated trade on debt, I will grant you is only partially addressed, and still represents a real danger.

 

We have a zero national interest rate and are lending money at a ridiculous rate, way more than we have ever seen in our history.

[Balta1701]

If that were true, there would be no one wondering what the Fed has spent.

Yes there would be. Because if the Treasury had issued $15 trillion in total debt, the Fed could be holding $8 trillion or the fed could be holding $2 trillion.

 

It's also not necessarily the Fed's purchase of treasuries that have people worried, it's the Fed's dumping of dollars onto private companies and taking Mortgage-backed securities onto its books.

[southsider2k5]

Yes there would be. Because if the Treasury had issued $15 trillion in total debt, the Fed could be holding $8 trillion or the fed could be holding $2 trillion.

 

It's also not necessarily the Fed's purchase of treasuries that have people worried, it's the Fed's dumping of dollars onto private companies and taking Mortgage-backed securities onto its books.

 

It would take literally minutes to subtract out other sources and be left with the Fed's numbers.

[Balta1701]

It would take literally minutes to subtract out other sources and be left with the Fed's numbers.

You say that as though it isn't done.

The Federal Reserve has surpassed China as the leading holder of US Treasury securities even though it has yet to reach the halfway mark in its latest round of quantitative easing, according to official figures.

 

According to the most recent US Treasury data on foreign holders of US government paper, China holds $896bn and Japan owns $877bn.

 

[southsider2k5]

You say that as though it isn't done.

 

Which proves that number isn't all inclusive. The Fed has way more than a trillion on its books now. The QEs alone were way bigger than that.