Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Congressional Performance Down to 5%

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 6:31:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Rasmussen has the latest approval numbers for Congress, and it isn't pretty. Performance approval has been dropping and dropping, and has now hit an all time low of 5%.

...

A scant 1% says Congress is doing an 'excellent' job, with 4% rating Congressional performance as 'good' and an overwhelming 68% rating Congressional performance as poor. The most damning number, though, may be the 86% of respondents who say that members of Congress are more interested in their careers than in helping others.



http://www.rasmussenreports.com...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com...

http://townhall.com...
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 6:52:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Rassmussen had the worst accuracy during the election. It showed Romney ahead by 5 points in the popular vote at one point.

I think the media campaign to blame shift the "fiscal" crisis innaction on the republicans is ever pervasive.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 6:58:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That's not surprising, considering the intransigence among the parties lately. I really think we need to take the cameras out of the House,....or at the very least out of the senate - which is supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body. Once politicians don't have an audience to put on a show for, they'll have to deal with each other personally, and that's when things get done.

At the same time, maybe I'm the wrong person to say this, given my bad reputation on this site, but the GOP has taken a rightward turn and been overrun by uncompromising neoconservatives that think that a lost election means that they have the leverage to have it their way. Democrats are more easy to compromise with than Republicans,...hence the popular phrase "spineless liberal." So the blame for congressional approval should lay a good deal over 50% on the GOP.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 7:08:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 6:58:44 PM, 000ike wrote:

At the same time, maybe I'm the wrong person to say this, given my bad reputation on this site, but the GOP has taken a rightward turn and been overrun by uncompromising neoconservatives that think that a lost election means that they have the leverage to have it their way. Democrats are more easy to compromise with than Republicans,...hence the popular phrase "spineless liberal." So the blame for congressional approval should lay a good deal over 50% on the GOP.

How does that follow? If Dems are really spineless than wouldn't the blame for that lay with them, not the GOP? According to your narrative (which is faulty from the beginning) we would need to blame Dems for spinelessness and Reps for dickishness. But nowhere in that narrative would one need to conclude that Dems being pusssies automatically lays most of the blame with Reps.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 7:26:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 7:08:46 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/8/2012 6:58:44 PM, 000ike wrote:

At the same time, maybe I'm the wrong person to say this, given my bad reputation on this site, but the GOP has taken a rightward turn and been overrun by uncompromising neoconservatives that think that a lost election means that they have the leverage to have it their way. Democrats are more easy to compromise with than Republicans,...hence the popular phrase "spineless liberal." So the blame for congressional approval should lay a good deal over 50% on the GOP.

How does that follow? If Dems are really spineless than wouldn't the blame for that lay with them, not the GOP? According to your narrative (which is faulty from the beginning) we would need to blame Dems for spinelessness and Reps for dickishness. But nowhere in that narrative would one need to conclude that Dems being pusssies automatically lays most of the blame with Reps.

The efficiency and function of Congress is entirely dependent on the capacity for compromise among competing sects. This has been the basis of American democracy on the most divisive issues since the establishment of the Constitution. On that basis, if there is congressional deadlock, the blame rests highly on the most intransigent party.

The conclusion certainly follows, and your rebuttal is quite unfounded.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 7:33:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 7:26:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/8/2012 7:08:46 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/8/2012 6:58:44 PM, 000ike wrote:

At the same time, maybe I'm the wrong person to say this, given my bad reputation on this site, but the GOP has taken a rightward turn and been overrun by uncompromising neoconservatives that think that a lost election means that they have the leverage to have it their way. Democrats are more easy to compromise with than Republicans,...hence the popular phrase "spineless liberal." So the blame for congressional approval should lay a good deal over 50% on the GOP.

How does that follow? If Dems are really spineless than wouldn't the blame for that lay with them, not the GOP? According to your narrative (which is faulty from the beginning) we would need to blame Dems for spinelessness and Reps for dickishness. But nowhere in that narrative would one need to conclude that Dems being pusssies automatically lays most of the blame with Reps.

The efficiency and function of Congress is entirely dependent on the capacity for compromise among competing sects. This has been the basis of American democracy on the most divisive issues since the establishment of the Constitution. On that basis, if there is congressional deadlock, the blame rests highly on the most intransigent party.

The conclusion certainly follows, and your rebuttal is quite unfounded.

Everyone doesn't hate Congress *only* because of deadlock/not-enough-compromise. It's also the dumb shlt Congress does i.e., the NDAA, skyrocketing budgets with no real cuts even proposed, etc. Ambiguous lip-service to "compromise" doesn't mean anything.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 7:41:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 7:33:29 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/8/2012 7:26:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/8/2012 7:08:46 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/8/2012 6:58:44 PM, 000ike wrote:

At the same time, maybe I'm the wrong person to say this, given my bad reputation on this site, but the GOP has taken a rightward turn and been overrun by uncompromising neoconservatives that think that a lost election means that they have the leverage to have it their way. Democrats are more easy to compromise with than Republicans,...hence the popular phrase "spineless liberal." So the blame for congressional approval should lay a good deal over 50% on the GOP.

How does that follow? If Dems are really spineless than wouldn't the blame for that lay with them, not the GOP? According to your narrative (which is faulty from the beginning) we would need to blame Dems for spinelessness and Reps for dickishness. But nowhere in that narrative would one need to conclude that Dems being pusssies automatically lays most of the blame with Reps.

The efficiency and function of Congress is entirely dependent on the capacity for compromise among competing sects. This has been the basis of American democracy on the most divisive issues since the establishment of the Constitution. On that basis, if there is congressional deadlock, the blame rests highly on the most intransigent party.

The conclusion certainly follows, and your rebuttal is quite unfounded.

Everyone doesn't hate Congress *only* because of deadlock/not-enough-compromise. It's also the dumb shlt Congress does i.e., the NDAA, skyrocketing budgets with no real cuts even proposed, etc. Ambiguous lip-service to "compromise" doesn't mean anything.

Everyone hates Congress mostly because of deadlock. Next...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 7:46:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 7:41:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/8/2012 7:33:29 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/8/2012 7:26:33 PM, 000ike wrote:

The conclusion certainly follows, and your rebuttal is quite unfounded.

Everyone doesn't hate Congress *only* because of deadlock/not-enough-compromise. It's also the dumb shlt Congress does i.e., the NDAA, skyrocketing budgets with no real cuts even proposed, etc. Ambiguous lip-service to "compromise" doesn't mean anything.

Everyone hates Congress mostly because of deadlock. Next...

That's not an argument. Next?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 7:51:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 7:46:35 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/8/2012 7:41:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/8/2012 7:33:29 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/8/2012 7:26:33 PM, 000ike wrote:

The conclusion certainly follows, and your rebuttal is quite unfounded.

Everyone doesn't hate Congress *only* because of deadlock/not-enough-compromise. It's also the dumb shlt Congress does i.e., the NDAA, skyrocketing budgets with no real cuts even proposed, etc. Ambiguous lip-service to "compromise" doesn't mean anything.

Everyone hates Congress mostly because of deadlock. Next...

That's not an argument. Next?

Wow, you're acting really dumb today.... Let me slowly explain what just happened, and why your comment is bad.

Your whole response was in refutation to the claim that the only reason why congress has a low approval rating is because of lack of compromise. You even put two asterisks by "only" for emphatic effect....Since this was never my argument, your whole response was a strawman. And so I merely reiterated my position by replacing "only" with "most" and asking for a new response. The object here was not to make an argument. Do you get it now?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 7:52:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 7:51:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/8/2012 7:46:35 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/8/2012 7:41:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/8/2012 7:33:29 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/8/2012 7:26:33 PM, 000ike wrote:

The conclusion certainly follows, and your rebuttal is quite unfounded.

Everyone doesn't hate Congress *only* because of deadlock/not-enough-compromise. It's also the dumb shlt Congress does i.e., the NDAA, skyrocketing budgets with no real cuts even proposed, etc. Ambiguous lip-service to "compromise" doesn't mean anything.

Everyone hates Congress mostly because of deadlock. Next...

That's not an argument. Next?

Wow, you're acting really dumb today.... Let me slowly explain what just happened, and why your comment is bad.

Your whole response was in refutation to the claim that the only reason why congress has a low approval rating is because of lack of compromise. You even put two asterisks by "only" for emphatic effect....Since this was never my argument, your whole response was a strawman. And so I merely reiterated my position by replacing "only" with "most" and asking for a new response. The object here was not to make an argument. Do you get it now?

Tl;dr: Ike doesn't like having to make arguments. Therefore responding to him as if he was is dumb?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 9:26:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 6:58:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
the GOP has taken a rightward turn and been overrun by uncompromising neoconservatives that think that a lost election means that they have the leverage to have it their way. Democrats are more easy to compromise with than Republicans,...hence the popular phrase "spineless liberal." So the blame for congressional approval should lay a good deal over 50% on the GOP.

Not a bad statement. But regarding the fiscal cliff, the Democrats and Obama have been uncompromising.

Letting taxes expire for the wealthy would kill 700,000 jobs and reduce the investment that makes the economy grow, and the consumption that sustains the economy.

The GOP knows of these facts, and liberals are like, "Nope. These tax cuts have to expire. So what if it plunges us back into a mild recession. We need that additional $80 billion in revenue, even if that will fund the gov't for only 9 days at most."

The GOP has offered closing tax loopholes, which would more than cover the revenue the Democrats want to gain by raising taxes, and lowering rates and cutting loopholes would help the economy too, and level the playing field - which is a thing that Democrats like Elizabeth Warren are supposed to be passionate about.

There is no logic, besides the class warfare rhetoric, i.e. "they have to pay their fair share." Paying for Obamacare, green energy programs + subsidies, expanding (ineffective) job training programs, welfare payments, spending more on colleges and schools, and increasing bureaucracy to pay for other things such as additional health care reform will just destroy the economy. If you take away the profit and money, you take away the incentive to create goods, which harms us all, and reduces the private sector activity which creates jobs and wealth in the first place.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 9:52:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 9:26:16 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/8/2012 6:58:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
the GOP has taken a rightward turn and been overrun by uncompromising neoconservatives that think that a lost election means that they have the leverage to have it their way. Democrats are more easy to compromise with than Republicans,...hence the popular phrase "spineless liberal." So the blame for congressional approval should lay a good deal over 50% on the GOP.

Not a bad statement. But regarding the fiscal cliff, the Democrats and Obama have been uncompromising.

Letting taxes expire for the wealthy would kill 700,000 jobs and reduce the investment that makes the economy grow, and the consumption that sustains the economy.

The GOP knows of these facts, and liberals are like, "Nope. These tax cuts have to expire. So what if it plunges us back into a mild recession. We need that additional $80 billion in revenue, even if that will fund the gov't for only 9 days at most."

I'm a bit skeptical of the numbers because when have economic forecasting ever been right. I don't see how it would kill 700,000. Not running a deficit might cause the multiplier to be reduced, but with the US running such a high debt decreasing the deficit could be a good thing.

The GOP has offered closing tax loopholes, which would more than cover the revenue the Democrats want to gain by raising taxes, and lowering rates and cutting loopholes would help the economy too, and level the playing field - which is a thing that Democrats like Elizabeth Warren are supposed to be passionate about.

I've always wonder what these loopholes were because I always here about "closing loopholes" but don't specifically hear what these loopholes are.


There is no logic, besides the class warfare rhetoric, i.e. "they have to pay their fair share." Paying for Obamacare, green energy programs + subsidies, expanding (ineffective) job training programs, welfare payments, spending more on colleges and schools, and increasing bureaucracy to pay for other things such as additional health care reform will just destroy the economy. If you take away the profit and money, you take away the incentive to create goods, which harms us all, and reduces the private sector activity which creates jobs and wealth in the first place.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:26:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 9:52:33 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:26:16 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/8/2012 6:58:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
the GOP has taken a rightward turn and been overrun by uncompromising neoconservatives that think that a lost election means that they have the leverage to have it their way. Democrats are more easy to compromise with than Republicans,...hence the popular phrase "spineless liberal." So the blame for congressional approval should lay a good deal over 50% on the GOP.

Not a bad statement. But regarding the fiscal cliff, the Democrats and Obama have been uncompromising.

Letting taxes expire for the wealthy would kill 700,000 jobs and reduce the investment that makes the economy grow, and the consumption that sustains the economy.

The GOP knows of these facts, and liberals are like, "Nope. These tax cuts have to expire. So what if it plunges us back into a mild recession. We need that additional $80 billion in revenue, even if that will fund the gov't for only 9 days at most."

I'm a bit skeptical of the numbers because when have economic forecasting ever been right. I don't see how it would kill 700,000. Not running a deficit might cause the multiplier to be reduced, but with the US running such a high debt decreasing the deficit could be a good thing.

The people at the top of the income earnings would have less to spend, which would reduce their total consumption. They would have also less to invest, reducing long term growth. The study for my figure comes from the National Federation of Independent Businesses (or a similar name). Romney actually brought this point up in the first debate, and Obama was like, "Well, it didn't work under Bush..."

I also doubt the new revenue would be used for the deficit. It would probably be sucked up by more welfare spending, esp. since of past record -- welfare payments have went up by 40% since Obama took office.

The GOP has offered closing tax loopholes, which would more than cover the revenue the Democrats want to gain by raising taxes, and lowering rates and cutting loopholes would help the economy too, and level the playing field - which is a thing that Democrats like Elizabeth Warren are supposed to be passionate about.

I've always wonder what these loopholes were because I always here about "closing loopholes" but don't specifically hear what these loopholes are.

There are plenty, that's what makes up the 60,000 pages in the tax code. Specifically though, I don't have that much of an idea. There is probably a tax deduction for retirement, buying domestic goods, health insurance, etc.


There is no logic, besides the class warfare rhetoric, i.e. "they have to pay their fair share." Paying for Obamacare, green energy programs + subsidies, expanding (ineffective) job training programs, welfare payments, spending more on colleges and schools, and increasing bureaucracy to pay for other things such as additional health care reform will just destroy the economy. If you take away the profit and money, you take away the incentive to create goods, which harms us all, and reduces the private sector activity which creates jobs and wealth in the first place.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:30:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How would the expiration of the tax cuts affect tax revenues? Does anyone have any pertinent information on this?
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 10:42:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:26:19 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:52:33 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:26:16 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/8/2012 6:58:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
the GOP has taken a rightward turn and been overrun by uncompromising neoconservatives that think that a lost election means that they have the leverage to have it their way. Democrats are more easy to compromise with than Republicans,...hence the popular phrase "spineless liberal." So the blame for congressional approval should lay a good deal over 50% on the GOP.

Not a bad statement. But regarding the fiscal cliff, the Democrats and Obama have been uncompromising.

Letting taxes expire for the wealthy would kill 700,000 jobs and reduce the investment that makes the economy grow, and the consumption that sustains the economy.

The GOP knows of these facts, and liberals are like, "Nope. These tax cuts have to expire. So what if it plunges us back into a mild recession. We need that additional $80 billion in revenue, even if that will fund the gov't for only 9 days at most."

I'm a bit skeptical of the numbers because when have economic forecasting ever been right. I don't see how it would kill 700,000. Not running a deficit might cause the multiplier to be reduced, but with the US running such a high debt decreasing the deficit could be a good thing.

The people at the top of the income earnings would have less to spend, which would reduce their total consumption. They would have also less to invest, reducing long term growth.

I already addressed this. I don't think the multiplier would be reduced by that much.

The study for my figure comes from the National Federation of Independent Businesses (or a similar name). Romney actually brought this point up in the first debate, and Obama was like, "Well, it didn't work under Bush..."

Sounds like something that would be bias.

I also doubt the new revenue would be used for the deficit. It would probably be sucked up by more welfare spending, esp. since of past record -- welfare payments have went up by 40% since Obama took office.

What policies has Obama enacted that increased welfare payments. Welfare doesn't make a large part of the US budget and welfare spending has likely increased due to social and economic changes, not Obama himself. Obama can't increase deficit spending because he doesn't approve the budget. Both the house and senate has to agree to pass a budget. Many spending cuts are going to occur during the "fiscal cliff" which is a good thing.


The GOP has offered closing tax loopholes, which would more than cover the revenue the Democrats want to gain by raising taxes, and lowering rates and cutting loopholes would help the economy too, and level the playing field - which is a thing that Democrats like Elizabeth Warren are supposed to be passionate about.

I've always wonder what these loopholes were because I always here about "closing loopholes" but don't specifically hear what these loopholes are.

There are plenty, that's what makes up the 60,000 pages in the tax code. Specifically though, I don't have that much of an idea. There is probably a tax deduction for retirement, buying domestic goods, health insurance, etc.

That's what I'm stating. Most people don't state specifically. They just use it as a catchphrase. I think tax deduction on retirement and health insurance is a good thing, but I agree that a tax deduction for domestic produced goods is bad.

Most of the tax code is based on how income is defined more then anything.



There is no logic, besides the class warfare rhetoric, i.e. "they have to pay their fair share." Paying for Obamacare, green energy programs + subsidies, expanding (ineffective) job training programs, welfare payments, spending more on colleges and schools, and increasing bureaucracy to pay for other things such as additional health care reform will just destroy the economy. If you take away the profit and money, you take away the incentive to create goods, which harms us all, and reduces the private sector activity which creates jobs and wealth in the first place.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 11:29:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 10:42:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/8/2012 10:26:19 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:52:33 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/8/2012 9:26:16 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/8/2012 6:58:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
the GOP has taken a rightward turn and been overrun by uncompromising neoconservatives that think that a lost election means that they have the leverage to have it their way. Democrats are more easy to compromise with than Republicans,...hence the popular phrase "spineless liberal." So the blame for congressional approval should lay a good deal over 50% on the GOP.

Not a bad statement. But regarding the fiscal cliff, the Democrats and Obama have been uncompromising.

Letting taxes expire for the wealthy would kill 700,000 jobs and reduce the investment that makes the economy grow, and the consumption that sustains the economy.

The GOP knows of these facts, and liberals are like, "Nope. These tax cuts have to expire. So what if it plunges us back into a mild recession. We need that additional $80 billion in revenue, even if that will fund the gov't for only 9 days at most."

I'm a bit skeptical of the numbers because when have economic forecasting ever been right. I don't see how it would kill 700,000. Not running a deficit might cause the multiplier to be reduced, but with the US running such a high debt decreasing the deficit could be a good thing.

The people at the top of the income earnings would have less to spend, which would reduce their total consumption. They would have also less to invest, reducing long term growth.

I already addressed this. I don't think the multiplier would be reduced by that much.

Ok. I disagree but that's your opinion.

The study for my figure comes from the National Federation of Independent Businesses (or a similar name). Romney actually brought this point up in the first debate, and Obama was like, "Well, it didn't work under Bush..."

Sounds like something that would be bias.

I also doubt the new revenue would be used for the deficit. It would probably be sucked up by more welfare spending, esp. since of past record -- welfare payments have went up by 40% since Obama took office.

What policies has Obama enacted that increased welfare payments.

I'm not specifically sure. The figure is true though -- things like supplementary income payments, food stamps, and TANF have all went up in costs. And automatic increases account for a big increase as well.

Welfare doesn't make a large part of the US budget

Over 14%, not including entitlements.

and welfare spending has likely increased due to social and economic changes, not Obama himself.

Obama hasn't done anything to reduce it, so he can't escape my criticism. But he's a Democrat, I guess you couldn't expect much else (Clinton was a moderate Democrat).

Obama can't increase deficit spending because he doesn't approve the budget. Both the house and senate has to agree to pass a budget. Many spending cuts are going to occur during the "fiscal cliff" which is a good thing.

But it will come with the tax cuts. Spending cuts are not as bad when the private sector can fill in and take its spot, when tax hikes are included, there is less capital available and then the private sector cannot as easily adjust to the reduction in spending. Plus gov't is poor at spending effectively, it cannot direct capital to where it's needed like businesses and individuals can.

Plus the Democrats controlled both the Legislative and Executive branches for 2 full years- that should be enough time to pass at least 1 budget.


The GOP has offered closing tax loopholes, which would more than cover the revenue the Democrats want to gain by raising taxes, and lowering rates and cutting loopholes would help the economy too, and level the playing field - which is a thing that Democrats like Elizabeth Warren are supposed to be passionate about.

I've always wonder what these loopholes were because I always here about "closing loopholes" but don't specifically hear what these loopholes are.

There are plenty, that's what makes up the 6,000 pages in the tax code. Specifically though, I don't have that much of an idea. There is probably a tax deduction for retirement, buying domestic goods, health insurance, etc.

That's what I'm stating. Most people don't state specifically. They just use it as a catchphrase. I think tax deduction on retirement and health insurance is a good thing, but I agree that a tax deduction for domestic produced goods is bad.

The health care tax exclusion distorts the health care market - businesses have an incentive to provide health insurance, and when in general people have insurance, they are less likely to be careful on maintaining their health -- and are likely to spend more on health care services, and spending on health care will go up. Compared to having a more laissez faire system, where health savings accounts would be used more often which would help massively curtail health care costs by introducing competition.

Some loopholes include (in addition to health care):
- Home mortgage deduction
- Step-up basis of capital gains at death
- Exclusion of rental income
- 401(k) plans
- charitable donation deduction
- depreciation of machinery and equipment tax loophole

There are many more tax loopholes to, that is why the tax code is more than 2 million words long (before Obamacare). We need to provide tax relief, and have some real tax simplification -- with a low flat tax -- so that people can have more take home pay, the economy grows, and so people can have greater economic freedom while limiting Washington's endless hunger for more revenue.

Most of the tax code is based on how income is defined more then anything.

Yeah. And if we did have tax simplification -- cutting the rates, but also eliminating the distorting tax credits, deductions and exemptions, it would reduce the costs for paying taxes, putting more wealth back into the economy, and small businesses would be particularly helped -- as many would then be paying a lower rate.

Americans think that an IRS audit would be as unpleasant as getting robbed, and more painful than getting a root canal.

Tax loopholes are open to political favors as well for obvious reasons.



There is no logic, besides the class warfare rhetoric, i.e. "they have to pay their fair share." Paying for Obamacare, green energy programs + subsidies, expanding (ineffective) job training programs, welfare payments, spending more on colleges and schools, and increasing bureaucracy to pay for other things such as additional health care reform will just destroy the economy. If you take away the profit and money, you take away the incentive to create goods, which harms us all, and reduces the private sector activity which creates jobs and wealth in the first place.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 11:57:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 11:29:42 PM, Contra wrote:


Welfare doesn't make a large part of the US budget

Over 14%, not including entitlements.

Where's the number from.

http://thinkbynumbers.org...

Here it says its $59 billion. That's 2006 so its probably gone up. Budget is about $3 trillion so that's 2%. However, I doubt the numbers because its from a bias source. I also found it lulz that chrumbeliavable made it more bias on the DDO blog by using 59 million when it was supposed to be 59 billion, which is because 1000 times off.

If you include medicaid, it is a lot more though.

and welfare spending has likely increased due to social and economic changes, not Obama himself.

Obama hasn't done anything to reduce it, so he can't escape my criticism. But he's a Democrat, I guess you couldn't expect much else (Clinton was a moderate Democrat).

Obama can't increase deficit spending because he doesn't approve the budget. Both the house and senate has to agree to pass a budget. Many spending cuts are going to occur during the "fiscal cliff" which is a good thing.

But it will come with the tax cuts. Spending cuts are not as bad when the private sector can fill in and take its spot, when tax hikes are included, there is less capital available and then the private sector cannot as easily adjust to the reduction in spending. Plus gov't is poor at spending effectively, it cannot direct capital to where it's needed like businesses and individuals can.

Are you looking at long term economic growth or job growth? The private sector can't just "fill in and take its spot" instantaneously. The private sector needs time to adjust to make these types of calculations.

Its not as if there's no capital available and it should be noted that one of the problems of today's recession isn't that there isn't enough capital but too much ideal resources.

Take a look at how much excess reserves the banks have:

http://www.stringfellow.co.za...

Plus the Democrats controlled both the Legislative and Executive branches for 2 full years- that should be enough time to pass at least 1 budget.


The GOP has offered closing tax loopholes, which would more than cover the revenue the Democrats want to gain by raising taxes, and lowering rates and cutting loopholes would help the economy too, and level the playing field - which is a thing that Democrats like Elizabeth Warren are supposed to be passionate about.

I've always wonder what these loopholes were because I always here about "closing loopholes" but don't specifically hear what these loopholes are.

There are plenty, that's what makes up the 6,000 pages in the tax code. Specifically though, I don't have that much of an idea. There is probably a tax deduction for retirement, buying domestic goods, health insurance, etc.

That's what I'm stating. Most people don't state specifically. They just use it as a catchphrase. I think tax deduction on retirement and health insurance is a good thing, but I agree that a tax deduction for domestic produced goods is bad.

The health care tax exclusion distorts the health care market - businesses have an incentive to provide health insurance, and when in general people have insurance, they are less likely to be careful on maintaining their health -- and are likely to spend more on health care services, and spending on health care will go up. Compared to having a more laissez faire system, where health savings accounts would be used more often which would help massively curtail health care costs by introducing competition.

Having health insurance is good though because if people have serious emergencies they can get coverage. Surgeries aren't cheap. I believe that 60% of all bankruptcies in the US are due to people unable to pay for their medical bills.

Some loopholes include (in addition to health care):
- Home mortgage deduction
- Step-up basis of capital gains at death
- Exclusion of rental income
- 401(k) plans
- charitable donation deduction
- depreciation of machinery and equipment tax loophole

I'd say a lot of these tax deductions are good, and If you talk to the average citizen, I'm sure he/she would find more of these tax deductibles to be good. I think the home mortgage deduction is poor policy, but you'll see most americans who own a house irrated that the home mortgage deduction is gone. Mitt Romney was unable to state he'd get rid of the home mortgage deduction.

There are many more tax loopholes to, that is why the tax code is more than 2 million words long (before Obamacare). We need to provide tax relief, and have some real tax simplification -- with a low flat tax -- so that people can have more take home pay, the economy grows, and so people can have greater economic freedom while limiting Washington's endless hunger for more revenue.

Most of the tax code is based on how income is defined more then anything.

Yeah. And if we did have tax simplification -- cutting the rates, but also eliminating the distorting tax credits, deductions and exemptions, it would reduce the costs for paying taxes, putting more wealth back into the economy, and small businesses would be particularly helped -- as many would then be paying a lower rate.

Americans think that an IRS audit would be as unpleasant as getting robbed, and more painful than getting a root canal.

Tax loopholes are open to political favors as well for obvious reasons.



There is no logic, besides the class warfare rhetoric, i.e. "they have to pay their fair share." Paying for Obamacare, green energy programs + subsidies, expanding (ineffective) job training programs, welfare payments, spending more on colleges and schools, and increasing bureaucracy to pay for other things such as additional health care reform will just destroy the economy. If you take away the profit and money, you take away the incentive to create goods, which harms us all, and reduces the private sector activity which creates jobs and wealth in the first place.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 12:32:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 6:31:22 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Rasmussen has the latest approval numbers for Congress, and it isn't pretty. Performance approval has been dropping and dropping, and has now hit an all time low of 5%.

Sounds about right to me.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 12:32:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 11:57:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/8/2012 11:29:42 PM, Contra wrote:


Welfare doesn't make a large part of the US budget

Over 14%, not including entitlements.

Where's the number from.

http://thinkbynumbers.org...

Here it says its $59 billion. That's 2006 so its probably gone up. Budget is about $3 trillion so that's 2%. However, I doubt the numbers because its from a bias source. I also found it lulz that chrumbeliavable made it more bias on the DDO blog by using 59 million when it was supposed to be 59 billion, which is because 1000 times off.

If you include medicaid, it is a lot more though.

It's around $420 billion according to the website (usgovernmentspending.com)

and welfare spending has likely increased due to social and economic changes, not Obama himself.

Obama hasn't done anything to reduce it, so he can't escape my criticism. But he's a Democrat, I guess you couldn't expect much else (Clinton was a moderate Democrat).

Obama can't increase deficit spending because he doesn't approve the budget. Both the house and senate has to agree to pass a budget. Many spending cuts are going to occur during the "fiscal cliff" which is a good thing.

But it will come with the tax cuts. Spending cuts are not as bad when the private sector can fill in and take its spot, when tax hikes are included, there is less capital available and then the private sector cannot as easily adjust to the reduction in spending. Plus gov't is poor at spending effectively, it cannot direct capital to where it's needed like businesses and individuals can.

Are you looking at long term economic growth or job growth? The private sector can't just "fill in and take its spot" instantaneously. The private sector needs time to adjust to make these types of calculations.

Absolutely, I had this on my head but forgot to put it here. It would probably take several years to fully adjust, but the economy would be better off. For example, ending welfare would in the short term hurt, but eventually many of those recipients would be working, and increasing the productivity and output of the economy.

Its not as if there's no capital available and it should be noted that one of the problems of today's recession isn't that there isn't enough capital but too much ideal resources.

Why are there idle resources? Because lack of economic certainty, and a generally weak economy. Tax relief would give more income to the middle class and other areas of the economy, which would use it towards consumption, investment, and paying off debts. This would increase economic activity. And regulations tend to stifle economic growth by rigidly regulating what business must do through thousands of pages of rules.

A good economic climate - with reduced uncertainty would provide assurance to investors that they could use their money without the threat of huge bundles of new regulations or the threat of higher taxes on their dividends, capital gains, or income.

Take a look at how much excess reserves the banks have:

http://www.stringfellow.co.za...

Which goes to show that Bernanke's expansion of the monetary base has been ineffective.


Having health insurance is good though because if people have serious emergencies they can get coverage. Surgeries aren't cheap. I believe that 60% of all bankruptcies in the US are due to people unable to pay for their medical bills.

Health insurance is good - but for catastrophic care, say it covers medical expenses with a $6000 deductible. General medical expenses are best handled by the consumer, because they are the most effective at keeping costs down because they are prudent with their own money.

The average family would save $3000 using a health savings account instead of traditional insurance. (http://internetinsuranceinc.com...). Plus, cutting down on insurance mandates would lower premiums, and allow competition over state lines to facilitate competition -- in Michigan, 70% of all health insurance comes from just one nonprofit company.

Some loopholes include (in addition to health care):
- Home mortgage deduction
- Step-up basis of capital gains at death
- Exclusion of rental income
- 401(k) plans
- charitable donation deduction
- depreciation of machinery and equipment tax loophole

I'd say a lot of these tax deductions are good, and If you talk to the average citizen, I'm sure he/she would find more of these tax deductibles to be good.

Yeah.

I think the home mortgage deduction is poor policy, but you'll see most americans who own a house irrated that the home mortgage deduction is gone.

Yeah, that's why we would need to lower the rates as well, say a 10% flat rate instead of the current 25%. Politically though, the best hope is giving more power back to the states so they can manage these problems more effectively and efficiently.

Mitt Romney was unable to state he'd get rid of the home mortgage deduction.

He was going to? That just makes me that much angered he wasn't elected.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 1:05:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 12:32:53 AM, Contra wrote:

It's around $420 billion according to the website (usgovernmentspending.com)

Its debatable what's considered "welfare". I don't trust USAgovernmentspending.com because it isn't the total US spending.

See, they add national, state, and local spending into one category. However, lots of state revenue comes from national revenue, same with local revenue from state revenue.

About 31% of my state's revenue comes from the federal government. My town gets 22% of its fund from the state and federal government.

http://www.rikidscount.org...


and welfare spending has likely increased due to social and economic changes, not Obama himself.

Obama hasn't done anything to reduce it, so he can't escape my criticism. But he's a Democrat, I guess you couldn't expect much else (Clinton was a moderate Democrat).

Obama can't increase deficit spending because he doesn't approve the budget. Both the house and senate has to agree to pass a budget. Many spending cuts are going to occur during the "fiscal cliff" which is a good thing.

But it will come with the tax cuts. Spending cuts are not as bad when the private sector can fill in and take its spot, when tax hikes are included, there is less capital available and then the private sector cannot as easily adjust to the reduction in spending. Plus gov't is poor at spending effectively, it cannot direct capital to where it's needed like businesses and individuals can.

Are you looking at long term economic growth or job growth? The private sector can't just "fill in and take its spot" instantaneously. The private sector needs time to adjust to make these types of calculations.

Absolutely, I had this on my head but forgot to put it here. It would probably take several years to fully adjust, but the economy would be better off. For example, ending welfare would in the short term hurt, but eventually many of those recipients would be working, and increasing the productivity and output of the economy.

Its not as if there's no capital available and it should be noted that one of the problems of today's recession isn't that there isn't enough capital but too much ideal resources.

Why are there idle resources? Because lack of economic certainty, and a generally weak economy. Tax relief would give more income to the middle class and other areas of the economy, which would use it towards consumption, investment, and paying off debts. This would increase economic activity. And regulations tend to stifle economic growth by rigidly regulating what business must do through thousands of pages of rules.

Well, we're in agreement that regulations are mainly bad. However, there's no reason to believe that the people will spend money if only they had more, when they currently aren't doing it now.

A good economic climate - with reduced uncertainty would provide assurance to investors that they could use their money without the threat of huge bundles of new regulations or the threat of higher taxes on their dividends, capital gains, or income.

Take a look at how much excess reserves the banks have:

http://www.stringfellow.co.za...

Which goes to show that Bernanke's expansion of the monetary base has been ineffective.

No it hasn't. The money supply still grew during the QE. The QE was based on the idea that there would still be large reserves, otherwise the money supply would've spiraled out of control. The QE was necessary because the banks had a lot of toxic bonds that needed to be dumped in order to ensure their solvency.


Having health insurance is good though because if people have serious emergencies they can get coverage. Surgeries aren't cheap. I believe that 60% of all bankruptcies in the US are due to people unable to pay for their medical bills.

Health insurance is good - but for catastrophic care, say it covers medical expenses with a $6000 deductible. General medical expenses are best handled by the consumer, because they are the most effective at keeping costs down because they are prudent with their own money.

Agree, but health insurance is needed for catastrophic care.

The average family would save $3000 using a health savings account instead of traditional insurance. (http://internetinsuranceinc.com...). Plus, cutting down on insurance mandates would lower premiums, and allow competition over state lines to facilitate competition -- in Michigan, 70% of all health insurance comes from just one nonprofit company.

Some loopholes include (in addition to health care):
- Home mortgage deduction
- Step-up basis of capital gains at death
- Exclusion of rental income
- 401(k) plans
- charitable donation deduction
- depreciation of machinery and equipment tax loophole

I'd say a lot of these tax deductions are good, and If you talk to the average citizen, I'm sure he/she would find more of these tax deductibles to be good.

Yeah.

I think the home mortgage deduction is poor policy, but you'll see most americans who own a house irrated that the home mortgage deduction is gone.

Yeah, that's why we would need to lower the rates as well, say a 10% flat rate instead of the current 25%. Politically though, the best hope is giving more power back to the states so they can manage these problems more effectively and efficiently.

Mitt Romney was unable to state he'd get rid of the home mortgage deduction.

He was going to? That just makes me that much angered he wasn't elected.

No, he wasn't. That's the point. Politicians would love to say they'll "close tax loopholes" or "cut the budget" but once you get down to specifics, they won't budge.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 1:16:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hmmm, it seems one of the main reasons that the amount of excess reserves is so high, is that a policy was enacted that would cause the FED to pay interest rates on excess reserves.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 9:10:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Say what you will about Pat Buchanan, but I thought this summed up the politics well:

http://lewrockwell.com...

Summary: the system is broken.

Summar2: we are going to find out if socialism can work in America.
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 9:22:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 1:16:26 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Hmmm, it seems one of the main reasons that the amount of excess reserves is so high, is that a policy was enacted that would cause the FED to pay interest rates on excess reserves.

Actually, banks began increasing reserves prior to that change, although I'm sure the change was a factor. The real question is "what should reserve requirements be?". It's purpose is to maintain public confidence in fiat currency & fractional reserve lending, which deals in the human mind. The FED can only make an educated guess.

Everyone went crazy overboard for awhile. Everyone is de-leveraging and trying to restore confidence. This is how this type of monetary system works, bouncing up and down. The power players in this game know this. It's risky, but they feel it provides the best long term growth (or possibly the best opportunity for gaining massive personal wealth)

Personally, I'd prefer to smooth out the ride.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 10:02:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 9:22:55 AM, ax123man wrote:
At 12/9/2012 1:16:26 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Hmmm, it seems one of the main reasons that the amount of excess reserves is so high, is that a policy was enacted that would cause the FED to pay interest rates on excess reserves.

Actually, banks began increasing reserves prior to that change, although I'm sure the change was a factor. The real question is "what should reserve requirements be?". It's purpose is to maintain public confidence in fiat currency & fractional reserve lending, which deals in the human mind. The FED can only make an educated guess.

Not public confidence in fiat currency and I doubt the general public cares about what the factional reserve requirement is. But changes in the reserve requirement causes changes in the money supply, namely M2. The lower the reserves, the greater the expansion of the money supply.

If reserves are too low and people demand too much cash, then a bank run can obviously occur.

Everyone went crazy overboard for awhile. Everyone is de-leveraging and trying to restore confidence. This is how this type of monetary system works, bouncing up and down. The power players in this game know this. It's risky, but they feel it provides the best long term growth (or possibly the best opportunity for gaining massive personal wealth)

Depository banks are pretty much by definition highly leverages institutions. Not sure how high depository banks were leveraged during the crash, but there were a lot of investment banks that were leveraged and they aren't controlled by the FEDs.

Personally, I'd prefer to smooth out the ride.

What policies would you enact?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 10:04:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 9:50:22 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Democrats would fear ownership of both house and senate as there would be no-more scapegoats.

Mitch McConnell filibustered his own bill - which I think is a first in senate history. There is overwhelming evidence for Republican obstructionism and republican radicalism. In recent polls 52% of independents would blame the GOP if we go over the cliff, and only 21% would blame President Obama. Among all Americans, 45% would blame the GOP and 34% would blame Obama if cliff provisions go into effect next year.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that you're full of Bullsh!t, and you need to admit that the Republicans in Congress do legitimately hold the lion's share of blame on lack of compromise in Washington. Put that scapegoat crap to rest.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 10:05:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 10:04:46 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/9/2012 9:50:22 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Democrats would fear ownership of both house and senate as there would be no-more scapegoats.

Mitch McConnell filibustered his own bill - which I think is a first in senate history. There is overwhelming evidence for Republican obstructionism and republican radicalism. In recent polls 52% of independents would blame the GOP if we go over the cliff, and only 21% would blame President Obama. Among all Americans, 45% would blame the GOP and 34% would blame Obama if cliff provisions go into effect next year.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that you're full of Bullsh!t, and you need to admit that the Republicans in Congress do legitimately hold the lion's share of blame on lack of compromise in Washington. Put that scapegoat crap to rest.

forgot the link http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 10:15:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 10:04:46 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/9/2012 9:50:22 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Democrats would fear ownership of both house and senate as there would be no-more scapegoats.

Mitch McConnell filibustered his own bill - which I think is a first in senate history. There is overwhelming evidence for Republican obstructionism and republican radicalism. In recent polls 52% of independents would blame the GOP if we go over the cliff, and only 21% would blame President Obama. Among all Americans, 45% would blame the GOP and 34% would blame Obama if cliff provisions go into effect next year.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that you're full of Bullsh!t, and you need to admit that the Republicans in Congress do legitimately hold the lion's share of blame on lack of compromise in Washington. Put that scapegoat crap to rest.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yes 1977-1979 was a golden age for Demacrats.

History calls B.S on your theory.
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 10:38:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 10:02:23 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/9/2012 9:22:55 AM, ax123man wrote:
At 12/9/2012 1:16:26 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Hmmm, it seems one of the main reasons that the amount of excess reserves is so high, is that a policy was enacted that would cause the FED to pay interest rates on excess reserves.

Actually, banks began increasing reserves prior to that change, although I'm sure the change was a factor. The real question is "what should reserve requirements be?". It's purpose is to maintain public confidence in fiat currency & fractional reserve lending, which deals in the human mind. The FED can only make an educated guess.

Not public confidence in fiat currency and I doubt the general public cares about what the factional reserve requirement is. But changes in the reserve requirement causes changes in the money supply, namely M2. The lower the reserves, the greater the expansion of the money supply.

I've always wondered about that too - does the general public know or care about reserves? I'm not sure, but I do know bank runs still exist. This is an interesting read on this subject:

http://news.goldseek.com...

basically saying reserves are zero or near-zero anyway (or were in 2007), so they should just officially declare this. Of course they won't do this. It seems like the whole thing is a ruse, a giant stack of cards.


If reserves are too low and people demand too much cash, then a bank run can obviously occur.

Everyone went crazy overboard for awhile. Everyone is de-leveraging and trying to restore confidence. This is how this type of monetary system works, bouncing up and down. The power players in this game know this. It's risky, but they feel it provides the best long term growth (or possibly the best opportunity for gaining massive personal wealth)

Depository banks are pretty much by definition highly leverages institutions. Not sure how high depository banks were leveraged during the crash, but there were a lot of investment banks that were leveraged and they aren't controlled by the FEDs.

Personally, I'd prefer to smooth out the ride.

What policies would you enact?

I'm not sure there is any way to turn this train around. The FED will eventually let those funds slowly out. They will most likely be able to avoid hyper-inflation, but at the same time they need to devalue the dollar enough to pay down the debt (that's your stack of cards). It will be interesting.

Eventually another country will free up markets enough to become the new economic super-power. This still won't be enough to convince anyone markets work. This cycle will continue probably for 100's of years.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 2:42:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 10:38:24 AM, ax123man wrote:
At 12/9/2012 10:02:23 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/9/2012 9:22:55 AM, ax123man wrote:
At 12/9/2012 1:16:26 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Hmmm, it seems one of the main reasons that the amount of excess reserves is so high, is that a policy was enacted that would cause the FED to pay interest rates on excess reserves.

Actually, banks began increasing reserves prior to that change, although I'm sure the change was a factor. The real question is "what should reserve requirements be?". It's purpose is to maintain public confidence in fiat currency & fractional reserve lending, which deals in the human mind. The FED can only make an educated guess.

Not public confidence in fiat currency and I doubt the general public cares about what the factional reserve requirement is. But changes in the reserve requirement causes changes in the money supply, namely M2. The lower the reserves, the greater the expansion of the money supply.

I've always wondered about that too - does the general public know or care about reserves? I'm not sure, but I do know bank runs still exist. This is an interesting read on this subject:

http://news.goldseek.com...

Doesn't mention anything about bank runs. I don't think there were any bank runs in the financial crisis.

basically saying reserves are zero or near-zero anyway (or were in 2007), so they should just officially declare this. Of course they won't do this. It seems like the whole thing is a ruse, a giant stack of cards.

The actually rules on how much reserves a bank can have is pretty complex. Its not just a set number for everyone. It depends on what kind of bank deposit it is and how much capital and assets the bank has.


If reserves are too low and people demand too much cash, then a bank run can obviously occur.

Everyone went crazy overboard for awhile. Everyone is de-leveraging and trying to restore confidence. This is how this type of monetary system works, bouncing up and down. The power players in this game know this. It's risky, but they feel it provides the best long term growth (or possibly the best opportunity for gaining massive personal wealth)

Depository banks are pretty much by definition highly leverages institutions. Not sure how high depository banks were leveraged during the crash, but there were a lot of investment banks that were leveraged and they aren't controlled by the FEDs.

Personally, I'd prefer to smooth out the ride.

What policies would you enact?

I'm not sure there is any way to turn this train around. The FED will eventually let those funds slowly out.

What funds?

They will most likely be able to avoid hyper-inflation, but at the same time they need to devalue the dollar enough to pay down the debt (that's your stack of cards). It will be interesting.

they can pay their debt through higher taxes and cutting spending. Using monetary policy to reduce the debt is obviously leads to hyperinflation, as was the case in Germany and Zimbabwe.

Eventually another country will free up markets enough to become the new economic super-power. This still won't be enough to convince anyone markets work. This cycle will continue probably for 100's of years.

I think everyone realizes that the US won't be a superpower for long. China will surprass the US in terms of GDP. Europe has become more unified under the European Union, and there are other large countries with high economic growth (ex: Brazil, Russia and India)
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...