Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
You want to compare your job to that of a 26-year-old? Well, okay...
FYI, I am a Systems Administrator specializing in IIS, VMware ESXi/vSphere, and Storage Area Networks.
You want to compare your job to that of a 26-year-old? Well, okay...
FYI, I am a Systems Administrator specializing in IIS, VMware ESXi/vSphere, and Storage Area Networks.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Nonsense. First it was "uncertainty" regarding the tax code, now it's government spending. The problem is demand:
The idea that corporations are not spending some of their cash in order to make more money when they could easily do so because the government spends too much is laughable.
Note to Nigel: Spending and the tax code go hand in hand. The more the idiots overspend, the more they are going to have to either raise taxes or cut future spending. The uncertainty being generated by the insane spending is related to how the government will respond in terms of paying for the debt.
Whatever, SF. If companies could make money by investing the cash they have, they would. Moreover, given that your position is that future tax increases will be necessary and that the Bush tax cuts have been extended though the end of next year, it is all the more reason for companies to make as much money as they can right now while taxes are low.
In short, your argument doesn't make a lick of sense and, of course, you ignore the economic data that provides ample reason for businesses to sit on their cash as the moment.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
"Republicans basically have two choices of how to proceed. Both options have some risk, but one approach almost surely leads to failure.
Draw a line in the sand and pass a strong budget with cuts and meaningful reforms, even if it means the Democrats block the spending bill and cause a shutdown.
Upsides - This approach is more likely to lead to an outcome that reduces the burden of government spending. Moreover, it surely would trigger more activism from libertarians, conservatives, and other supporters of limited government. A victory based on this approach (or even a draw) creates momentum for both the FY2012 budget resolution battle and the debt limit fight.
Downsides - The left, including the establishment press, will portray the GOP negatively. More specifically, they will claim Republicans are "shutting down the government" because of supposedly extraneous issues like abortion (i.e., the funding controversy over Planned Parenthood), the environment (the debate over the "rider" provision to curtail the EPA's power grab), or healthcare (defunding Obamacare).
Do everything possible to avoid a shutdown, even if it means higher spending and no reform.
Upsides - There is no risk of being blamed for a shutdown.
Downsides - This French-army approach basically means that Republicans give up on fiscal policy for the next 21 months. Surrendering to avoid a shutdown means the burden of spending is higher. It means no program reforms or eliminations. Because of this precedent, it is highly unlikely that the GOP could attach meaningful fiscal conditions to the debt limit. Similarly, the loss of momentum would carry over to the budget resolution, undermining chances for fiscal reform in the 2012 fiscal year budget. Last but not least, the "base" would be very disappointed as activists from the Tea Party and elsewhere begin to conclude that fighting against big government is a fool's errand.
Even in the most ideal scenario, using the line-in-the-sand strategy, fiscal conservatives in the House will not get everything they want. The real issue is which side has the upper hand in the negotiations.
The fight-rather-than-surrender approach gives the GOP leverage. They almost surely won't get $61 billion of cuts, but they'll be much closer to that number than with the French-army approach. They won't succeed with all the "riders," but they'll make progress - perhaps temporarily setting aside the Obamacare issue in exchange for clipping the EPA's wings, or gutting Planned Parenthood but letting NPR off the hook."
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/are-republicans-winning-the-budget-battle-but-losing-the-budget-war/
Draw a line in the sand and pass a strong budget with cuts and meaningful reforms, even if it means the Democrats block the spending bill and cause a shutdown.
Upsides - This approach is more likely to lead to an outcome that reduces the burden of government spending. Moreover, it surely would trigger more activism from libertarians, conservatives, and other supporters of limited government. A victory based on this approach (or even a draw) creates momentum for both the FY2012 budget resolution battle and the debt limit fight.
Downsides - The left, including the establishment press, will portray the GOP negatively. More specifically, they will claim Republicans are "shutting down the government" because of supposedly extraneous issues like abortion (i.e., the funding controversy over Planned Parenthood), the environment (the debate over the "rider" provision to curtail the EPA's power grab), or healthcare (defunding Obamacare).
Do everything possible to avoid a shutdown, even if it means higher spending and no reform.
Upsides - There is no risk of being blamed for a shutdown.
Downsides - This French-army approach basically means that Republicans give up on fiscal policy for the next 21 months. Surrendering to avoid a shutdown means the burden of spending is higher. It means no program reforms or eliminations. Because of this precedent, it is highly unlikely that the GOP could attach meaningful fiscal conditions to the debt limit. Similarly, the loss of momentum would carry over to the budget resolution, undermining chances for fiscal reform in the 2012 fiscal year budget. Last but not least, the "base" would be very disappointed as activists from the Tea Party and elsewhere begin to conclude that fighting against big government is a fool's errand.
Even in the most ideal scenario, using the line-in-the-sand strategy, fiscal conservatives in the House will not get everything they want. The real issue is which side has the upper hand in the negotiations.
The fight-rather-than-surrender approach gives the GOP leverage. They almost surely won't get $61 billion of cuts, but they'll be much closer to that number than with the French-army approach. They won't succeed with all the "riders," but they'll make progress - perhaps temporarily setting aside the Obamacare issue in exchange for clipping the EPA's wings, or gutting Planned Parenthood but letting NPR off the hook."
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/are-republicans-winning-the-budget-battle-but-losing-the-budget-war/
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I am not ignoring the economic data moron.... just so you know... government spending is a part of the economy. When the government spends recklously, people take notice. When it is unsustainable spending levels, people adjust their forward outlooks for the economy. When companies see this idiotic spending from DC, they squirrel away cash in an attempt to protect themselves from the coming implosion. Saying 'they should make money now while taxes are low' shows you have absolutely no understanding of how a business operates. They cannot come out and say... 'buy more consumers' and magically create demand. What they will do is start hiring more people (which will in effect create demand) once they feel it is safe to do so. The cost of hiring and training for most companies prohibits short term hires. Hence, you have to reduce the uncertainty in order for them to get off the fence and resume hiring. Hence our anemic job growth over the past 2 years, despite the insane levels of spending coming from DC.
Time to get the house in order. Regardless of how much we hate cleaning.
At least you concede that companies aren't spending money because of slack demand. I'll take what I can get. What I don't understand is why you think cutting government spending and removing that money from the economy is going to magically increase demand when the reality is that it will have the exact opposite effect. Like I said, it's one thing if the government is crowding out private investment, but that's not happening.
And our anemic growth levels once again relate to slack demand. People are out of work and aren't spending money. Consumer spending is just now getting back to '07 levels. Government spending prevented it from being worse.
In short, you're completely untethered from reality.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
"Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, urged supporters to contact and visit lawmakers’ offices to oppose any such agreement. “33 billion isn’t a cut, it is a joke,” he wrote in a blogpost on the group’s website. “America is heading down the road to insolvency” and Republicans are “doing nothing to stop it,” Phillips wrote.
Phillips also encouraged Tea Party backers to challenge Boehner for his seat during the next election. “There is no other way to put this,” he wrote. “The Tea Party movement should find a candidate to run against John Boehner in 2012 and should set as a goal, to defeat in a primary, the sitting speaker of the House of Representatives.”
Earlier in the day, Representative Martha Roby, a freshman Republican from Alabama, said “we will not settle for a split- the-baby strategy. The American people want real cuts.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...essure-house-republicans-on-budget-talks.html
Phillips also encouraged Tea Party backers to challenge Boehner for his seat during the next election. “There is no other way to put this,” he wrote. “The Tea Party movement should find a candidate to run against John Boehner in 2012 and should set as a goal, to defeat in a primary, the sitting speaker of the House of Representatives.”
Earlier in the day, Representative Martha Roby, a freshman Republican from Alabama, said “we will not settle for a split- the-baby strategy. The American people want real cuts.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...essure-house-republicans-on-budget-talks.html
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Do try to follow along this time.....
1) Government spends more
2) Debt increases
3) Government has to find a way to pay for debt.... cutting spending or raising taxes (or some combo)
4) Corporations know about 1-3
5) Corporations have cash
6) Corporations not going to invest cash until they know the answer to number 3, because if number 3 results in higher taxes on corps, it means they have to raise prices, which leads to less demand. If number 3 results in higher direct taxes on consumers, then there will be less future demand.
If projections are that the idiots in DC will continue outspending revenue by $1 Trillion+ each year for the next ten years, then companies have to account for the fact that the government will eventually have to decide how to pay for all that insane spending. The more out of control the spending is, the greater the uncertainty for future demand. Which again leads companies to protect themselves by hoarding cash (think rainy day fund). They will not tend to invest in such a climate.
If number 3 above results in spending cuts (or primarily spending cuts) then companies are going to feel safer about investing in new hires, tech etc... because their future tax burden is not going to be as high as it would if number 3 resulted in higher taxes.
Government spending is a stop gap. At times a necessary one. The financial crisis in 2008-2009 was one such time. But it is the private sector where the jobs will be created... and again, companies are not going to tend to hire in this environment. Which is why we have seen anemic changes in the unemployed (and underemployed).
In short, you have shown once again you have no clue when it comes to economics and business.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
Nigel,
As I pointed out, returning to Clinton-era tax rates would eliminate only 1/5th of the deficit, or around $275 billion. That would leave us with a $1.3 trillion deficit. How do you believe the remainder of the deficit could be eliminated? Furthermore, closing the budget gap and actually paying down the debt are two entirely separate things. Clinton balanced the budget, but we didn't pay a dime toward the principal of the national debt.
Since you are quick to criticize those such as myself who take a fair approach to the issue (a mixture of tax hikes and spending cuts), I assume you have a better idea?
As I pointed out, returning to Clinton-era tax rates would eliminate only 1/5th of the deficit, or around $275 billion. That would leave us with a $1.3 trillion deficit. How do you believe the remainder of the deficit could be eliminated? Furthermore, closing the budget gap and actually paying down the debt are two entirely separate things. Clinton balanced the budget, but we didn't pay a dime toward the principal of the national debt.
Since you are quick to criticize those such as myself who take a fair approach to the issue (a mixture of tax hikes and spending cuts), I assume you have a better idea?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
"With little more than 48 hours remaining before the current funding resolution expires, federal agency heads, workers, and untold numbers of tourists and Washington-area residents were forced to focus on what life would be like if the government halts non-essential services.
Rep. James Moran (D-Va), whose Northern Virginia district is home to thousands of federal employees, said furloughed workers should not expect to be paid, based on feedback he is getting from Republican colleagues in Congress. “It is highly unlikely that about 1 million federal employees who are not working will ever be reimbursed,” Moran said in a conference call Wednesday with reporters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...of-dc-services/2011/04/06/AFRItOqC_story.html
Rep. James Moran (D-Va), whose Northern Virginia district is home to thousands of federal employees, said furloughed workers should not expect to be paid, based on feedback he is getting from Republican colleagues in Congress. “It is highly unlikely that about 1 million federal employees who are not working will ever be reimbursed,” Moran said in a conference call Wednesday with reporters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...of-dc-services/2011/04/06/AFRItOqC_story.html
I haven't really had the time to look into it, but my recollection is that the reinstatement of Clinton era tax rates eliminates half of the projected deficits in 2013 and beyond. I'll double check it and get back to you on that. Furthermore, I understand the difference between closing the deficit and paying down the debt. If you close the deficit, debt doesn't concern me.
I agree that tax hikes and spending cuts are necessary. I'm not criticizing you there. It's a matter of how much to cut, where and when. I think cutting spending right now isn't a smart thing to do but agree that spending has to be cut in the mid to long term.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
"In recent polls Americans show a preference for compromise on spending.
About 36 percent of US adults said politicians should "stand by their principles," even if that means a shutdown occurs, while 55 percent favored "compromise, even if that means they pass a budget you disagree with."
Similarly, in a March CBS News poll, 81 percent of Americans said politicians should compromise on spending, and 13 percent said they should stick to their positions.
A Monitor/TIPP Poll from March showed more support for each party entrenching itself: While 41 percent of respondents want Congress to avoid a shutdown at all costs, 28 percent would back Republicans in a shutdown and 23 percent would back Democrats.
Either party faces risks if it ends up looking unwilling to strike a deal.
On that score, Republicans may be more at risk. A March ABC News/Washington Post poll found 71 percent of Americans see the Republican Party as not willing to compromise enough in handling the budget deficit, while 52 percent see Obama as not willing to compromise enough."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...wn-How-might-this-time-be-different-from-1995
About 36 percent of US adults said politicians should "stand by their principles," even if that means a shutdown occurs, while 55 percent favored "compromise, even if that means they pass a budget you disagree with."
Similarly, in a March CBS News poll, 81 percent of Americans said politicians should compromise on spending, and 13 percent said they should stick to their positions.
A Monitor/TIPP Poll from March showed more support for each party entrenching itself: While 41 percent of respondents want Congress to avoid a shutdown at all costs, 28 percent would back Republicans in a shutdown and 23 percent would back Democrats.
Either party faces risks if it ends up looking unwilling to strike a deal.
On that score, Republicans may be more at risk. A March ABC News/Washington Post poll found 71 percent of Americans see the Republican Party as not willing to compromise enough in handling the budget deficit, while 52 percent see Obama as not willing to compromise enough."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...wn-How-might-this-time-be-different-from-1995