Government Shutdown on the clock thread

[Texsox]

So no answer?

 

Can we collect more in taxes?

Can we spend less?

Or is the size of the deficit the most important thing?

Should the deficit be higher?

Should it be higher by spending more or collecting less?

[Balta1701]

So no answer?

 

Can we collect more in taxes?

Can we spend less?

Or is the size of the deficit the most important thing?

Should the deficit be higher?

Should it be higher by spending more or collecting less?

1. Yes we could, but doing so will contribute to the weak job market.

2. We definitely could but every time we do so it's putting people out of work.

3. It's flatly unimportant right now. I will worry about how to deal with that when we solve the immediate problem.

4. Yes. Hell, the Fed Chair has spent the last 5 years asking Congress every time he goes there to provide more fiscal support to the economy.

5. It should have been both, but that ship has sailed, we made the call years ago to keep this level of unemployment and focus on the deficit (which we've cut in half through policies already enacted).

[southsider2k5]

Here's the CBO number which can be compared to the St. Louis Fed number I showed earlier. In the early 1990's the debt interest/GDP ratio was about 3%. The CBO projects that it'll take over 10 years to get to that number again (and that's assuming accelerating economic expansion, which they continue to be wrong about).

The fact that it is becoming a problem in the mid-2020's means, as I keep saying, it is not being driven by the short-term budget situation in the least, it is being driven by that brown line; spending on health care, which is assumed to keep going up at 7% a year, a rate that by everyone's agreement is simply unsustainable.

 

However, as the CBO has noted as well, the rate of health care cost increases is dramatically beneath their previous estimates since the PPACA was passed; medicare costs only grew at 3% last year. This has already improved the budgetary situation in the decade of the 2020's by about a trillion dollars. It's not enough to bring the system fully into balance yet because the projections still assume costs will resume growing at 7-8% a year, but we can already see the impact in the form of hundreds of billions of dollars of improvement to the budgetary estimates.

 

Which is exactly what worrying about long term interest payments and deficits 10+ years from now has helped create; a job market that has been stagnant for 3+ years.

 

I would love to see what the CBO projections in 2005 looked like for 2013.

[Balta1701]

I would love to see what the CBO projections in 2005 looked like for 2013.

A great illustration of why we should focus on the problem at hand now, the continuing unemployment crisis and failure to recover from the 08 crash, rather than focusing on problems that might be the case 15 years from now as we have been.

[southsider2k5]

A great illustration of why we should focus on the problem at hand now, the continuing unemployment crisis and failure to recover from the 08 crash, rather than focusing on problems that might be the case 15 years from now as we have been.

 

Let me put it this way, when was the last time the CBO was under-optimistic?

[Balta1701]

Let me put it this way, when was the last time the CBO was under-optimistic?

About which term?

 

The specific subject here was "interest paid on the national debt". I'd imagine that their 2005 estimates way-over-shot the actual amount paid right now.

[NorthSideSox72]

A great illustration of why we should focus on the problem at hand now, the continuing unemployment crisis and failure to recover from the 08 crash, rather than focusing on problems that might be the case 15 years from now as we have been.

The timeline for problems is a lot shorter than 15 years. And besides, while these efforts do in some ways conflict, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking at both the short AND long term. In fact I think that is absolutely necessary.

 

[Balta1701]

The timeline for problems is a lot shorter than 15 years. And besides, while these efforts do in some ways conflict, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking at both the short AND long term. In fact I think that is absolutely necessary.

Which is why we passed a fairly large health care law with a number of cost-control measures that will hopefully at least start to fix by far the largest part of the long-term deficit.

 

Now we need to stop ignoring the unemployment part.

[NorthSideSox72]

Which is why we passed a fairly large health care law with a number of cost-control measures that will hopefully at least start to fix by far the largest part of the long-term deficit.

 

Now we need to stop ignoring the unemployment part.

No need for the melodrama. The health care law has good and bad in it, but yes, some features of it should help reduce those healthcare costs. And yes, ObamaCo has done a few small things to manage costs. But just as there is a lot that can be done to help the employment figures, there is also a lot that can be done to help reduce fiscal risks in the future.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Of course, it might have made more sense to focus on job creation and economy recovery BEFORE concentrating on a terrible health care law that will probably cost more in the long run.

[StrangeSox]

The ARRA passed about a year ahead of the PPACA?

[cabiness42]

Yay, it looks like there will not be 'Shutdown: Part II."

 

House passed a 2-year budget bill 332-94. A lot of 'Tea Party' Republicans voted for this bill, despite the very vocal objection of the most powerful Tea Party PACs, so it appears that the first shutdown really did damage the hold that the Tea Party has on Congress.

[pettie4sox]

I figured they'd get in line sooner or later. Nobody cares for those nutjobs except the other nutjobs.

[cabiness42]

Senate passed the cloture motion on the Ryan/Murray budget 67-33. Extremely unlikely that 18 Senators flip and vote against final passage, so this really does seem to be an end to the threat of another shutdown.

[cabiness42]

Never imagined I'd have to go dig this thread up, but here we go again . . .

[cabiness42]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/10...tives-peel-off/

 

The measure is laced with trade-offs. Democrats won budget increases for the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Republicans won a big cut to the Internal Revenue Service budget and a smaller cut to the Environmental Protection Agency.

 

Democrats blocked the most ambitious attempts by Republicans to thwart Obama administration regulations on greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming, and on clean water; Republicans won a new concession exempting many agricultural projects from clean water rules and an old one boosting exports of coal mine equipment.

 

The compromise spending bill would permit virtually the entire government to operate normally through the Sept. 30, 2015, end of the fiscal year, with the exception of the Homeland Security Department.

[StrangeSox]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-p...-to/?tid=pm_pop

 

DODD-FRANK:

Democrats agreed to make some of the biggest changes yet to the 2010 financial regulatory reforms. In a deal sought by Republicans, the bill would reverse Dodd-Frank requirements that banks "push out" some of derivatives trading into separate entities not backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporations. Ever since being enacted, banks have been pushing to reverse the change. Now, the rules would go back to the way they used to be. But in exchange, Democrats say they secured more money for the enforcement budgets at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

sigh

 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:

The agency gets $8.1 billion, down $60 million from the last fiscal year. The agency's budget has been slashed by $2.2 billion, or 21 percent, since fiscal 2010, according to GOP aides. The cuts mean that EPA will have to reduce its staffing to the lowest levels since 1989.

 

ugh

 

FEDERAL WORKER PAY (AND CONFERENCES):

The bill allows a 1 percent pay raise ordered by Obama to take effect in January. And the legacy of embarrassing spending scandals at federal agencies persist as Congress once again banned or put limits on certain conferences, official travel and some employee awards.

 

I'm sure both my dad and HH will be out spending lavishly now!

 

LIGHT BULBS:

The bill once again prohibits new standards that would ban the use of cheaper, less energy efficient incandescent bulbs. The proposal was first introduced and set in motion by the Bush administration, but the Obama White House allowed the change to continue, despite sustained consumer demand for older bulbs.

 

How. How is this still a thing.

 

PENSIONS:

For the first time, the benefits of current retirees could be severely cut, part of an effort to save some of the nation’s most distressed pension plans. The change would alter 40 years of federal law and could affect millions of workers, many of them part of a shrinking corps of middle-income employees in businesses such as trucking, construction and supermarkets. Read more on this here.

 

This sounds horrible.

 

SAGE-GROUSE:

In a victory for the GOP, the bill would ban the Fish and Wildlife Service from adding the rare bird found in several Western states to the Endangered Species List. Republicans argue that adding the bird to the list "would have severe economic consequences on Western states and the nation’s efforts to become energy independent." But there's also $15 million for the Bureau of Land Management to conserve sage-grouse habitats.

 

Republicans seem to actively hate nature.

[Y2HH]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-p...-to/?tid=pm_pop

 

 

 

sigh

 

 

 

ugh

 

 

 

I'm sure both my dad and HH will be out spending lavishly now!

 

 

 

How. How is this still a thing.

 

 

 

This sounds horrible.

 

 

 

Republicans seem to actively hate nature.

 

You do realize you can nitpick ANY bill passed in the last 30 years, whether written by Democrats or Republicans in this exact manner.

 

[Balta1701]

You do realize you can nitpick ANY bill passed in the last 30 years, whether written by Democrats or Republicans in this exact manner.

And we should.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just want to point out on the light bulb thing, there are still some devices that simply don't work with CFL's or LED's yet. Like my garage door opener/motor light housing for example. I'd rather not see incandescent bulbs outright banned yet - better to continue helping the transition happen naturally in the business world by continuing incentive programs from utilities (let them write them off in some way), and helping US manufacturers with the cost of build on bulbs. The transition is happening anyway, no need to get into some sort of panic.

 

And we should.

 

I do agree with this.

 

[StrangeSox]

And we should.

Yeah, I am sure we can all find things we don't like in any budget bill. I don't see what's wrong with pointing some of those out.

[Y2HH]

Yeah, I am sure we can all find things we don't like in any budget bill. I don't see what's wrong with pointing some of those out.

 

Just never saw you pointing them out when the Democrats were crafting them is all.

[StrangeSox]

Just never saw you pointing them out when the Democrats were crafting them is all.

This bill is the result of the current Congress, which has a Democratic Senate and a Republican House.

[Y2HH]

This bill is the result of the current Congress, which has a Democratic Senate and a Republican House.

 

I stand corrected, Wyatt. You're an oak.

[Balta1701]

Just want to point out on the light bulb thing, there are still some devices that simply don't work with CFL's or LED's yet. Like my garage door opener/motor light housing for example. I'd rather not see incandescent bulbs outright banned yet - better to continue helping the transition happen naturally in the business world by continuing incentive programs from utilities (let them write them off in some way), and helping US manufacturers with the cost of build on bulbs. The transition is happening anyway, no need to get into some sort of panic.

The lightbulb efficiency standards have actually led to the development of incandescent bulbs that are substantially more efficient than they otherwise would have been and actually meet the efficiency standards. One of those should work just fine in those systems.

 

And to stress, literally the #1 reason why those were developed was to meet the new standards/avoid having those bulb types be phased out. There would have been very little reason for companies to invest in developing them had it not been for that government interference.