Fiscal Cliff

[dre]

That's all well and good, my point was that it is a severe mischaracterization to say that the Greek economy was "the strongest" in the EU prior to the crisis. That is illustrated by its mounting debt and its lack of resilience to a downturn, among other things.

No its not a mischaracterization at all. At the very best you could say that I should have said "one of" the strongest growing economies instead of the strongest but for a few of those years they WERE the strongest. Id hardly call that a severe mischaracterization.

The real severe mischaracterization is the simplistic "lazy greeks" meme pushed by various retards that havent bothered to read up on what happened over there.

That is illustrated by its mounting debt and its lack of resilience to a downturn, among other things.

No country is going to be resilient to a downturn when it structurally targets their most important economic activity. Most of what happened to Greece is really just the result of bad luck, and the mistake they made allowing the ECB, and EP to force them into the EuroZone.

And they arent the only ones that made that mistake. Its been largely ignored in the western press but theres protests all across Europe right now, many of them turning violent.

Edited November 16, 2012 by dre

[dre]

Heres more debunking of the idiotic "lazy greeks" meme.

Greeks were one of the hardest working and most productive peoples in the world and up until financial companies in the US crashed the global economy they had a thriving economy.

[bush_cheney2004]

Greece...the longer view:

Industrial production growth went from near double-digit increases in the 1960s to a minor slowdown in the 1970s (to 8%) and then started an irreversible decline. Unlike per capita growth, however, there was no real recovery during the 2000s: in fact, industrial production peaked in 2000, underscoring the economy’s overdependence on services. Total factor productivity also went from rapid growth in the 1960s (6%) to high growth in the 1970s (2.5%) to decline in the 1980s and a modest recovery in the 1990s. Effectively by 2000, the economy’s productivity was on par with 1979. Only in the 2000s did Greece started to experience some productivity gains.

http://www.greekdefaultwatch.com/2011/08/greek-economy-50-year-overview.html

[sharkman]

Hours worked tells so little of the picture. I guess the left believes Europe is the way things ought to be? Sheesh. Cheese eatin' surrender monkeys!

[Pliny]

http://en.wikipedia....onomy_of_Greece

After 2000 Greek GDP grew at an average of well over 4% with more than 5.9% growth in 2003, and 5.5% in 2006 easily outpacing most of the EU. Things looked good there and foreign investors were flocking to Greece until the global economic catastrophuck.

Prior to the global recession Greece was one of the fastest growing economies in Europe and had a higher growth in industrial output that all 27 EU member states.

http://en.wikipedia....onomy_of_Greece

After 2000 Greek GDP grew at an average of well over 4% with more than 5.9% growth in 2003, and 5.5% in 2006 easily outpacing most of the EU. Things looked good there and foreign investors were flocking to Greece until the global economic catastrophuck.

Prior to the global recession Greece was one of the fastest growing economies in Europe and had a higher growth in industrial output that all 27 EU member states.

You mean it was really booming....let's see ......ummmm .....where has that happened before?

The bust is always imminent.

[Pliny]

Heres more debunking of the idiotic "lazy greeks" meme.

Greeks were one of the hardest working and most productive peoples in the world and up until financial companies in the US crashed the global economy they had a thriving economy.

Doesn't it depend upon what they call work? Putting in time at the office shouldn't count.

[TimG]

Greeks were one of the hardest working and most productive peoples in the world and up until financial companies in the US crashed the global economy they had a thriving economy.

Completely FALSE. Greeks may work long hours but they are unproductive: http://www.bbc.co.uk...gazine-17155304

The average Greek is working a full 40% longer than the average German.

But there is more to these figures than meets the eye.

There are two big reasons why these two countries have such different annual working hour totals.

...

On this basis, the average German worker is more productive than the average Greek. Germany ranks as the eighth most productive country by worker out of the OECD countries - or the seventh out of the European countries - while Greece comes in at 24th.

Edited November 16, 2012 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Norway has a population of only about 5 million, a very regressive tax structure, and is not very diverse. What a paradise.

http://www.americant...an_miracle.html

So the fact that Norway's population is white and Christian is one of the reasons for its success? Where did you find that piece, Stormfront?

[sharkman]

The "fiscal cliff" is unlikely to cause a recession. But regardless, the Republicans really have no decent cards to play here. Obama can get pretty much all he needs simply by waiting until the tax cuts expire, then proposing his own tax cuts. He can negotiate with the Republicans right up to the end, and portray them as intransigent lackeys of the rich, and let all the cuts in spending and increases in taxes kick in.

Then on January two, he puts a bill before congress calling for tax cuts for the middle class. Are the Republicans going to turn it down? Turn down tax cuts for the bulk of the middle class? They might try to amend it to extend that to the rich, but that has terrible optics, and he will certainly announce from the start that his bill is only for the middle class, and he will veto it if the Republicans amend it to give breaks to the rich. That will make them look even worse if they amend it or try to block it. He can also introduce a bill lowering taxes on capital gains and dividends on those with a certain income or below. Same situation. Are they going to block that? Very bad optics to do so. And either way it helps the Democrats.

I would argue, though, that he should cut a deal and not push them like that, because it will make it even harder to get anything else done for the rest of his term.

One more thing on this. If this is the way Obama plays it, letting the new rates kick in on Jan 1, then he is really going to own the results. I know you don't think a recession is likely, but they still have a weak economy. So by waiting, Obama is going to let the fear in the DOW drag it down for another 6 weeks, plus lay offs taking place due to the coming tax structure, yet to be amended by Obama. In the end the new rates will be higher than now, and what kind of spending cuts will he end up with? And will he ever get a budget through Congress?

It looks pretty messy.

[punked]

One more thing on this. If this is the way Obama plays it, letting the new rates kick in on Jan 1, then he is really going to own the results. I know you don't think a recession is likely, but they still have a weak economy. So by waiting, Obama is going to let the fear in the DOW drag it down for another 6 weeks, plus lay offs taking place due to the coming tax structure, yet to be amended by Obama. In the end the new rates will be higher than now, and what kind of spending cuts will he end up with? And will he ever get a budget through Congress?

It looks pretty messy.

Again everything you say ALSO applies to Congress no matter how much you pretend you don't know how the American government works.

[bush_cheney2004]

There are worse things than a recession. Let the tax cuts expire for all marginal rates and vacate the payroll tax holiday. Get revenues back on a known baseline without these political gimmicks.

[TimG]

There are worse things than a recession. Let the tax cuts expire for all marginal rates and vacate the payroll tax holiday. Get revenues back on a known baseline without these political gimmicks.

Been channelling Greenspan?

[dre]

There are worse things than a recession. Let the tax cuts expire for all marginal rates and vacate the payroll tax holiday. Get revenues back on a known baseline without these political gimmicks.

Thats true, and most of our biggest economic problems are caused by the government trying to avoid recessions.

[sharkman]

Again everything you say ALSO applies to Congress no matter how much you pretend you don't know how the American government works.

I suppose you have a point, Congress certainly has been playing hardball and some would say they've been overplaying their mandate.

[dre]

I suppose you have a point, Congress certainly has been playing hardball and some would say they've been overplaying their mandate.

Not to mention they have been utterly disfunctional and completely useless for the last few decades, and have an approval rating thats roughly equal to Jeffrey Dalmers.

[Argus]

Let's pretend that's all true. That still doesn't do anything toward fixing the structural deficit problem that's almost entirely entitlement program related. He needs to start fixing problems, not continuing to campaign. He won the election, he has one term left and than that's it. There's no re-election for him after that. FIX PROBLEMS.

It's not entitlement program related. It's tax related. Unless you'd care to explain why the US, with its much less generous 'entitlement programs' everyone else calls 'social welfare spending' can't afford to pay for them when every other western nation can. Americans need to pay more tax. Not as much as everyone else, since their 'entitlement programs' are much stingier than other nations, but they do need to pay more.

[Argus]

If you make 200K a year and buy a Porche then no problem. If you make 20K a year and buy a Porche then you will have big problems. It is called living within their means.

Are you saying the Americans are poor and the Norwegians are rich, so the Americans can't afford the kind of generous social programs Norwegians have?

[Argus]

One more thing on this. If this is the way Obama plays it, letting the new rates kick in on Jan 1, then he is really going to own the results. I know you don't think a recession is likely, but they still have a weak economy. So by waiting, Obama is going to let the fear in the DOW drag it down for another 6 weeks, plus lay offs taking place due to the coming tax structure, yet to be amended by Obama. In the end the new rates will be higher than now, and what kind of spending cuts will he end up with? And will he ever get a budget through Congress?

It looks pretty messy.

I would not advise him to do this, as I said. But the Republicans know he can, and this might allow a deal through. Remember, they almost had a deal a while back between Obama and Boehner but the radical wing (tea party) made Boehner back down. Now he can tell them they have no choice but to cut a deal. So we might see something sooner, if Obama is wise and doesn't want to push them off the edge just to make them look bad.

Mind you, he'd need their help in that. Unfortunately for them, they're usually all-too ready to give him that help.

[Shady]

I would not advise him to do this, as I said. But the Republicans know he can, and this might allow a deal through. Remember, they almost had a deal a while back between Obama and Boehner but the radical wing (tea party) made Boehner back down.

That's not true. What made the deal fall apart was Obama changed the original tax plan of the deal that was in place. Which blew it all up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqpZyBhE_ZQ

Regardless, let's just say Republicans go along with Obama's plan to raise revenues by $1.6 trillion over 10 years. That's $160 billion per year. Obama's running a deficit of over a trillion a year. So you've still gove 700 - 800 billion dollars of deficit to deal with. That means cuts, and entitlement reforms. Obama's offered absolutely no specifics on any of that.

[punked]

That's not true. What made the deal fall apart was Obama changed the original tax plan of the deal that was in place. Which blew it all up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqpZyBhE_ZQ

Regardless, let's just say Republicans go along with Obama's plan to raise revenues by $1.6 trillion over 10 years. That's $160 billion per year. Obama's running a deficit of over a trillion a year. So you've still gove 700 - 800 billion dollars of deficit to deal with. That means cuts, and entitlement reforms. Obama's offered absolutely no specifics on any of that.

Military spending in the US is around 800 Billion to a Trillion dollars per year if we factor in the CIA is now a branch of the Military. So you have some wiggle room there. By 2014 with no changes what so ever besides a slowing of government growth the US deficit is to go down to 600 billion add in your 160 Billion plus military cuts and we start looking at a very manageable deficit with very little reform. You remove the cap on SS and you are almost balanced.

So no Shady there is room to play with the numbers.

It is awful rich the guy who was supporting a man that promised a 5 TRILLION DOLLAR TAX cut that was going to blew a huge whole in the deficit acting like he knows anything about deficit or numbers. You lost all right to this argument when you supported the Romney plan.

Edited November 18, 2012 by punked

[Shady]

Military spending in the US is around 800 Billion to a Trillion dollars per year

Nope, it's about $700 billion-ish, and becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of the budget over the next several years. But sure, let's cut it by $100 billion. You're still left with a 600 - 700 billion dollar budget deficit per year, and you've already raised taxes on the evil rich, and cut defense spending considerably.

if we factor in the CIA is now a branch of the Military. So you have some wiggle room there. By 2014 with no changes what so ever besides a slowing of government growth the US deficit is to go down to 600 billion add in your 160 Billion plus military cuts and we start looking at a very manageable deficit with very little reform. You remove the cap on SS and you are almost balanced.

So no Shady there is room to play with the numbers.

You're quite mistaken and whistling past the graveyard if you think no reforms are necessary. Medicare and social security become larger and larger percentages of the budget, eventually taking up 100% of revenues. Means testing and retirement age increases are necessary. The same way we raised the OAS age for future generations.

[Bitsy]

Sandy, the retirement age for Social Security in the US is already 67. How much more do you think we should raise it?

[punked]

Nope, it's about $700 billion-ish, and becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of the budget over the next several years. But sure, let's cut it by $100 billion. You're still left with a 600 - 700 billion dollar budget deficit per year, and you've already raised taxes on the evil rich, and cut defense spending considerably.

Again you know nothing about numbers. If we include spending on Veterans which are post Defense obligations but should be taken into account because they are part of the life time spending on defense it is actually close to 900 Billion dollars. I know Conservatives hate life time spending numbers but you don't count them then your math is crazy Shady math that doesn't make any sense.

You're quite mistaken and whistling past the graveyard if you think no reforms are necessary. Medicare and social security become larger and larger percentages of the budget, eventually taking up 100% of revenues. Means testing and retirement age increases are necessary. The same way we raised the OAS age for future generations.

Again I just said raise the cap on SS and it is fully funded for the next 90 years. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SHADY. You want to cut programs for all Americans so that the rich can have more tax cuts. That is why your guys just lost an election. Sorry argument lost already the American people hate your ideas.

Edited November 18, 2012 by punked

[Bonam]

Sandy, the retirement age for Social Security in the US is already 67. How much more do you think we should raise it?

It should be indexed to be some % of life expectancy, so as people live longer and longer they don't end up also spending longer and longer as beneficiaries of government programs.

[dre]

Nope, it's about $700 billion-ish, and becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of the budget over the next several years. But sure, let's cut it by $100 billion. You're still left with a 600 - 700 billion dollar budget deficit per year, and you've already raised taxes on the evil rich, and cut defense spending considerably.

You're quite mistaken and whistling past the graveyard if you think no reforms are necessary. Medicare and social security become larger and larger percentages of the budget, eventually taking up 100% of revenues. Means testing and retirement age increases are necessary. The same way we raised the OAS age for future generations.

Like I said Obama proposed 1.6 trillion in new revenues and 2.4 trillion in cuts. The cuts would probably be minor reductions across the board to all programs.

I would definately start with closing down most the military bases around the world, and cutting the large portion of military spending that has nothing to do with national defense because those cuts wont hurt Americans at all... but they are going to have to cut other things as well.

Unfortunately no matter how you run the numbers things dont look good. The US has an aging population, and about 50 trillions of dollars worth of infrustructure upgrades due... No matter what scenario you run, its pretty much a virtual certainty that government spending is going to increase over the next couple of decades.

Better hope the bond market holds up!