Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (619454)	7/15/2011 1:39:20 AM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576159

Beware measures of deficit reduction Posted July 7, 2011 If a budget deal is reached, officials will undoubtedly boast about how much their deal “reduces the deficit.” They will use numbers like $1 trillion, $2 trillion, or even $4 trillion of deficit reduction. You should be wary of such numbers, which are easily gimmicked. In theory it seems easy to calculate such a number: If there is no deal, over the next 10 years total deficits will be X. With a deal, over the same timeframe total deficits will be Y. Therefore, the deal will reduce deficits by X-Y. The trick is that X is not well defined, and so X-Y is suspect. Does X assume that troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will be drawn down rapidly as the President has decided, or instead continue at current levels? The deficit difference over ten years is about $1.1 trillion. Does X assume the “Bush tax cuts” will expire at the end of 2012? Does it assume that Congress will, once again, change the law so the Alternative Minimum Tax does not suddenly bite millions more taxpayers, as it would under current law? The deficit difference of both policies combined is about $3.8 trillion. Does X assume that Medicare payments per service to doctors will suddenly be cut, as they will under current law a few years from now? The deficit difference over ten years is about $250 billion. CBO says budget deficits under current law will total $7 trillion over the next ten years. But by making certain assumptions about how the realistic future (without a deal) will differ from current law, one can redefine the starting point for measurement, X, to be as high as $12 trillion over that same timeframe. For any given resulting level of deficits Y, the bigger your starting point X is, the bigger your claimed deficit reduction X-Y appears to be. It’s pretty clear the White House is doing this aggressively at the moment, as they try to make the deficit reduction effects of the policy changes being discussed look large. Suppose, for instance, that a budget deal would result in $5 trillion of total deficits over the next decade (Y = $5 trillion). If we compare that to current law, then the deal will “reduce future deficits by $2 trillion.” If, however, we compare it to a starting point in which taxes don’t increase, troops aren’t reduced, and Medicare payments to doctors aren’t cut, then that same deal, those same policies, and that same $5 trillion of deficits will “reduce future deficits by $7 trillion.” By changing the baseline, we can make the same deficit reduction package look $5 trillion bigger. It is far better to evaluate a deal by looking only at Y, the deficits that would result from the deal, rather than at X-Y, the change in those deficits from an arbitrarily defined starting point. In the first example, instead of asking “Is $2 or $7 trillion of deficit reduction the right amount,” we should ask “Is a policy resulting in $5 trillion of deficits over the next decade an acceptable outcome, or do we need to do more?” Looking only at Y is better for two reasons. It’s harder to gimmick Y than to gimmick X. Also, Y measures the results, which is what we should care about. Washington instead wants to measure itself for changes they propose relative to the status quo, even while they disagree on what the status quo is. Policymakers will say “Our deal (or proposal) reduces the deficit by [amount].” Reporters should ask “What will future deficits be if this deal becomes law?” Let’s be a little more precise. We will be looking at deficits over a fairly long time frame (10 years), and we are talking about huge dollar amounts. The best way to evaluate the deficit impact of a budget deal, if one occurs, is to look at the budget deficits that would result over the next decade, measured as a share of the economy. Then evaluate that result with a three-pronged test: How do the resulting deficits compare to the historic average of 2% of GDP? How do the resulting deficits compare to the level you’d need to hold debt/GDP constant, about 3% of GDP? What does the path of those resulting deficits look like over the next decade? Are deficits growing, flat, or shrinking over time? We should care not just about deficits, but also about levels of taxes and spending. I will write about that soon. keithhennessey.com

To: i-node who wrote (619454)	7/15/2011 2:02:15 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576159

I think you need to get real clear. The Rich are going to lose their tax cuts. Its what the American people want and its the right thing to do. I'm not sure how you'd know what the "people" want. The president has been playing with their feeble emotions to the point that they don't have any idea what is reasonable and responsible. LOL. Very cleverly worded. You spin well. Kudos. The country is broke. The Left wants to keep spending. The Right is saying, "It has to stop now". Not true. The Left wants to cut spending. However, they also want the Bush tax cuts to finally elapsed. The Right is working diligently to protect the rich. And the American public is furious. The unraveling of the GOP continues.............. That there is even any debate about this is astonishing to me. I am sure you are very astonished........and confused. That will continue going forward. Trust.

To: i-node who wrote (619454)	7/15/2011 3:05:28 AM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	6 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576159

The country is broke. The Left wants to keep spending. The Right is saying, "It has to stop now". This entire epic struggle of the left vs right .......soft tyranny vs liberty....power of Govt vs. power of the individual......comes down to the sum of $3 Trillion dollars.. Currently, about 40% of GDP is gobbled up by federal/state/and local governments. Democrats, thru various means (elections/courts/edict/legislation/regulations/etc.), want the burden increased to 50% or more...... at which point the soft tyranny controlling our lives will be complete and irreversible. The Republicans, by the same means, want the burden decreased to 30% or less.......at which point the American dream will be restored. The difference (20% of GDP) amounts to about $3 Trillion dollars a year. Everyone has to ask themselves this one simple question. Which is better for our country?.........for that $3 Trillion to remain in the hands of the private sector and private individuals who worked for and earned it or for that $3 Trillion to be poured down the rat hole of government....... never to be seen or heard from again? THE WATSONYOUTH

To: i-node who wrote (619454)	7/15/2011 11:37:38 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576159

76% of the American people believe the wealthy and corporate should pay more in taxes than they currently do. So, WHY is THAT the (R)'s line in the sand? Obama offered $4 TRILLION in cuts, weighted 3 cuts to 1 in tax loophole closings on the wealthy and corporate, and the (R)'s REFUSED. It's OBVIOUS they care very much that their wealthy not get taxed! Reduce the deficit or debt - not so much! Obama reveal was BRILLIANT. Wake up and smell the coffee Dave.