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.

20 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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/
    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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,

    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    10. 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."
  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. 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.

  5. 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.
  6. 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.

  7. 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/

  8. 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.
  9. 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.)

  10. 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?