The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-15-2014, 09:05 PM   #1
SoCalBronco
Nixonite
 
SoCalBronco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Arcadia, CA
Posts: 36,616

Adopt-a-Bronco:
D.J. Williams
Default CBO: Dark skies ahead on deficit

“Deficits are projected to rise steadily and, by 2039, to push federal debt held by the public up to a percentage of GDP seen only once before in U.S. history [just after World War II],” the agency said.
Publicly held debt will reach 106 percent of GDP by 2039, according to the report, compared to the current 74 percent.
CBO attributed the growth to an aging population claiming Social Security and Medicare benefits, rising health care costs, the expansion of subsidies offered through Obamacare and interest payments on the debt projected to grow sharply as currently low interest rates return to normal levels.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...#ixzz37bFficFb

The deficit has been falling the last few years but as expected it will begin growing again and really get to unsustainable levels soon. The interest on the debt is the killer here.....it will keep rising as a percentage of the budget and that's just dead money that isn't productive but must be paid. That alone should be a reason to focus on deficit reduction. That is money that could have been used on tax cuts, defense, education, infrastructure, health spending....whatever your priority it's being pissed away because of debt.

Each side has to give a little here. Yes, tax rates on the wealthy need to go up from 35% and yes there has to be serious cost shifting on medical and health benefits to the beneficiary and away from the state. Just increasing eligibility ages doesn't generate that much savings. The answer is pain.....conservative pain and liberal pain.
__________________
Its a Hockey Night in Pittsburgh!

SoCalBronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 07-15-2014, 09:31 PM   #2
UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
Don't piss off Manning.
 
UltimateHoboW/Shotgun's Avatar
 
Time to believe!

Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Gensis Planet
Posts: 6,702

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Juwan Thompson
Default

But, but, but Obama is suppose to fix everything.
UltimateHoboW/Shotgun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2014, 09:41 PM   #3
SoCalBronco
Nixonite
 
SoCalBronco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Arcadia, CA
Posts: 36,616

Adopt-a-Bronco:
D.J. Williams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateHoboW/Shotgun View Post
But, but, but Obama is suppose to fix everything.

To his credit, he did make a serious initiative with the Grand Bargain talks. I certainly would be fine with 3 trillion in cuts in exchange for 1 trillion in new taxes. That's very reasonable. House GOP was too greedy.

3T in long term cuts would be terrific....cut, cut, cut. I wish they had accepted Obama's proposal.
__________________
Its a Hockey Night in Pittsburgh!

SoCalBronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2014, 09:59 PM   #4
UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
Don't piss off Manning.
 
UltimateHoboW/Shotgun's Avatar
 
Time to believe!

Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Gensis Planet
Posts: 6,702

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Juwan Thompson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalBronco View Post
To his credit, he did make a serious initiative with the Grand Bargain talks. I certainly would be fine with 3 trillion in cuts in exchange for 1 trillion in new taxes. That's very reasonable. House GOP was too greedy.

3T in long term cuts would be terrific....cut, cut, cut. I wish they had accepted Obama's proposal.
Dem/Lib are about to put up that BS graph "showing" reduction of the federal budget. First of all they forget to tell you is that the graph is based on "base line budgeting. Second, they forget to tell you that EVER budget that the president has submitted has been stuck down. Hell Rep. Ryan's budgets have gotten more yes votes than Obama. .

The thing is Congress will always vote for the tax increases to come first before any cuts in spending. Republican or Dem. It almost like it doesn't matter.
UltimateHoboW/Shotgun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2014, 10:06 PM   #5
SoCalBronco
Nixonite
 
SoCalBronco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Arcadia, CA
Posts: 36,616

Adopt-a-Bronco:
D.J. Williams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateHoboW/Shotgun View Post
Dem/Lib are about to put up that BS graph "showing" reduction of the federal budget. First of all they forget to tell you is that the graph is based on "base line budgeting. Second, they forget to tell you that EVER budget that the president has submitted has been stuck down. Hell Rep. Ryan's budgets have gotten more yes votes than Obama. .

The thing is Congress will always vote for the tax increases to come first before any cuts in spending. Republican or Dem. It almost like it doesn't matter.
I don't think they have to choose which goes first, Hobo. It can all be part of a budget package and when they had PayGo rules you had to figure out how to pay for something thru cuts and increased taxes in advance.

Actually another thing I'd like to see which would help deficit reduction is the cap and trade bill. We have gotten some revenues here in CA from our cap n trade law. In addition to the environmental benefits of reducing carbon, if we can slow the effects of climate change with the caps, it will probably net some savings in terms of avoiding additional federal spending to combat what will likely be a rise in weather related disasters, droughts and hurricanes.
__________________
Its a Hockey Night in Pittsburgh!

SoCalBronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2014, 10:25 PM   #6
broncocalijohn
Famer of Rings
 
broncocalijohn's Avatar
 
I said Do It!

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lake Forest, Orange County, Calif.
Posts: 22,831

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Simon Fletcher
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalBronco View Post
I don't think they have to choose which goes first, Hobo. It can all be part of a budget package and when they had PayGo rules you had to figure out how to pay for something thru cuts and increased taxes in advance.

Actually another thing I'd like to see which would help deficit reduction is the cap and trade bill. We have gotten some revenues here in CA from our cap n trade law. In addition to the environmental benefits of reducing carbon, if we can slow the effects of climate change with the caps, it will probably net some savings in terms of avoiding additional federal spending to combat what will likely be a rise in weather related disasters, droughts and hurricanes.
You kidding me with the cap n trade bs! Wait a few years when part of the whole Environmental Agencies have California paying $9 a gallon.
broncocalijohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2014, 07:17 AM   #7
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,429

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

"Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2014, 07:42 AM   #8
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,766

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalBronco View Post
To his credit, he did make a serious initiative with the Grand Bargain talks. I certainly would be fine with 3 trillion in cuts in exchange for 1 trillion in new taxes. That's very reasonable. House GOP was too greedy.

3T in long term cuts would be terrific....cut, cut, cut. I wish they had accepted Obama's proposal.
If I remember correctly, the "plan" was 1 Trillion in New Taxes now for 2-3 Trillion in Spending Cuts to be named later. (aka never)

We've been down that road before. The tax hikes happen tomorrow. The spending cuts never do.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2014, 11:11 AM   #9
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 9,487
Default

What SoCal is referring to is cuts to 'baseline spending increases'. In other words, no cuts at all.

It's not new news that the Socialist Progressive agenda has the US locked into Trillion dollar deficits from now until eternity. Obviously, to anyone with a brain, that's not sustainable.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2014, 11:14 AM   #10
BroncoLifer
Living the Dream
 
BroncoLifer's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Boulder County
Posts: 1,492

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chris Harris
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
We've been down that road before. The tax hikes happen tomorrow. The spending cuts never do.
Correct.

I've seen little evidence that the Republican party is serious about balancing the budget. And zero evidence that the Democrats are serious about it.
BroncoLifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2014, 11:15 AM   #11
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,429

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoLifer View Post
Correct.

I've seen little evidence that the Republican party is serious about balancing the budget. And zero evidence that the Democrats are serious about it.
Nobody is going to touch the military/industrial complex. Nobody.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2014, 12:14 PM   #12
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,322
Default

Everything is now predicated on near zero interest rates. (In Europe the rates recently went below zero.)

When they rise, and they will rise, the shyte will hit the fan.

MHG
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2014, 01:47 PM   #13
24champ
Livin' the dream!
 
24champ's Avatar
 
Keep Calm and Chive on

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 19,848

Adopt-a-Bronco:
DomCasual
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalBronco View Post
I don't think they have to choose which goes first, Hobo. It can all be part of a budget package and when they had PayGo rules you had to figure out how to pay for something thru cuts and increased taxes in advance.

Actually another thing I'd like to see which would help deficit reduction is the cap and trade bill. We have gotten some revenues here in CA from our cap n trade law. In addition to the environmental benefits of reducing carbon, if we can slow the effects of climate change with the caps, it will probably net some savings in terms of avoiding additional federal spending to combat what will likely be a rise in weather related disasters, droughts and hurricanes.
Cap and trade is just new taxes and will drive up energy costs for the next fifteen years.

Quote:
In fact, the price of electricity has already been rising over the last decade, jumping by double digits in many states, even after accounting for inflation. In California, residential electricity prices shot up 30% between 2006 and 2012, adjusted for inflation, according to Energy Department figures. Experts in the state's energy markets project the price could jump an additional 47% over the next 15 years.

The problems confronting the electricity system are the result of a wide range of forces: new federal regulations on toxic emissions, rules on greenhouse gases, state mandates for renewable power, technical problems at nuclear power plants and unpredictable price trends for natural gas. Even cheap hydro power is declining in some areas, particularly California, owing to the long-lasting drought.

Quote:
"If power gets too expensive, there will be a revolt," Leupp said. "If the state pushes too fast on renewables before the technology is viable, it could set back the environmental goals we all believe in at the end of the day."
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...ry.html#page=1

In addition, the price hikes will put the squeeze to the middle class in California which is declining in numbers in the state. Cap and trade was to go into effect in Australia but they just scrapped it because there was massive opposition to it once their energy bills went skyrocketing. The same will happen here soon.


Increasing the capital gains tax above 35 percent is also not the answer. Increasing taxes will only further encourage investments overseas. There's a lot of talk in this tread about more taxation, and in your post there's no talk about job creation. Creating jobs will boost revenues for the government. We currently have roughly 90 million people unemployed in this country....90 million people not working.

Quote:
The U.S. now has 90.6 million "non-institutionalized" men and women over the age of 16 not working—an all-time high. That's 10 million above the 80.5 million when President Obama took office. With total employment at 144.3 million, for every three Americans over the age of 16 earning a paycheck there are two who aren't even looking for a job. That's an ugly portent for American prosperity.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...51843080376798

We need to start making a dent in that statistic, more taxation isn't going to solve that issue and will only exacerbate the problem of revenues. We need to lower tax rates as JFK proposed, similar to the tax reduction act. Cut individual income tax rates across the board, minimally reduce the corporate tax rate and capital gains tax. Our economy is contracting and we need to be proactive to get more Americans employed and having more investments in the country.
24champ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2014, 02:46 PM   #14
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,429

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

More tax cuts for the rich just go into offshore banks. Corporations are sitting on billions. They are not reinvesting that money in the U.S. Cuts lead to less revenue, not more. More unemployment means higher deficits as the tax base shrinks.

There's a wrench in the works. How long it will take the Right Wing in Washington to figure it out is anybody's guess.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2014, 11:55 PM   #15
24champ
Livin' the dream!
 
24champ's Avatar
 
Keep Calm and Chive on

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 19,848

Adopt-a-Bronco:
DomCasual
Default

Increasing taxes or additional taxes does not increase economic growth nor does it expand the tax base.

Tax increases will only favor big businesses, because they can take the hit and wipe out smaller competitors that will struggle with tax increases. The JFK cuts have lowered unemployment and brought economic growth in subsequent years. The fact is that today's economy is contracting, 90 million plus people are not working and the recovery from the recession has been absolutely dismal.

Quote:
For economic output to ratchet up to a healthier long-term trend, economists say consumer spending must rise to its prerecession pace of about 3% growth. But five years into the recovery, high unemployment and stagnant incomes continue to restrain the American consumer.

"We just don't see consumer spending coming back to the levels that they were before," Virginia McDowell, chief executive of Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc., recently told investors at a presentation of the company's fourth-quarter earnings. "We continue to get pressured on the top line because our consumer spending habits have changed," Ms. McDowell said.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-g...ter-1403699600




"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now." JFK

Last edited by 24champ; 07-17-2014 at 11:57 PM..
24champ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2014, 07:26 AM   #16
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,766

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
More tax cuts for the rich just go into offshore banks. Corporations are sitting on billions. They are not reinvesting that money in the U.S. Cuts lead to less revenue, not more. More unemployment means higher deficits as the tax base shrinks.

There's a wrench in the works. How long it will take the Right Wing in Washington to figure it out is anybody's guess.
The million dollar question is why corporations would let money sit on the sidelines if they have opportunities to invest it and make more money with it?

I don't think the answer is "Corporations are holding back on investment 'cuz they hate Middle Class America and like to see it suffer!"

It's more likely that they see risks not worth any potential long-term reward. A government that charges the highest corporate rate in the world, while continually demonizing "evil corporations" publicly, while continually-expanding red tape and employer mandates probably doesn't scream "fertile investment opportunity" for any assets sitting on the sidelines.

When investment sits on the sidelines, we need to ask "What's wrong with us?" Because it's not them. They'd love to make more money. If they're not investing, they don't see worthwhile opportunity.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2014, 07:48 AM   #17
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,429

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
The million dollar question is why corporations would let money sit on the sidelines if they have opportunities to invest it and make more money with it?

I don't think the answer is "Corporations are holding back on investment 'cuz they hate Middle Class America and like to see it suffer!"

It's more likely that they see risks not worth any potential long-term reward. A government that charges the highest corporate rate in the world, while continually demonizing "evil corporations" publicly, while continually-expanding red tape and employer mandates probably doesn't scream "fertile investment opportunity" for any assets sitting on the sidelines.

When investment sits on the sidelines, we need to ask "What's wrong with us?" Because it's not them. They'd love to make more money. If they're not investing, they don't see worthwhile opportunity.
Sure, they can get a better tax rate in Ecuador, and what kind of environment will they be doing business in? You guys seem to think all countries are equal so global taxes should be the same. That's a ridiculous position. There are enormous benefits to doing business in America, and they're not available on the cheap.

The reason businesses are not investing in America has nothing to do with taxes, other than they don't know what they'll be from one year to the next. It has more to do with their fear that right wing radicals in Washington might shut down the government at the drop of a hat while completely blocking the governments' chances at coming up with a bipartisan tax policy that ensures stability. Face it, what the Tea Party Right brings to the table is a bunch of loose cannons. Nobody wants to invest in that kind of atmosphere. They have no idea what extremism to expect next.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2014, 08:30 AM   #18
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,766

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Sure, they can get a better tax rate in Ecuador, and what kind of environment will they be doing business in? You guys seem to think all countries are equal so global taxes should be the same. That's a ridiculous position. There are enormous benefits to doing business in America, and they're not available on the cheap.

The reason businesses are not investing in America has nothing to do with taxes, other than they don't know what they'll be from one year to the next. It has more to do with their fear that right wing radicals in Washington might shut down the government at the drop of a hat while completely blocking the governments' chances at coming up with a bipartisan tax policy that ensures stability. Face it, what the Tea Party Right brings to the table is a bunch of loose cannons. Nobody wants to invest in that kind of atmosphere. They have no idea what extremism to expect next.
Sure, sure Roh. Corporations are sitting on the sidelines with all that cash because our incompetent government might take another half-assed week's vacation.

Your view of the world is far, far too federal government-centered.

But I know, I know. Democrats would totally love to reform the Corporate tax code. And end the favors and loopholes they dole out like candy. You know, just like how they took the problem on from 2008-2010 when they had the Presidency and a Senate super-majority.

They had their chance. They failed. All they delivered was a health bill the President is too scared to implement. Now it'll be someone else's turn.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2014, 08:33 AM   #19
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,429

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Sure, sure Roh. Corporations are sitting on the sidelines with all that cash because our incompetent government might take another half-assed week's vacation.

Your view of the world is far, far too federal government-centered.

But I know, I know. Democrats would totally love to reform the Corporate tax code. And end the favors and loopholes they dole out like candy. You know, just like how they took the problem on from 2008-2010 when they had the Presidency and a Senate super-majority.

They had their chance. They failed. All they delivered was a health bill the President is too scared to implement. Now it'll be someone else's turn.
Actually, you're wrong again:

So why aren’t businesses investing? Two reasons: weak demand and absolutely zero clarity when it comes to U.S. fiscal policy. This is at the heart of why the recovery has been so slow over the past four years. A new report by Macroeconomic Advisors, prepared for the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, finds that fiscal policy uncertainty has cost the U.S. 900,000 jobs since 2009 and shaved 0.3 percenrtage points from economic growth per year.

Until Congress parts the clouds and gives businesses some bit of certainty as to spending and tax rates, let alone an assurance that the U.S. won’t default on its debt and the government won’t shut down, expect more of the same. Slow growth, weak demand, and more and more cash being piled onto corporate balance sheets

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...they-investing
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2014, 09:03 AM   #20
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,766

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Actually, you're wrong again:

So why aren’t businesses investing? Two reasons: weak demand and absolutely zero clarity when it comes to U.S. fiscal policy. This is at the heart of why the recovery has been so slow over the past four years. A new report by Macroeconomic Advisors, prepared for the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, finds that fiscal policy uncertainty has cost the U.S. 900,000 jobs since 2009 and shaved 0.3 percenrtage points from economic growth per year.

Until Congress parts the clouds and gives businesses some bit of certainty as to spending and tax rates, let alone an assurance that the U.S. won’t default on its debt and the government won’t shut down, expect more of the same. Slow growth, weak demand, and more and more cash being piled onto corporate balance sheets

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...they-investing
It's true because one guy says it is isn't really much of an argument. Regardless, any shutdown risk is a plain product of divided government. As the Democratic shutdowns in the 1980's or Republican shutdown in the 90's should've shown us.

But I don't remember anyone talking about that discouraging corporate investment back in those days. Why? Because Progressives were the ones leveraging back then instead of Conservatives.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:17 PM.


Denver Broncos