Can you pay down the debt WITHOUT growing the "economy"?

[Supposn]

Let's make this "simple".
Let's say you had a job and a car to get to that job.
Suddenly, you had a lot of bills. Medical. Home loan. Whatever.
So you cut back spending to pay those bills.

The car breaks down. You can't get to work. So you decide to stop all spending. Do you quit your job and not fix the car so you can "save" enough money to pay your bills?

Now, compare your car to infrastructure, job training and so on. If you don't invest in jobs, can you ever pay down the debt? Think about it.

R Dean, I’m a populist rather than a right winger but right wingers would take the position that some spending fat could be reduced to reduce our federal budget’s annual deficit.

Levels policies and the priorities of our spending and our taxing methods, (although related), are separate issues. Spending or reduction of spending, similar to legislation regarding any issue can or cannot be effective or of net contra-productive consequences.

Eisenhower’s administrations’ federal highways bill was of great benefit to our infrastructure but the highly subsidies only were applicable to new or major modified highways, bridges and tunnels. Additionally, potable and sewage water and other vital utility delivery systems didn’t qualify for any considerations. It has and continues to cost our nation billions because due to the federal subsidy dollars being made available for states’ spending of dimes on new vehicle roadway constructions, states were not diverting those dimes for ordinary repairs and maintenance of anything. This pinching of nickels and dimes continued during later poor economic years. We’ve been spending and are continuing to spend billions for the complete rebuilding of bridges that deteriorated for lack of paint. Rather than laying new pipes of improved materials in parallel of extremely aged and deteriorated pipes, we waited until they burst. That always seems to occur at the most inconvenient times and of course of the most extreme direct and indirect cost to all, (government, commercial and the general public).

Each legislative decision should be made upon its own merits. Despite the costs due to bill’s ill considered drafting, (I believe) it remains a net national gain. That's not the case for many legislative decisions. I do agree with your post‘s contention; we don’t want to be "penny wise and pound foolish”.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[expat_panama]

...from the prize winning economic study done by the world famous Social Harmony Institute for Truth.

...[grant to tax ratio] = -0.0003[pop density] + 0.4253 at R² = 0.1717 (17%) It will take a while to get it into something that is as nice as your visual aid...

Actually you out did me!

What we got is anyone can make an impressive looking graph or formula completely devoid of any basis in fact. Sure, this works great for inspiring the faithful but it's useless when it comes to either understanding current events or developing and explaining effective policy. We began with these data from mother jones which inspired your hypothesis "Republican economic concepts cause the depressed economy that fuels a high rate of federal assistance" which in turn collapsed with BLS stats showing how

...average unemployment rates with how states voted in the 2012 election:

Average unemployment rate in red states: 6.9%
Average unemployment rate in blue states: 7.8%​

Where we are now is the way having the facts does not guarantee agreement. What usually happens next is either folks work together and develop a consensus, or they quarrel until reality makes itself brutally clear.

I like consensus better.

 

[itfitzme]

...from the prize winning economic study done by the world famous Social Harmony Institute for Truth.

...[grant to tax ratio] = -0.0003[pop density] + 0.4253 at R² = 0.1717 (17%) It will take a while to get it into something that is as nice as your visual aid...

Actually you out did me!

What we got is anyone can make an impressive looking graph or formula completely devoid of any basis in fact. Sure, this works great for inspiring the faithful but it's useless when it comes to either understanding current events or developing and explaining effective policy. We began with these data from mother jones which inspired your hypothesis "Republican economic concepts cause the depressed economy that fuels a high rate of federal assistance" which in turn collapsed with BLS stats showing how

...average unemployment rates with how states voted in the 2012 election:

Average unemployment rate in red states: 6.9%
Average unemployment rate in blue states: 7.8%​

Where we are now is the way having the facts does not guarantee agreement. What usually happens next is either folks work together and develop a consensus, or they quarrel until reality makes itself brutally clear.

I like consensus better.

We aren't even close to touching "Republican economic concepts cause the depressed economy that fuels a high rate of federal assistance".

The unemployment rate is absolutely useless as a measure for our purposes. It is based on the changing labor force and who actually want's a job. It says nothing about part time vs full time work. It doesn't begin to touch wages or cost of living. IT doesn't begin to address the real fact that there are many full and part time workers who are also receiving federal assistance in terms of SNAP, WIC, and other programs.

What we have found is that, in 2010, the Census Year, the premise presented by that article and map is in fact correct, that in general, by a couple of different measures, low population density states are generally Republican and they generally receive more federal funding than they provide in tax dollars. And this is based on solid data.

Actually extending this to "Republican economic concepts cause the depressed economy that fuels a high rate of federal assistance" is likely to be impossible. It may be simply that population density drives economic outcome and political perceptions.

Currently, I've been able to differentiate total federal grant monies and food and nutrition supplement programs.

But what is clear so far, from the 2010 US Census data, the most precise data, is that Republican voting patterns are associated with a number of economic outcomes including

Population density
Low wages
Low Cost of Living
High per capita federal grants and food assistance
Low federal taxes
High federal grants and food assistance per tax dollar paid.

All of this provides a preponderance of evidence that there is something going on that ties republican economics to high rates of federal assistance. The only thing that is missing is a causal determination. To be sure, it would appear that the underlying environmental factor is population density. And, I stated in an earlier post that, in fact, it seems more reasonable to conclude that it is population density that drives political attitudes.

The fact that everything can be sorted on population density indicates that there is a bimodal distribution.

To be perfectly clear, even if BLS UE stats had any relevance, they are buried beneath the pile of evidence that leads to the opposite conclusion.

 

[itfitzme]

Here is something that I am more concerned with, as are state governors

State Labor Force Participation Rates

State Labor Force Participation Rates

"The national labor force participation rate had fallen 2.4 percent to 63.6 percent as of May, the lowest level since 1981. Utah and other states have experienced significant shifts in recent years. Only Virginia's participation rate has increased since 2008.

Job losses account for part of the decrease, with some workers ending their search for work and exiting the labor force. Demographics also explain much of the rate changes. States with high populations of young people and those near retirement age tend to be more affected when the economy takes a hit."


State.................... Current Participation Rate..... Change Since 12-2007
Utah.................... 62.6%.................................. -5.7%
Delaware............. 57.3%.................................. -4.7%
Michigan.............. 54.8%.................................. -4.5%
New Mexico.......... 54.5%.................................. -4.4%
Georgia................ 58.3%.................................. -4.1%
Colorado.............. 63.7%.................................. -3.8%
Florida................. 55.0%.................................. -3.8%
Alabama.............. 53.0%.................................. -3.8%
Hawaii................. 58.3%.................................. -3.6%
South Carolina..... 54.0%.................................. -3.3%

It is far more indicative of the economic situation during the recession and recovery than UE. UE is only useful when the LF is relatively stable, thus only useful over short runs when the structure of the LF isn't changing. If the LF is changing, then it becomes difficult to interpret what UE is really counting. Keep in mind, UE simply counts the number of people that say they looked for work.

Even then, we still have an issue as the very structure of employment changes. One big outcome of the recession is that a large percentage of the employment experienced huge pay cuts.

 

[itfitzme]

There is no doubt that UE rate flips around, for population density and voting patters with low density republican states having lower aug 2013 UE (6 of 10) with high density democrat states having high UE rate, (7 of 3).

I need to do 2010.

It is a curiosity that the states with the higher salaries and cost of livings became the states with the highest UE rate. The first thought is "the bigger they are the harder they fall". And yet, in spite of this, they still provide more tax dollars for dollar of assistance than the low density states.

 

[itfitzme]

Here is a study on the change in LF

http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/econrev/pdf/12q1VanZandweghe.pdf

I finally found basic statewide data for employment status which includes employed as percentage of population.

It is, unfortunately, sorted by state, not by year then state, so terrible to extract from.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...[grant to tax ratio] = -0.0003[pop density] + 0.4253 at R² = 0.1717 (17%) It will take a while to get it into something that is as nice as your visual aid...

Actually you out did me!

What we got is anyone can make an impressive looking graph or formula completely devoid of any basis in fact. Sure, this works great for inspiring the faithful but it's useless when it comes to either understanding current events or developing and explaining effective policy. We began with these data from mother jones which inspired your hypothesis "Republican economic concepts cause the depressed economy that fuels a high rate of federal assistance" which in turn collapsed with BLS stats showing how

...average unemployment rates with how states voted in the 2012 election:

Average unemployment rate in red states: 6.9%
Average unemployment rate in blue states: 7.8%​

Where we are now is the way having the facts does not guarantee agreement. What usually happens next is either folks work together and develop a consensus, or they quarrel until reality makes itself brutally clear.

I like consensus better.

We aren't even close to touching "Republican economic concepts cause the depressed economy that fuels a high rate of federal assistance".

The unemployment rate is absolutely useless as a measure for our purposes. It is based on the changing labor force and who actually want's a job. It says nothing about part time vs full time work. It doesn't begin to touch wages or cost of living. IT doesn't begin to address the real fact that there are many full and part time workers who are also receiving federal assistance in terms of SNAP, WIC, and other programs.

What we have found is that, in 2010, the Census Year, the premise presented by that article and map is in fact correct, that in general, by a couple of different measures, low population density states are generally Republican and they generally receive more federal funding than they provide in tax dollars. And this is based on solid data.

Actually extending this to "Republican economic concepts cause the depressed economy that fuels a high rate of federal assistance" is likely to be impossible. It may be simply that population density drives economic outcome and political perceptions.

Currently, I've been able to differentiate total federal grant monies and food and nutrition supplement programs.

But what is clear so far, from the 2010 US Census data, the most precise data, is that Republican voting patterns are associated with a number of economic outcomes including

Population density
Low wages
Low Cost of Living
High per capita federal grants and food assistance
Low federal taxes
High federal grants and food assistance per tax dollar paid.

All of this provides a preponderance of evidence that there is something going on that ties republican economics to high rates of federal assistance. The only thing that is missing is a causal determination. To be sure, it would appear that the underlying environmental factor is population density. And, I stated in an earlier post that, in fact, it seems more reasonable to conclude that it is population density that drives political attitudes.

The fact that everything can be sorted on population density indicates that there is a bimodal distribution.

To be perfectly clear, even if BLS UE stats had any relevance, they are buried beneath the pile of evidence that leads to the opposite conclusion.

Remember how 5 years into his presidency Reagan was still complaining about "Democrat economic concepts cause the depressed economy"

Yeah, me neither

 

[Two Thumbs]

 

[itfitzme]

Actually you out did me!

What we got is anyone can make an impressive looking graph or formula completely devoid of any basis in fact. Sure, this works great for inspiring the faithful but it's useless when it comes to either understanding current events or developing and explaining effective policy. We began with these data from mother jones which inspired your hypothesis "Republican economic concepts cause the depressed economy that fuels a high rate of federal assistance" which in turn collapsed with BLS stats showing how Where we are now is the way having the facts does not guarantee agreement. What usually happens next is either folks work together and develop a consensus, or they quarrel until reality makes itself brutally clear.

I like consensus better.

We aren't even close to touching "Republican economic concepts cause the depressed economy that fuels a high rate of federal assistance".

The unemployment rate is absolutely useless as a measure for our purposes. It is based on the changing labor force and who actually want's a job. It says nothing about part time vs full time work. It doesn't begin to touch wages or cost of living. IT doesn't begin to address the real fact that there are many full and part time workers who are also receiving federal assistance in terms of SNAP, WIC, and other programs.

What we have found is that, in 2010, the Census Year, the premise presented by that article and map is in fact correct, that in general, by a couple of different measures, low population density states are generally Republican and they generally receive more federal funding than they provide in tax dollars. And this is based on solid data.

Actually extending this to "Republican economic concepts cause the depressed economy that fuels a high rate of federal assistance" is likely to be impossible. It may be simply that population density drives economic outcome and political perceptions.

Currently, I've been able to differentiate total federal grant monies and food and nutrition supplement programs.

But what is clear so far, from the 2010 US Census data, the most precise data, is that Republican voting patterns are associated with a number of economic outcomes including

Population density
Low wages
Low Cost of Living
High per capita federal grants and food assistance
Low federal taxes
High federal grants and food assistance per tax dollar paid.

All of this provides a preponderance of evidence that there is something going on that ties republican economics to high rates of federal assistance. The only thing that is missing is a causal determination. To be sure, it would appear that the underlying environmental factor is population density. And, I stated in an earlier post that, in fact, it seems more reasonable to conclude that it is population density that drives political attitudes.

The fact that everything can be sorted on population density indicates that there is a bimodal distribution.

To be perfectly clear, even if BLS UE stats had any relevance, they are buried beneath the pile of evidence that leads to the opposite conclusion.

Remember how 5 years into his presidency Reagan was still complaining about "Democrat economic concepts cause the depressed economy"

Yeah, me neither

No, but I have heard it repeated over and over on this forum. Apparently it is the cause of inflation, unemployment, welfare, and on and on.

And, Reagan's solution was to run the deficit up.

I'm more interested in state level effect though.

And to the contrary of the constant drone of conservative memes, the data is pointing to the primary direction being that of low GSP, tax revenues, wages, Republican leaning, low population density, low unemployment, high rate of poverty, high federal grants and food subsidies. It is a curious combination. I can't put my finger on the causal direction though.

 

[itfitzme]

Yeah, and we don't see the city officials turning off the water supply by shutting down the government either.

Which is a far better analogy that that ridiculous effort above because you haven't proven that "put gas on it" is correct. This is exactly why I find right wingers complete dolts. They make shit up.

 

[itfitzme]

The top ten states by real gross state product per population are split 50/50, Repub/Dem

The bottom ten states by real gross state product per population are split 50/50, Repub/Dem

In 2010, the 28 Democratic states had a total real dollar gross state product of $8.3 Trillion for an average of $299 billion each. The 22 Republican states had a total real dollar gross state product of $4.4 Trillion for an average of $202 billion each.

That puts the democratic states as the higher average and total for real gross state product.

So, all told, inspite of a lower UE among Republican leaning states, they produce less. But that is the point, Republican states have a lower population density, produce less over all inspite of having a lower UE. The net flow of federal funds is into the Republican states from Democratic states because the total taxes paid by Democratic states is greater than Republican states.

The net result seems to be similar to the national Republican meme. Republican mantra is that taxes should be lower and that stimulus spending doesn't work. Yet, they repeatedly are the largest spenders of Federal Funds, stimulating the economy, and their own states, through federal spending.

So the big picture story is that the Republican States take Federal monies collected from the Democrat states to prop up their economy that produces low wages, even poverty level wages, thus requiring food assistance federal aid to make up the difference.

 

[itfitzme]

There were 28 democrat states and 22 repub states in 2010.

 

[itfitzme]

 

[itfitzme]

 

[itfitzme]

Aren't these interesting.

 

[RKMBrown]

Aren't these interesting.

No. Not unless you can "separate" the republican contributions to the democrat states and democrat mooching in the republican states.

How stupid are you, that you insist there are no republican income earners in democrat states? Are you still in high school?

 

[oldfart]

R Dean, I’m a populist rather than a right winger but right wingers would take the position that some spending fat could be reduced to reduce our federal budget’s annual deficit.

Levels policies and the priorities of our spending and our taxing methods, (although related), are separate issues. Spending or reduction of spending, similar to legislation regarding any issue can or cannot be effective or of net contra-productive consequences.

Eisenhower’s administrations’ federal highways bill was of great benefit to our infrastructure but the highly subsidies only were applicable to new or major modified highways, bridges and tunnels. Additionally, potable and sewage water and other vital utility delivery systems didn’t qualify for any considerations. It has and continues to cost our nation billions because due to the federal subsidy dollars being made available for states’ spending of dimes on new vehicle roadway constructions, states were not diverting those dimes for ordinary repairs and maintenance of anything. This pinching of nickels and dimes continued during later poor economic years. We’ve been spending and are continuing to spend billions for the complete rebuilding of bridges that deteriorated for lack of paint. Rather than laying new pipes of improved materials in parallel of extremely aged and deteriorated pipes, we waited until they burst. That always seems to occur at the most inconvenient times and of course of the most extreme direct and indirect cost to all, (government, commercial and the general public).

Each legislative decision should be made upon its own merits. Despite the costs due to bill’s ill considered drafting, (I believe) it remains a net national gain. That's not the case for many legislative decisions. I do agree with your post‘s contention; we don’t want to be "penny wise and pound foolish”.

Respectfully, Supposn

You bring up a really good point. It is a bad idea to shell out lots of money for big projects which will not be adequately maintained. The poster child for this is of course the highway system. Texas is solving the problem by converting some country roads from blacktop to gravel. Typically this is a result in a flaw built into the federal highway system. The federal government pays more of the initial cost (in the case of interstate highways 100%, for national routes 90%) than it does of the maintenance cost. This is compounded by local governments that believe that in a budget pinch (and what local government is ever not in a budget pinch?) these costs can be delayed. So infrastructure crumbles.

There are a couple of ways to address this. One would be to make any project built with federal funds the responsibility of the federal government to maintain, and eliminate local control of this spending. I suspect that county boards do not want to deal with a road czar in Washington. Another would be to condition new money on adequate maintenance of existing projects. I don't see that working well in practice, everybody with a sob story would apply for a waiver. I don't see an obvious good answer.

More disturbing to me is the water and waste management issue. This is capital intensive and involves relatively little labor compared to services such as police, fire, emergency medical, and education. Here a substantial improvement could be made. Form a federal infrastructure bank that only loans money for fee-based services that are capital intensive. It would have a premium structure similar to the FDIC and resolution authority. If you default on the loans, the resolution authority takes over, straightens things out, and may even sell the system to private investors, absorbing whatever loss is necessary.

Ultimately there is no replacement for making local government work. Personally I don't see how you make local government work in a generalized anti-government environment. Can a Tea Party slate run a county? It might lower taxes in the short run and curry popularity among property tax payers, as happened in California, but can it deal with the resulting collapse of services those taxes were intended to pay? There is not an infinite pool of waste and corruption which can be eliminated to lower the budget. In the end, lowering government spending means reducing government services and I am not convinced that the anti-government voices can discern between good government and abandonment government. Refusing to pay for services eventually ends in eliminating services, and if your goal is a neighborhood with its own private police and fire protection, its own private schools or home schooling system, and streets and utilities maintained by the neighborhood association, you had better not leave that neighborhood very often.

 

[Rshermr]

R Dean, I’m a populist rather than a right winger but right wingers would take the position that some spending fat could be reduced to reduce our federal budget’s annual deficit.

Levels policies and the priorities of our spending and our taxing methods, (although related), are separate issues. Spending or reduction of spending, similar to legislation regarding any issue can or cannot be effective or of net contra-productive consequences.

Eisenhower’s administrations’ federal highways bill was of great benefit to our infrastructure but the highly subsidies only were applicable to new or major modified highways, bridges and tunnels. Additionally, potable and sewage water and other vital utility delivery systems didn’t qualify for any considerations. It has and continues to cost our nation billions because due to the federal subsidy dollars being made available for states’ spending of dimes on new vehicle roadway constructions, states were not diverting those dimes for ordinary repairs and maintenance of anything. This pinching of nickels and dimes continued during later poor economic years. We’ve been spending and are continuing to spend billions for the complete rebuilding of bridges that deteriorated for lack of paint. Rather than laying new pipes of improved materials in parallel of extremely aged and deteriorated pipes, we waited until they burst. That always seems to occur at the most inconvenient times and of course of the most extreme direct and indirect cost to all, (government, commercial and the general public).

Each legislative decision should be made upon its own merits. Despite the costs due to bill’s ill considered drafting, (I believe) it remains a net national gain. That's not the case for many legislative decisions. I do agree with your post‘s contention; we don’t want to be "penny wise and pound foolish”.

Respectfully, Supposn

You bring up a really good point. It is a bad idea to shell out lots of money for big projects which will not be adequately maintained. The poster child for this is of course the highway system. Texas is solving the problem by converting some country roads from blacktop to gravel. Typically this is a result in a flaw built into the federal highway system. The federal government pays more of the initial cost (in the case of interstate highways 100%, for national routes 90%) than it does of the maintenance cost. This is compounded by local governments that believe that in a budget pinch (and what local government is ever not in a budget pinch?) these costs can be delayed. So infrastructure crumbles.

There are a couple of ways to address this. One would be to make any project built with federal funds the responsibility of the federal government to maintain, and eliminate local control of this spending. I suspect that county boards do not want to deal with a road czar in Washington. Another would be to condition new money on adequate maintenance of existing projects. I don't see that working well in practice, everybody with a sob story would apply for a waiver. I don't see an obvious good answer.

More disturbing to me is the water and waste management issue. This is capital intensive and involves relatively little labor compared to services such as police, fire, emergency medical, and education. Here a substantial improvement could be made. Form a federal infrastructure bank that only loans money for fee-based services that are capital intensive. It would have a premium structure similar to the FDIC and resolution authority. If you default on the loans, the resolution authority takes over, straightens things out, and may even sell the system to private investors, absorbing whatever loss is necessary.

Ultimately there is no replacement for making local government work. Personally I don't see how you make local government work in a generalized anti-government environment. Can a Tea Party slate run a county? It might lower taxes in the short run and curry popularity among property tax payers, as happened in California, but can it deal with the resulting collapse of services those taxes were intended to pay? There is not an infinite pool of waste and corruption which can be eliminated to lower the budget. In the end, lowering government spending means reducing government services and I am not convinced that the anti-government voices can discern between good government and abandonment government. Refusing to pay for services eventually ends in eliminating services, and if your goal is a neighborhood with its own private police and fire protection, its own private schools or home schooling system, and streets and utilities maintained by the neighborhood association, you had better not leave that neighborhood very often.

Well, Oldfart, I wish i could have said it that well. The desire by libertarian minded politicians and those that support that mindset seem to believe that they do indeed believe that the privatization of all services would be a dream come true. It is just that they do not understand that their dream would be a nightmare for most. I really do not want to see private fire companies replacing fire departments, and refusing to put out fires that are in buildings that are not paid up to date. But that has happened in cases where private fire companies have taken over in a number of places.
Fire Dept refuses to fight fire since home-owner had not paid his $75 municipal fees | San Francisco | Yelp
Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground
I do not want my refrigerator built by the government. Private companies get my vote every time for the goods I buy. But I do not want private enterprises taking care of those things that I would consider public interest services, like police, fire protection, military services, roads, parks and other such services and developments. For obvious reasons.