Slashdot Mirror


Debt Deal Reached

Global markets are on the rise in response to a deal between President Obama and congressional Republicans on the debt. The deal would cut more than $2 trillion from federal spending over a decade. However, most economists think this isn't enough and does not remove the threat that the nation's AAA credit rating could be downgraded.

34 of 844 comments (clear)

  1. Could Someone Help Me Out With This? by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As an engineer that uses math on a daily basis, the more I read about the rising debt the more confused I am. It seems that a strategy of Reagan's was to take in less money in taxes than the government spends and this strategy has been intact for far too long. So if you're trying to balance a budget, how in the hell do you justify spending way more money than you take in? Either you have to raise taxes or cut spending. It's pretty clear that Clinton was the only president to break from this norm since then and now we're shocked that our debt crises get worse and worse every term?

    I don't spend more money than I take in. I see commercials for people like that who have credit card debt because they couldn't do some simple balancing and see that they were spending more than they made. Why on Earth are we still implementing tax cuts and deficit spending?! Have we given up any hope of ever getting out of the red as a country?

    This is very basic math ... so basic that when you're taught how to balance a checkbook in high school, they don't even teach it in Math class. It's a general life skill and our country is failing at life in general.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This? by gmuslera · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why on Earth are we still implementing tax cuts and deficit spending?!

      Because the ones that financed the campaign of the current (and past, for many years) government said so. That's the problem with using math, ab absurdum proofs always go wrong in politics.

    2. Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This? by risom · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is very basic math ... so basic that when you're taught how to balance a checkbook in high school, they don't even teach it in Math class. It's a general life skill and our country is failing at life in general.

      Yes, but when using your checkbook you take the value of the currency as a given. A state has (limited) control over the value of it's currency (by limiting or expanding the available sum of printed money), thereby it also has (again, limited) control over the value of it's own dept. Now you might say that playing with the value of the currency can have complex consequences, and that would be true. Still, macro economics work differently than micro economics.

    3. Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why on Earth are we still implementing tax cuts and deficit spending?

      Well.

      *cough*

      Let me lay out the situation as best I understand it.

      DEMOCRATS: Let's cut some spending (BUT NOT MEDICARE/MEDICAID/SOCIAL SECURITY) and raise taxes on the rich.
      REPUBLICANS: Let's cut MORE spending, but leave taxes as is (OR LOWER THEM. THAT'D BE COOL TOO)
      TEA PARTY: Cut spending. DON'T TOUCH TAXES UNLESS YOU'RE CUTTING THEM. YOU'RE CUTTING MY GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS THAT I BENEFIT OFF OF? WHAT THE FUCK MATE?

      Sane Politician: Wait, didn't you say to cut spending?

      TEA PARTY: Yes, but NOT the things we benefit off of.

      Sane Politician: Uh.

      As for raising the debt ceiling, we're like...the only country that has a debt ceiling that limits how much we can borrow. So that results in craziness every few years.

      And yes, this time around the really hellhole was caused by the hardliner Tea Party senators. The normal Republicans wanted to get this shit done sooner, and the Dems were like, "fuckall we'll bend over backwards to get this shit through. Shit, we want to raise taxes, but FUCK taxes so we can get this through NOW." The Tea Party was, essentially, fanatically fighting for an ideology that doesn't really work in the real world.

      If you want them to raise taxes, get more Dems in office. They may be just as crooked as the Republicans, but at least they come off as willing to raise taxes.

      And no, shut up about the laffer curve. Assuming it works, and IF we're at the right side of the laffer curve, explain to me why the economy went up like a rocket back when tax rates were higher than the shithole of an economy we have now.

    4. Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This? by RingDev · · Score: 5, Interesting

      After Reagan's huge tax cut he proceeded to raise taxes almost a dozen times to make up for it and STILL ran the government at such a bloated rate of growth he blew every dime of the economy growth for generations to come. Reagan was an interesting president for sure, and there's lots we can learn from him, but really, there is a lot of revisionist history about what he did in his two terms.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    5. Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This? by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So if you're trying to balance a budget ...

      That's where you went wrong in your analysis. The Republican Party has absolutely no interest in balancing the budget. This has been shown time and time again: For instance, when George W Bush took office with a slight budget surplus if you count Social Security (which you probably shouldn't), he immediately cut taxes to put the budget in a hole.

      Based solely on their actions when in power, this is what the Republican Party really believes in:
      1. Cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans. That's why, if you're somebody who makes their living off of investments, you pay a 15% capital gains tax, whereas if you make considerably less by working you pay a 25% income tax and a 12% FICA tax. Thanks to their actions, the tax rates are the lowest they've been since at least the 1940's.
      2. Neutering or completely getting rid of any government agency that could serve as a check on corporate power. They would love to live in a world without the EPA, OSHA, MSHA, NLRB, or the SEC.
      3. Getting rid of anything that smacks of aid to the poor and downtrodden. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, TANF, food stamps, housing assistance, and minimum wages all come under that category.
      4. Expanding the 'national security' portion of government as much as possible, preferably with large no-bid contracts for their family, friends and business associates. They like being able to spy on anybody and everybody, starting wars that they don't need to start, and taking over Latin American countries with little or no military forces to speak of.

      I'm no supporter of Democrats either, but one of the biggest myths out there is the idea that the Republicans want to balance the budget when it's abundantly clear they have no intention of doing so.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    6. Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This? by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think giving up military bases could be a profitable adventure. I used to live in Kadena AFB in Japan (I was a military brat), and the bases take up like 10-20% of the island we were on IIRC. Lawns are unheard of off base, but yet many of us were housed in small homes with lawns. I'm willing to bet Japanese investors would go crazy over that land (so long as the US military hasn't massively polluted it; that's been known to happen).

      --
      SSC
    7. Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This? by visualight · · Score: 4, Interesting

      C) Work to privatize social security, but those who've paid in need to get the money that was taken from them by force and promised to them. If the government wants to run social security, make it a voluntary program.

      No way in hell will that happen and only a fool or a thief would want that to happen. All you'll end up with is an entire generation living "on the streets" and a handful of super-enriched bankers. It was a disaster for Brazil and it would be one for us too.

      Not to mention the fact that social security is what opened the door to taxing wages on labor. It is the definition of evil to take that step and then a few generations laters say "well, we're not going to deliver on our promise of a pension but we're still going to take 30% of your check every week." Don't want Social Security? Then figure out a way to run the government without taxing wages.

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    8. Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Same individuals who paid into social security for all their working careers? The same social security fund which is actually quite liquid but the politicos keep draining it?

      If social security gets cut off, refund all money paid into it plus interest to every taxpayer who isn't drawing from it.

    9. Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Work to privatize social security"

      Dear god, no, no and thrice no

      social care of those less fortunate souls who cannot afford to live without financial help is the moral responsibility of society as a whole (i.e the government as the body that represents the country) Otherwise the streets would be ovverun with homeless, people.

      Would you really let your neighbour die through lack of food or medicines because they have no money and the government has no social security program? If so you;re a heartless bastard,

      social care is an obligation, not something that government should abolish responsibility for,

    10. Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not to mention the fact that social security is what opened the door to taxing wages on labor.

      This is just factually incorrect. Income tax first began in 1862 to fund the Civil War; and since the 16th amendment in 1916 it's been a permanent part of the landscape. Social security was enacted in 1935. While SS may have paved the way for direct wage/payroll withholdings, income tax was an established fact well before that point.

      It is the definition of evil to take that step and then a few generations laters say "well, we're not going to deliver on our promise of a pension but we're still going to take 30% of your check every week." Don't want Social Security? Then figure out a way to run the government without taxing wages.

      First, that's a damned weird definition of evil. Second, 30% of your check isn't collected to guarantee a pension - 4.2% of it is. The rest of it is collected to fund local, state, federal governments and medicare.

    11. Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This? by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

      So if you're trying to balance a budget, how in the hell do you justify spending way more money than you take in?

      I'll take a crack at this.

      If you evaluated private enterprise budgets the same way you did the federal budget, you'd see that it's quite common for even profitable [note 1] companies to lay out more cash than they take in, by issuing corporate bonds. If you step back and look at the actual financial effect of issuing a bond on a corporation, you'd see that what it does is allow the corporation to spend more cash than its operations can raise. Why would they want to do that? Because restricting their spending to what they take in also restricts their ability to grow.

      If you are an engineer, you'll recognize this as an optimization problem. The corporation can always grow more by outlaying more cash, but its supply of cash is limited. So it obtains more cash by issuing securities to be paid out from future, expanded revenues. But there is a point where the interest burden on the debt assumed exceeds the amount of growth generated. That determines the point at which you stop borrowing. If businesses were deterministic (which they aren't), there'd be an equation of corporate value as a function of cash outlay that takes into account the present value of growth against interest costs.

      Of course this is a gross simplification, of course, but the financial principle is the same. You manage your cash outlays and borrowing in such a way that (a) you maximize net growth while (b) being able to meet your current obligations.

      I don't spend more money than I take in.

      Didn't take a student loan, did you? Nor a loan for a house?

      The problem with people and credit cards (or bad mortgages) isn't taking on debt per se, but taking on debt to obtain things of no long term value or dubious long term value. Let's take an eighteen year-old who wants to be an engineer. Would it make sense for him to work for ten or fifteen years at a low wage job so he could pay his way through college without borrowing? You'd be a fool to advise that, because the education would add so much to his value as an income generating concern that a loan at reasonable interest rates is a financial no-brainer.

      So here's the takeaway lesson: don't worry about borrowing; worry about stupid and pointless spending. It's very easy to prove that the smart money doesn't think that the US has a borrowing problem, by looking at the credit rating of US Treasury securities. Up until now, that has been viewed as the safest possible investment, and ironically if our credit rating drops it will be *because* we aren't willing to borrow money to meet our current expenses, the way any well-run business would.

      Of course, there is a psychological link between easy borrowing and stupid spending, but the problem is still stupid spending. Credit is buying money, and credit card interest is stupid spending because the interest rates are high.

      note 1 : "profit" and "positive cash flow" are different things altogether, but as individuals our wealth is usually so insignificant that we can conflate them as a first approximation because we aren't that far, in financial terms, from living hand-to-mouth. The situation for a largish business is different. Companies might well borrow money and pay dividends in the same quarter, and it would raise no eyebrows.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This? by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There even is a reason for that: currently, the problem is that all those people with lots of money try to accumulate it.

      Because the economy is bad and investing it is a sure loser. So better accumulate, just in case.

      The result is that there are no investments, no hiring. And the economy stays bad.

      If you tax a lot, then there is a) an incentive to have the money spent, b) the government can always build more infrastructure, give allowances to the jobless, which helps the economy. Of course, there is the added benefit that the society becomes more equal, and that the interests of everyone become more aligned, which makes for saner politics.

      BTW, the rates you are citing are the marginal rates. It works like that: your first x dollars are not taxed. The next x are taxed at some rate, then the next at a higher rate, and so on until you reach the maximum rate.

    13. Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This? by couchslug · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You ignore history.

      Society pre-Social Security was LITERALLY Dickensian! Chuck didn't make up the conditions he wrote about.

      Relying on charity to SCALE is naive to the point of being not sane.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    14. Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This? by DavidTC · · Score: 4, Informative

      And the third, sane way is for Congress to authorize borrowing the money to spend at the same time they authorize spending the money.

      That's what other people mean when they say other countries don't have a 'debt ceiling'. In other countries, just like the US, the legislature is required to authorized all spending and all borrowing. The legislative branch always creates the budget, and the ability to borrow. There is no government where the chief executive can decide to randomly spend money, and no government when he can randomly borrow money to do so.

      However, in other countries, they just do those two things at the same fucking time. As they pass a budget, they authorize the borrowing of money to cover that budget, and hence do not have idiotic votes like this one.

      We, however, have insanely decided to pass impossible bills, where we say we are going to spend $X on something, without the ability to do so...and then come along later to make say 'And we we can borrow the money when we need it', making our budget actually possible. No other country is this goddamn stupid.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  2. great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Debtor says, "I would like to borrow some money."
    Creditor says, "And what do you owe now?"
    Debtor: "So much I need at least 145 years to pay it back."
    Creditor: "Tell me your plan."
    Debtor: "I have no plan to pay it back. I will only pay the
    interest."
    Creditor: "You want your kids, grand kids, and great grand kids to pay it back?"
    Debtor: "It will be very painful for me not to get the loan. I can print up some money if I need to."
    Creditor: "You have no plan."
    Debtor: "I am working on a plan to borrow a little less than usual - 10% less."
    Creditor: "You have no plan to balance the budget, you plan only to keep borrowing, you print up money, you dump your debt on 3 future generations and counting, and you want us to believe you have integrity, and are worthy of credit and trust?"
    Debtor: "I want what I want when I want it, and I want it right now.
    Give me the loan or I will print the money!"

  3. Ponzi Scheme by igreaterthanu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can someone explain to me why US Treasuries should be rated AAA in the first place?

    Money is paid out to investors out of new investor's money, and the cycle continues. Last time I checked, this is also known as a Ponzi Scheme and it is inevitable that it eventually collapses.

    These are the same people who rated junk mortgage bonds as a good investment, so I'm not surprised.

    --
    I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
  4. Yet just to clarify (and speculate) by Pollux · · Score: 4, Interesting

    An agreement has been reached, but it hasn't been passed by either the house or senate yet. (It's almost certain to pass the senate, as that's where the compromise originated. The house, on the other hand...well, we'll see.)

    Yet, in the back of my mind, there was a part of me wondering whether an agreement would ever be reached. The conspiracy theory in me kept saying that there were enough rich fat cats who were paying off key congressmen to sabotage the process and make sure that no agreement was ever reached. Why? Because billions of dollars had been invested in credit-default swaps against the United States debt.

    1. Re:Yet just to clarify (and speculate) by Seumas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course they'd reach a deal. This is all theater. A bunch of showboating and grandstanding to get your name out there and get people hearing your soundbites while, in the end, accomplishing nothing and buckling. Spend two months saying "we spend too much!" and then agree to some bullshit "we agree to cut our expected spending over the next decade and count it as actually cutting costs" and call it "job done".

  5. Economist: Republicans are at fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    According to Lexington at the Economist, this whole hoopla was the Republican's fault.

    the Republican House has come up with is a non-solution (since the Senate cannot buy it) to a problem entirely of the Republicans' own making. The reason for this crisis is that instead of just raising the debt ceiling in the customary way so that the government can pay the bills Congress has already run up, the Republicans decided to point a pistol at the American economy and threaten to pull the trigger if they did not get the spending cuts they wanted.

    Also, I think it was horribly hypocritical of the Republicans to blame "entitlement programs" for the problems and never mentioning the wars and their action of lowering taxes during war time - that's what killed us. All the other reasons like Obama Care are just distractions - especially when you consider that it hasn't even taken effect yet. And why is SS on the table in this context? Bullshit!

    Yes eventually Social Security will have to be addressed but to include it in the debt ceiling was ludicrous.

    By the way, the debt ceiling allow the government to pay it's current bills and nothing more. Thinking that it allows for increasing government spending just shows how little we Americans truly understand how our government operates - myself included.

  6. Umm...duh? by HarrySquatter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The deal would cut more than $2 trillion from federal spending over a decade. However, most economists think this isn't enough and does not remove the threat that the nation's AAA credit rating could be downgraded.

    Of course it's not going to do anything substantial. You really thought the Republicans were fighting this fight truly to solve and end the debt woes of this country rather than politicking for 2012? Especially when the terms of last 3 Republican presidents accounted for $9.5 trillion of the $14 trillion this country carries? This in no way makes excuses Obama pushing even more debt on pile, but the Republicans hardly have a case for being "fiscally conservative" when Reagan, Bush and Bush Jr piled on 67% of the current debt.

    1. Re:Umm...duh? by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's hard to fix something without spending anything. The USA had a decade of almost unregulated Enron economics and the hole it fell into can't be patched for free.

  7. Re:US Credot Agency Reduce US Credit Rating? by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...There was no Federal Reserve prior to 1913 when it was created in a secret agreement by bankers and then spun to the public as a way to "regulate" and prevent abuses in the banking industry.

    However Jefferson opposed the first bank of the United States which was similar to the Federal Reserve system but yet entirely different because it didn't deal in fiat currency and money creation.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  8. Then Why Are We Seeing the Same Negative Effects? by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes, but when using your checkbook you take the value of the currency as a given. A state has (limited) control over the value of it's currency (by limiting or expanding the available sum of printed money), thereby it also has (again, limited) control over the value of it's own dept. Now you might say that playing with the value of the currency can have complex consequences, and that would be true. Still, macro economics work differently than micro economics.

    I completely agree that the analogy is not perfect (never is). What I'm asking is why, if people like Cheney said that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" then why are we seeing negative effects? Suddenly we're concerned about our AAA rating? Why should we care? Deficits don't matter, right? If you're saying that a checkbook deficit and national deficit are two completely different things then why are we seeing a threat of losing our credit rating and other money problems that are associated with drowning yourself in debt on a personal level?

    --
    My work here is dung.
  9. The best part... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The actual funny part is.... You all still think there is a difference between republicans and democrats.

    They've kept that thru all of this. It's outstanding. Best scam ever. Wish i'd thought of it.

    Keep the population arguing over D/R while we rob them all blind. It's genius!

    Oh wait... i live here too.. shit.

  10. Doesn't Cut Existing Spending by mwasham · · Score: 5, Informative

    "No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it. Instead, the cuts being discussed are illusory and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in prospective spending increases. This is akin to a family saving $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda." http://www.ronpaul2012.net/2011/08/01/ron-paul-on-the-debt-ceiling-debate-just-freeze-the-budget/

  11. Re:Then Why Are We Seeing the Same Negative Effect by KiahZero · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The potential downgrade has little to do with the amount of debt owed - rather, it is a reflection of the rating agencies' assessment of how likely we are to repay our bonds. Originally, simply raising the debt ceiling would have been sufficient to satisfy the rating agencies. However, now that Republicans have made clear that raising the debt ceiling is an opportunity to extract concessions with the nation's credit rating on the line, some of the rating agencies wanted to see that Congress was capable of reaching agreements without blowing up the world economy.

    --
    I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
  12. Re:Then Why Are We Seeing the Same Negative Effect by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Deficits don't matter as long as we keep getting loans.

    Mr. Cheney, your breakfast is ready. Now leave the computer alone and get over to the table.

    We've got your favorite today, Lucky Charms and fresh-squeezed baby's blood!

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  13. Most misleading summary EVAH by mbone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    About the only thing right about the summary is the spelling.

    The deal would cut more than $2 trillion from federal spending over a decade. However, most economists think this isn't enough and does not remove the threat that the nation's AAA credit rating could be downgraded.

    This debt crisis is entirely manufactured and artificial, the reason the country's AAA rating could be downgraded is because idiots are playing political games with our credit worthiness, and most economists think that the economy needs stimulus, not immediate cuts in spending. (Oh, and since current Congresses can't bind future Congresses, the $ 2 trillion number is also meaningless.)

  14. Re:For a revolutionary workers party! by iteyoidar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This entire debt crisis is a blatant attack on the working class. Our legislators knew what was coming back when they were busy cutting taxes for the rich and funneling billions into banks. Things will only get worse from here!

  15. Re:Then Why Are We Seeing the Same Negative Effect by skids · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let me help you get this straight: no rating agency was seriuosly suggesting downgrading the U.S. credit rating UNTIL Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling. They were a long way from worrying about whether we would have enough revenue to pay interest, even with the great recession.

    That's because there is a big difference between being in a lot of debt (federal deficit) while having a job you won't lose (taxes), and starting to tell your bank you won't be making your next credit card payment not because you don't have the lower interest credit line (HELOC) to offload the debt to, but because you simply refuse to. Once you start acting irrationally (teabagger) then you become a less reliable debt issuer (borrower).

    Is that clear enough now?

  16. Re:Then Why Are We Seeing the Same Negative Effect by KiahZero · · Score: 4, Informative

    Adding on to what skids just said, Ezra Klein did a pretty good job of summarizing S&P's movement over the past year, so I'll let him do the work:

    But what was it, precisely, that changed S&P’s view?

    In [David Beers, director of Standard Poor’s sovereign-debt division]'s telling, it was primarily politics. The growth outlook wasn’t any better than it had been in April, but it wasn’t substantially worse. Nor had the debt burden increased with unexpected speed. It was Washington that had unsettled them. The update was clear about this. The title was “United States of America ‘AAA/A-1+’ Ratings Placed On CreditWatch Negative On Rising Risk Of Policy Stalemate” — italics mine.

    “What we’re saying now,” explains Beers, “is we question whether despite all the discussions and intense negotiations, if they can’t reach this agreement, will they be able to reach it after the election?”

    In short, our debt/GDP ratio is not what's driving the potential downgrade; rather, it's the concern that we won't be able to make the decisions necessary to eventually get our debt/GDP ratio stable. As I said, the amount the US owes has little to do with our credit rating (note: not "nothing," but "little"), since we are financially able to repay our obligations and any likely new obligations for the foreseeable future.

    --
    I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
  17. You ARE crazy by swb · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sounds more than a bit far out and almost totally misinformed.

    China's military options for collecting on their debts are almost zero. Where will China export the goods it needs to keep its economy going if they start a war with the United States?

    Further, China buys US treasuries to keep their currency valuation down so that they can continue to be the low-cost contract manufacturer to the world. Without keeping their currency low, the strength of their economy would push their currency higher, making them uncompetitive as exporters and pretty much derailing the vast majority of their economy.

    A derailed economy REALLY scares the Chinese leadership, as their number one focus is maintaining order and putting a couple hundred million people out of work does not help with order.

    The US is almost totally in control when it comes to Chinese owned debt. Its denominated in our own currency. Any threat to dump it would probably be met by a US threat to simply void it. They could stop buying it, but it would have a deleterious impact on their currency valuation.

    What's missing from the recent coverage over the the debt ceiling dust up is the sentiment of many Republicans that Government is too big and by squeezing it from a revenue side they hope to stop its expansion and try to shrink it. This has been a long-term Republican strategy, but its largely been a failure. It may have slowed some expansion, but generally speaking the net outcome has been to cause deficits to be run up.

    I largely think that some tax increase is necessary. I'd personally like to see a tax increase across the board, including low-income earners. I'd eliminate the earned income tax credit that basically allows some 40 percent of the population to pay no taxes -- I don't think a reasonable tax on them would amount to much, but I think it creates a free ride which is a poor tax policy. I think it would also philosophically undermine the "40 percent of Americans pay no taxes" line which is used to refute increasing taxes on the wealthy who can frankly afford to pay them.

    More importantly, we need to have a long discussion in this country as to what's vital from the government (roads, infrastructure, safe food and medicine as a start) and what's merely nice if we can afford it.

  18. Re:Is there any hope? by dachshund · · Score: 4, Informative

    Every single Reagan budget was pronounced DOA by Tip O'Neil (D), Speaker of the House. Every single budget that Congress approved was far larger then what Reagan wanted but had no choice but to sign it.

    This is factually incorrect, and honestly it's not even hard to check. Why didn't you?

    over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion.

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but we all have to work from the same set of facts. If your political stance requires that you believe things that are not true, that doesn't necessarily mean that your politics are wrong. But it's a strong indication.

    Take some time. Familiarize yourself with the numbers. Decide what you really believe, not what other people have told you. Then resume posting to Slashdot.