Moody's Issues a Warning About Giving A Warning

[Cuyo]

I'm a simple girl.

Well that's one way to put it. I'd have used "Special," but we can go with "simple."

So I'll explain it thusly. Think about your household. Could you run it that way?

It ain't a household. It ain't a business. It's a government. The rules and motivations are different. Stop trying to make a complex issue simple.

However, if it WAS a household, we've just had a massive flood and the foundation needs to be fixed. You bet that this year you're going to spend more than you make this year, because you have to keep the house from collapsing.

You might also come to conclusion that because of this problem, you and the other people in your house are going to have to pony up more to fix this problem than they might be accustomed to for 'Normal' living expenses.

You're confusing a one time capital expenditure with an operating expenditure. The foundation will need to be fixed once.
A better analogy is if you went out to dinner every night and spent $200 doing so. Then found your hours at work were cut back. Do you go to your employer and demand he give you more so you can go out to dinner every night?

Well I think it goes without saying that we disagree on how much we're 'going out to dinner' and which expenditures constitute 'going out.'

The financial crisis was the flood; The resulting massive contraction of the economy is the damaged foundation. That damage is causing the lions' share of these deficits we're now seeing - With Obama, but would be similar with anyone else. It's easy now in a comparatively stable economy to forget just how serious the crisis was.

But - And here's where it gets complicated - Even if I stipulate that the deficit was mostly going out - The people who live in the house work at the restaurant. For every time you stay in and watch Netflix, you deny someone else the opportunity to go out, and like dominoes...

 

[BenNatuf]

i agree in part. but i also think there are people who take a middle view and aren't nutbars on either side who can give perspective on this.

it seems to me, and i'm not an expert, so why it isn't obvious to the people who need to make these decisions, is that we have no choice but to raise the debt ceiling. the undermining of the full faith and credit of the U.S. government for partisan purposes is unforgivable. To get things BACK in order where they were when Clinton was president should then, to my mind, require a combination of cuts and a return to our previous tax rates. But you can't cut without cutting military spending, too and just dump the painful parts on the middle class.

I don't think it's rocket science. I'm not an economist, not a financier, and it seems like there isn't any other choice.

I'm a simple girl.

Well that's one way to put it. I'd have used "Special," but we can go with "simple."

So I'll explain it thusly. Think about your household. Could you run it that way?

It ain't a household. It ain't a business. It's a government. The rules and motivations are different. Stop trying to make a complex issue simple.

However, if it WAS a household, we've just had a massive flood and the foundation needs to be fixed. You bet that this year you're going to spend more than you make this year, because you have to keep the house from collapsing.

You might also come to conclusion that because of this problem, you and the other people in your house are going to have to pony up more to fix this problem than they might be accustomed to for 'Normal' living expenses.

Your analogy only makes sence if you built your house originally at the bottom of a lake. Damn... there's a flood. No, spending money to combat the flood will not help matters any... You built your house at the bottom of a lake.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well that's one way to put it. I'd have used "Special," but we can go with "simple."



It ain't a household. It ain't a business. It's a government. The rules and motivations are different. Stop trying to make a complex issue simple.

However, if it WAS a household, we've just had a massive flood and the foundation needs to be fixed. You bet that this year you're going to spend more than you make this year, because you have to keep the house from collapsing.

You might also come to conclusion that because of this problem, you and the other people in your house are going to have to pony up more to fix this problem than they might be accustomed to for 'Normal' living expenses.

You're confusing a one time capital expenditure with an operating expenditure. The foundation will need to be fixed once.
A better analogy is if you went out to dinner every night and spent $200 doing so. Then found your hours at work were cut back. Do you go to your employer and demand he give you more so you can go out to dinner every night?

Well I think it goes without saying that we disagree on how much we're 'going out to dinner' and which expenditures constitute 'going out.'

The financial crisis was the flood; The resulting massive contraction of the economy is the damaged foundation. That damage is causing the lions' share of these deficits we're now seeing - With Obama, but would be similar with anyone else. It's easy now in a comparatively stable economy to forget just how serious the crisis was.

But - And here's where it gets complicated - Even if I stipulate that the deficit was mostly going out - The people who live in the house work at the restaurant. For every time you stay in and watch Netflix, you deny someone else the opportunity to go out, and like dominoes...

Actually revenue has been OK.
The main issue is the incredible growth in entitlement spending. That's what needs to be addressed.

As far as lost opportunity, you still haven't understood the broken window fallacy.

 

[Cuyo]

You're confusing a one time capital expenditure with an operating expenditure. The foundation will need to be fixed once.
A better analogy is if you went out to dinner every night and spent $200 doing so. Then found your hours at work were cut back. Do you go to your employer and demand he give you more so you can go out to dinner every night?

Well I think it goes without saying that we disagree on how much we're 'going out to dinner' and which expenditures constitute 'going out.'

The financial crisis was the flood; The resulting massive contraction of the economy is the damaged foundation. That damage is causing the lions' share of these deficits we're now seeing - With Obama, but would be similar with anyone else. It's easy now in a comparatively stable economy to forget just how serious the crisis was.

But - And here's where it gets complicated - Even if I stipulate that the deficit was mostly going out - The people who live in the house work at the restaurant. For every time you stay in and watch Netflix, you deny someone else the opportunity to go out, and like dominoes...

Actually revenue has been OK.
The main issue is the incredible growth in entitlement spending. That's what needs to be addressed.

As far as lost opportunity, you still haven't understood the broken window fallacy.

I understand the broken window enough to write a book about it. I don't see how you think it applies here. The money borrowed and spent by the government would not be spent elsewhere in the economy if the spending was just cut out.

Revenue/GDP is at about a 50-year low. Which makes since, given our historically low taxes.

 

[BenNatuf]

Well I think it goes without saying that we disagree on how much we're 'going out to dinner' and which expenditures constitute 'going out.'

The financial crisis was the flood; The resulting massive contraction of the economy is the damaged foundation. That damage is causing the lions' share of these deficits we're now seeing - With Obama, but would be similar with anyone else. It's easy now in a comparatively stable economy to forget just how serious the crisis was.

But - And here's where it gets complicated - Even if I stipulate that the deficit was mostly going out - The people who live in the house work at the restaurant. For every time you stay in and watch Netflix, you deny someone else the opportunity to go out, and like dominoes...

Actually revenue has been OK.
The main issue is the incredible growth in entitlement spending. That's what needs to be addressed.

As far as lost opportunity, you still haven't understood the broken window fallacy.

I understand the broken window enough to write a book about it. I don't see how you think it applies here. The money borrowed and spent by the government would not be spent elsewhere in the economy if the spending was just cut out.

Revenue/GDP is at about a 50-year low. Which makes since, given our historically low taxes.

and spending/GDP is at about a 50 year high. Given the progressive bent of the current administration also not surprising. There is nothing wrong with revenue/GDP being low so long as the revenue covers the spending. Spending is the problem.

 

[jillian]

Actually revenue has been OK.
The main issue is the incredible growth in entitlement spending. That's what needs to be addressed.

As far as lost opportunity, you still haven't understood the broken window fallacy.

I understand the broken window enough to write a book about it. I don't see how you think it applies here. The money borrowed and spent by the government would not be spent elsewhere in the economy if the spending was just cut out.

Revenue/GDP is at about a 50-year low. Which makes since, given our historically low taxes.

and spending/GDP is at about a 50 year high. Given the progressive bent of the current administration also not surprising. There is nothing wrong with revenue/GDP being low so long as the revenue covers the spending. Spending is the problem.

no. spending is PART of the problem. voluntarily cutting our income is the rest of the problem.

only ideologues believe it's one or the other. and without addressing military spending, the efforts would simply make the middle class pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy. i don't think people in this country would mind shared sacrifice. but it's disingenuous to ask only one segment to bear the brunt of the ideologues efforts to destroy the things the government is able to do.

... which is really what we're talking about.

 

[California Girl]

I understand the broken window enough to write a book about it. I don't see how you think it applies here. The money borrowed and spent by the government would not be spent elsewhere in the economy if the spending was just cut out.

Revenue/GDP is at about a 50-year low. Which makes since, given our historically low taxes.

and spending/GDP is at about a 50 year high. Given the progressive bent of the current administration also not surprising. There is nothing wrong with revenue/GDP being low so long as the revenue covers the spending. Spending is the problem.

no. spending is PART of the problem. voluntarily cutting our income is the rest of the problem.

only ideologues believe it's one or the other. and without addressing military spending, the efforts would simply make the middle class pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy. i don't think people in this country would mind shared sacrifice. but it's disingenuous to ask only one segment to bear the brunt of the ideologues efforts to destroy the things the government is able to do.

... which is really what we're talking about.

I'm up for 'shared sacrifice'... as long as it is 'shared' and not a 'tax the wealthy and let everyone else off the hook' kind of 'sacrifice'.

It is about time that we all stopped bullshitting about who did what and which party was responsible because the fact (and it is a fact, not an opinion) is that BOTH parties are equally responsible for governing us into this shit.

I'll pay more - if everyone else does - and.... more importantly.... if the taxes are ringfenced to pay down the debt and nothing else.... and.... that while we are all sacrificing... that DC stops spending more money that we do not have.

 

[BenNatuf]

I understand the broken window enough to write a book about it. I don't see how you think it applies here. The money borrowed and spent by the government would not be spent elsewhere in the economy if the spending was just cut out.

Revenue/GDP is at about a 50-year low. Which makes since, given our historically low taxes.

and spending/GDP is at about a 50 year high. Given the progressive bent of the current administration also not surprising. There is nothing wrong with revenue/GDP being low so long as the revenue covers the spending. Spending is the problem.

no. spending is PART of the problem. voluntarily cutting our income is the rest of the problem.

Cutting taxes does not neccessarily lower revenue. Revenue increased every year of the Bush presidency until the economy tanked, fix the economy and you'll fix the revenue problem. Raising taxes on anybody will not help to fix any economy and will result in only a very short term spike in revenue followed by lower revenue due to the economicly stagnating effects.

only ideologues believe it's one or the other. and without addressing military spending, the efforts would simply make the middle class pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy. i don't think people in this country would mind shared sacrifice. but it's disingenuous to ask only one segment to bear the brunt of the ideologues efforts to destroy the things the government is able to do.

... which is really what we're talking about.

1. Where have I ever said we didn't need to make some adjustments in how we spoend our money for the militray?

2. It's kind of funny that you decry asking "only one segment" to bear the burden while you advocate only raising taxes on one segment.

3. Cutting spending is not doing anything on the backs of anyone, as it's just not giving money to people it doesn't belong to in the first place. It's not "taking" anything from them, it's just not giving them money they didn't earn and don't deserve.

If you're interested I support in the short term elliminating ALL so called expenditures in the tax code and cutting marginal rates in half. In the long term I support either going to an APT or apportionment system for collecting federal revenue, or a combination of the two.

 

[Cuyo]

and spending/GDP is at about a 50 year high. Given the progressive bent of the current administration also not surprising. There is nothing wrong with revenue/GDP being low so long as the revenue covers the spending. Spending is the problem.

no. spending is PART of the problem. voluntarily cutting our income is the rest of the problem.

only ideologues believe it's one or the other. and without addressing military spending, the efforts would simply make the middle class pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy. i don't think people in this country would mind shared sacrifice. but it's disingenuous to ask only one segment to bear the brunt of the ideologues efforts to destroy the things the government is able to do.

... which is really what we're talking about.

I'm up for 'shared sacrifice'... as long as it is 'shared' and not a 'tax the wealthy and let everyone else off the hook' kind of 'sacrifice'.

It is about time that we all stopped bullshitting about who did what and which party was responsible because the fact (and it is a fact, not an opinion) is that BOTH parties are equally responsible for governing us into this shit.

I'll pay more - if everyone else does - and.... more importantly.... if the taxes are ringfenced to pay down the debt and nothing else.... and.... that while we are all sacrificing... that DC stops spending more money that we do not have.

Agreed. I consistently air out my disgust with people who only think someone else's taxes should go up. We ALL need to pony up.

But the truth is that the GOP is treating low taxes as a religion, and any discussion about revenue as a non-starter. That's what's popular at the moment. This is why the Tea-people are so fascinating to me; As if 'High taxes' (which really don't exist right now) are the CAUSE of the deficit.

There's no suitable analogy for that level of intellectual disconnect.

 

[BenNatuf]

no. spending is PART of the problem. voluntarily cutting our income is the rest of the problem.

only ideologues believe it's one or the other. and without addressing military spending, the efforts would simply make the middle class pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy. i don't think people in this country would mind shared sacrifice. but it's disingenuous to ask only one segment to bear the brunt of the ideologues efforts to destroy the things the government is able to do.

... which is really what we're talking about.

I'm up for 'shared sacrifice'... as long as it is 'shared' and not a 'tax the wealthy and let everyone else off the hook' kind of 'sacrifice'.

It is about time that we all stopped bullshitting about who did what and which party was responsible because the fact (and it is a fact, not an opinion) is that BOTH parties are equally responsible for governing us into this shit.

I'll pay more - if everyone else does - and.... more importantly.... if the taxes are ringfenced to pay down the debt and nothing else.... and.... that while we are all sacrificing... that DC stops spending more money that we do not have.

Agreed. I consistently air out my disgust with people who only think someone else's taxes should go up. We ALL need to pony up.

But the truth is that the GOP is treating low taxes as a religion, and any discussion about revenue as a non-starter. That's what's popular at the moment. This is why the Tea-people are so fascinating to me; As if 'High taxes' (which really don't exist right now) are the CAUSE of the deficit.

There's no suitable analogy for that level of intellectual disconnect.

The intellectual disconnect seems to be yours, as I've heard no TP people say any such thing. What I have heard is that High spending is the cause of the deficit... that would be true.

 

[Cuyo]

I'm up for 'shared sacrifice'... as long as it is 'shared' and not a 'tax the wealthy and let everyone else off the hook' kind of 'sacrifice'.

It is about time that we all stopped bullshitting about who did what and which party was responsible because the fact (and it is a fact, not an opinion) is that BOTH parties are equally responsible for governing us into this shit.

I'll pay more - if everyone else does - and.... more importantly.... if the taxes are ringfenced to pay down the debt and nothing else.... and.... that while we are all sacrificing... that DC stops spending more money that we do not have.

Agreed. I consistently air out my disgust with people who only think someone else's taxes should go up. We ALL need to pony up.

But the truth is that the GOP is treating low taxes as a religion, and any discussion about revenue as a non-starter. That's what's popular at the moment. This is why the Tea-people are so fascinating to me; As if 'High taxes' (which really don't exist right now) are the CAUSE of the deficit.

There's no suitable analogy for that level of intellectual disconnect.

The intellectual disconnect seems to be yours, as I've heard no TP people say any such thing. What I have heard is that High spending is the cause of the deficit... that would be true.

They want across the board tax cuts, and a balanced budget, as if the two go hand in hand.

It's an easy prospect to get caught up in, particularly for the intelligence level of the average Tea Person. They want it to be true so bad that, as far as they're concerned, it becomes true.

Unfortunately now they have a legion of politicians - The ones who are supposed to act like grown-ups - Supporting the claim.

 

[Trajan]

I understand the broken window enough to write a book about it. I don't see how you think it applies here. The money borrowed and spent by the government would not be spent elsewhere in the economy if the spending was just cut out.

Revenue/GDP is at about a 50-year low. Which makes since, given our historically low taxes.

and spending/GDP is at about a 50 year high. Given the progressive bent of the current administration also not surprising. There is nothing wrong with revenue/GDP being low so long as the revenue covers the spending. Spending is the problem.

no. spending is PART of the problem. voluntarily cutting our income is the rest of the problem.

only ideologues believe it's one or the other. and without addressing military spending, the efforts would simply make the middle class pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy. i don't think people in this country would mind shared sacrifice. but it's disingenuous to ask only one segment to bear the brunt of the ideologues efforts to destroy the things the government is able to do.

... which is really what we're talking about.

lets cut to the chase;

-are you willing to cut say .50 cents for every dollar the debt ceiling is raised?

yes or no please.


- do you believe that entitlements should be on the table for prgm revisions that may include cuts reductions etc....?

yes or no please.

you have made remarks that appear to sppt.(despite obamas own words to the contrary btw as to raising taxes in a slow economy) the thesis that allowing the bush tax cuts to expire is some kind of cure all or puts us in the postion were in we don't need to address the deficit or inherent ongoing budget issues...if I am wrong pleased say so and why ....thx.


I have also, probably, 7-8 times posted in obamas and gates and /or source speaking to cuts on/in the DOD.....large cuts on the order of 60-80 BILLION a year, you apparently refuse to acknowledge or digest that ....I know why, but its not worth going there.....lets stay focused.

 

[auditor0007]

Mo chara, no one can explain it to you, because the answer will always be swayed by that person's political opinion. Even economists - and they are the ones who know the most about it - don't agree. When experts don't agree, that says there is no real fact based answer, it's too open to hypotheticals.

I personally (under sufferance) would support raising the ceiling.... IF we cut one dollar from the spend for every dollar we raise it. That, to me, is the only way we can keep this under control.

It is time to face facts, just like many other countries are doing, we simply cannot afford to be all things to all Americans. We cannot help everyone. We cannot save everyone's lives with Obamacare. A simple but hard decision lays ahead.

i agree in part. but i also think there are people who take a middle view and aren't nutbars on either side who can give perspective on this.

it seems to me, and i'm not an expert, so why it isn't obvious to the people who need to make these decisions, is that we have no choice but to raise the debt ceiling. the undermining of the full faith and credit of the U.S. government for partisan purposes is unforgivable. To get things BACK in order where they were when Clinton was president should then, to my mind, require a combination of cuts and a return to our previous tax rates. But you can't cut without cutting military spending, too and just dump the painful parts on the middle class.

I don't think it's rocket science. I'm not an economist, not a financier, and it seems like there isn't any other choice.

All we have to do is cut Medicare/Medicaid, SS, and every other useless welfare program out there. Then we will have enough money to raise military spending and still have a balanced budget.

Oh, was this a serious conversation? Sorry.

 

[auditor0007]

Agreed. I consistently air out my disgust with people who only think someone else's taxes should go up. We ALL need to pony up.

But the truth is that the GOP is treating low taxes as a religion, and any discussion about revenue as a non-starter. That's what's popular at the moment. This is why the Tea-people are so fascinating to me; As if 'High taxes' (which really don't exist right now) are the CAUSE of the deficit.

There's no suitable analogy for that level of intellectual disconnect.

The intellectual disconnect seems to be yours, as I've heard no TP people say any such thing. What I have heard is that High spending is the cause of the deficit... that would be true.

They want across the board tax cuts, and a balanced budget, as if the two go hand in hand.

It's an easy prospect to get caught up in, particularly for the intelligence level of the average Tea Person. They want it to be true so bad that, as far as they're concerned, it becomes true.

Unfortunately now they have a legion of politicians - The ones who are supposed to act like grown-ups - Supporting the claim.

Well of course cutting taxes raises revenues. In 2000, before the tax cuts, the federal government brought in just over $2 trillion. Last year, they brought in just over $2.1 trillion. See, the tax cuts raised revenues.

 

[BenNatuf]

Agreed. I consistently air out my disgust with people who only think someone else's taxes should go up. We ALL need to pony up.

But the truth is that the GOP is treating low taxes as a religion, and any discussion about revenue as a non-starter. That's what's popular at the moment. This is why the Tea-people are so fascinating to me; As if 'High taxes' (which really don't exist right now) are the CAUSE of the deficit.

There's no suitable analogy for that level of intellectual disconnect.

The intellectual disconnect seems to be yours, as I've heard no TP people say any such thing. What I have heard is that High spending is the cause of the deficit... that would be true.

They want across the board tax cuts, and a balanced budget, as if the two go hand in hand.

It's an easy prospect to get caught up in, particularly for the intelligence level of the average Tea Person. They want it to be true so bad that, as far as they're concerned, it becomes true.

Unfortunately now they have a legion of politicians - The ones who are supposed to act like grown-ups - Supporting the claim.

Do you get your information from thinkprogress or KOS? There are people in the TP who support taxcuts as a way to stimulate ecenomic activity and jump start this economy without instituionalizin even more spending while cutting spending. There are others who want to keep taxes exactly where they are and tough it out with spending cuts, and there are other who support a wholesale revision of the tax code and downsizing and reorganization of the executive. There is no TP unitary position.

 

[The Rabbi]

I understand the broken window enough to write a book about it. I don't see how you think it applies here. The money borrowed and spent by the government would not be spent elsewhere in the economy if the spending was just cut out.

Revenue/GDP is at about a 50-year low. Which makes since, given our historically low taxes.

and spending/GDP is at about a 50 year high. Given the progressive bent of the current administration also not surprising. There is nothing wrong with revenue/GDP being low so long as the revenue covers the spending. Spending is the problem.

no. spending is PART of the problem. voluntarily cutting our income is the rest of the problem.

only ideologues believe it's one or the other. and without addressing military spending, the efforts would simply make the middle class pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy. i don't think people in this country would mind shared sacrifice. but it's disingenuous to ask only one segment to bear the brunt of the ideologues efforts to destroy the things the government is able to do.

... which is really what we're talking about.

No spending is the entire problem. Revenue has been fine.
As for military spending, it is on track to be the loweest as a percentage of GDP since WW2. We cannot cut that further and maintain our commitments.
We can reform the entire entitlement mess. And we must.

Please ask the half of the country that pays no income tax to start paying something and see how willing they are.

 

[auditor0007]

and spending/GDP is at about a 50 year high. Given the progressive bent of the current administration also not surprising. There is nothing wrong with revenue/GDP being low so long as the revenue covers the spending. Spending is the problem.

no. spending is PART of the problem. voluntarily cutting our income is the rest of the problem.

only ideologues believe it's one or the other. and without addressing military spending, the efforts would simply make the middle class pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy. i don't think people in this country would mind shared sacrifice. but it's disingenuous to ask only one segment to bear the brunt of the ideologues efforts to destroy the things the government is able to do.

... which is really what we're talking about.

No spending is the entire problem. Revenue has been fine.
As for military spending, it is on track to be the loweest as a percentage of GDP since WW2. We cannot cut that further and maintain our commitments.
We can reform the entire entitlement mess. And we must.

Please ask the half of the country that pays no income tax to start paying something and see how willing they are.

Revenue has not been fine? Who are you trying to kid? Seriously? In 2010, we collected $2.1 trillion on a GDP of $14.6 trillion. That is just over 14% of GDP, far below the average of 18.5% that we have collected since the 50's. If we had collected just the 18.5 percent, that would be an additional $600 billion, which still would leave us with a very large deficit. So why the large deficit? Two big problems are military spending and SS. SS itself is not yet the problem. Where the problem arises with SS is that we no longer have a yearly surplus to borrow from for the general budget. So this is creating an additional $200 to $300 billion. Last of all, military spending is now around 6% of GDP. Since the 50's, it has hovered around 4% of GDP. This creates an additional shortage of nearly $300 billion.

So please quit making crap up. Taxes and revenues are at their lowest in 60 years, and military spending is at it's highest in 60 years. But you guys want to cut social programs and taxes. Flippin amazing if you ask me.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bullshit.
IN 2010 the FedGov raised $2.16T in revenue. In 2008 they raised $2.5T. The deficit is over 1.5T so the issue is spending, not revenue.