Talk Elections

Yes, this nice lady called me who also lives in Laguna Niguel, saying she "understood" that I voted for Obama before (how did she know - did someone here tell her?), and was asking me to volunteer to work for his campaign.

So she got "the lecture" about the fiscal ticking time bomb. Yes, I did vote for him, but not this time. This time I will be voting for Mittens. Why she asked? Because he has been AWOL on entitlements, gave the Bowles commission the finger, and the stimulus sucked, and more stimulus that he wants sucks even more, and now he has gone populist. I lay on her my rap that secular centrist socially rather liberal upper middle types I suspect will be abandoning Obama in droves, and that Obama will need to make it up with Hispanics or somebody.

She asked as to entitlements was I talking about social security, and I said sure, but that is rather small beer. The medical subsidy thing is the specter, exacerbated by the race of medical technology into new and ever more expensive realms. It was all coming apart at the seams. It requires some tough choices. Obama offers no choices at all or even talks about it. He spends most of his time saying the rich don't pay enough in taxes, which is hardly going to move the ball much even if Obama gets his way, which he won't.

She thanked me for the discussion.  I felt kind of bad laying it all on her that way, but she asked, so I told her.

Torie with an attention whoring thread. A little out of character for a chill 60 year old man, no?

On what Board should I put my little anecdote?  Or is it just so prosaic, that it should not be put up anywhere? I still wonder how she knew how I voted, but whatever.

I find it interesting. Better than anything on the 2012 board, or "Do you have the previous poster on ignore?", or the Deluge.

I'm not saying this is bad, but it's a little out of character. But do continue, I hope there is some way you two can continue the exchange, maybe we can get a glimpse into life of an Orange county resident.

Did you really vote for Obama in 2008?

Of course. I put up a vanity thread about it - just like this one. :P

You do realize that he's governed to the right of the campaign he ran? Did you expect him to not have a stimulus? As for the deficit, it's mostly the fault of the tax cuts and the wars and out of control military spending.

It's pretty weird to hear jfern saying this.

The great thing is that your demographic is tiny and is the equivalent of the tone deaf wealthy Greek voters who reside in the Athenian suburbs and voted for the austerity-mongers (DRASI and Renewal) in droves while the rest of the nation ditched PASOK and ND for the opposite reason. Continue to enjoy being tone deaf while the rest of the nation flagellates themselves on the altar constructed to appease your frugality gods.

I meant right.

That's incorrect. Going off the $1.3 trillion deficit we had last year:
Cut defense spending to Clinton levels (-$400): ~$900 billion deficit.
Let Bush tax cuts expire (-$260): ~ $640 billion deficit.

Quite the gap. While the bloated military budget and tax cuts did help balloon the deficit, they alone did not constitute the entire deficit. Depressed tax revenues from the recession, increased welfare costs, the rising costs of entitlements (social security, medicare), and increased discretionary spending have all played their fair share.

I understand Torie's sentiment. I imagine that he's taking a more long-term view at this while most of the people here are focused on the immediate effects. The United States does not need to go through Greek-level austerity; assuming we get our fiscal house in order this decade. If we gradually reduced the deficit (aiming for ~$100 billion increments would be ideal) though restrained/cutting spending and occasional revenue increase, we could probably run a surplus by the early 2020s. It's actually the Keynesian thing to do: when the recession is over, restore the budget and keep inflation tame so you can run a large deficit without fear of consequence the next time a recession rolls around. The problem is that the ruling parties tend to get addicted to the spending, and let's face it, undoing your tax cut or pork-barrel projects in your district is going to be unpopular.

Torie, do you really think that a President Romney (and Republican Congress) would really exercise fiscal discipline? Both parties have demonstrated a lack of fiscal restraint when they hold all the cards. The party of "fiscal responsibility" has been wracking up the deficit since 1980. Wouldn't a divided government be more ideal? It worked well in the 90s and if the current budget projections are any indicator, it seems to be working now (to bring down the deficit).

No, I'm correct.

()

Stick it to the man, Torie!

Voting for Mittens is a terrible idea.

Hmmmm...I'm confused. Is the Obama campaign that disorganized? You've already volunteered to help him: you've been a very vocal Romney supporter. I expected better from Barack's team.

Torie, what is this forum for but to listen to your opinions (at least I think your opinions are the type allowed here)?  We don't mind a bit!

But in sympathy to that poor woman, perhaps she had better things to do.

Yes, I am quite confident Mittens will exercise fiscal discipline, and hold Congress's feet to the fire (and is a lot less of a scatter shot thinker than Dubya, who in any event lost interest in fiscal issues when he assumed the mantle of defender of Western Civilization, and casting light into the dark corners of societies gone wrong).

As to divided government, my thought is that it works pretty well in stopping a lot of new problematical spending, but does not work so well when it comes to making tough choices, like those entailed in taming the entitlements beast, that require statutory fixes. What we do know, is that divided government of late has been a bust. Basically nothing of any gravitas or merit has been done - nothing. We have been wasting valuable time, and now have to endure a lot of BS and silly deflective rhetoric about the relatively trivial to boot.

Torie says he's concerned about the deficit and yet he's supporting Mitt "Let's build a fleet of brand new battleships and massively cut taxes" Romney. Hm...

Though I do feel sorry in general for volunteers working the phone banks, I'm glad you had an opportunity to try and set things straight with the gal, Torie.  

The OP actually reminds me of a time I received an auto-signed photograph of George W. Bush working at his desk in the Oval Office with an attached message that read: Thank you for your support of the Republican National Committee. Grassroots leaders like you are the key to building a better, stronger, more secure future for our nation and all Americans.

Incidentally, I've not been asked by anyone to volunteer again this cycle despite pitching in over a hundred hours of service to at least three or four Democratic campaigns a few years back. xD

The interesting point being, they still ditched PASOK and ND in even larger numbers than rural people. That trend came on top of the same ones also extant in the rest of the country.

Nice attentionwhore post, Torie. Beat most of them by miles. :)

Uh oh, this is how it starts.  Next thing you will start talking to telemarketers, get swindled by  duplicitous contractors and buy cd/dvds off PBS.

I really see no reason to believe that Romney will do anything to revive the economy. Is he going to do anything to try to reform the banking industry that continues pissing away billions of dollars on their gambles? The invisible hand is getting shoved up our.... Obama hasn't done much yet either but with Mitt I see more tax cuts for the Jamie Dimon's, decreased revenue, another war and more deficits.

I don't understand how anyone can vote for Mittens. I mean, seriously.

A plank with which I disagree, although it isn't "battleships."  They don't make those anymore. :)  But that all pales in comparison with where the big game lie. Mittens does not propose to cut taxes, just rates. For some reason a lot of Dems don't want to focus on that distinction. Shocking!  :P

Really? With your knowledge of demographics, you of all people should understand exactly why people can and will vote for Mittens.

What a nice thing to say Lewis. :)  Are you softening up in your old age? 

Yeah... I have a feeling you're going to be disappointed, deeply.

Ok, I exaggerated :P

Voting Mitt Romney is sticking it to the man?!!!!!!

Nah, I just set the bar ridiculously low by comparing your post only to other attentionwhoring ones. :)

I looked through his 87 page plan and couldn't find anything about what deductions he wants to eliminate or how he plans to stick it to the upper middle class/rich. That is what his plan is, no? Or does everybody lose the benefit of those deductions? Anyways, it's something he could not cover in those 87 pages, I guess because 2/3rd of it is devoted to mindless attacks on Obama. Lots of gravitas right there. In any case if he did go over it in some section other than taxes, let me know (and his website is even more dumbed down so I know it's not there). Taxes need to be raised, not lowered. Simpson-Bowles is a good start but taxes need to be raised more than that, especially on those making $1,000,000+. I don't support Brown's tax plan, mainly because it will hurt California in competing with other states, but I wholeheartedly support raising taxes on them at the federal level. Not only should they not get any deductions, rates need to be raised up to 40% or more. Finally, we might need to raise payroll taxes or institute a VAT if we want to go the same direction on health care for the elderly. I am highly concerned all Romney will accomplish is lowering rates and not much else. This campaign shows he does not have much of a spine at all and will only do what is popular. Surely you do not disagree with that?

Also the most troubling part about electing Romney (and to be fair any Republican save Ron Paul) would be foreign policy. I fear we will be entangled in a third conflict by the end of his first term. The neocons still control your party. And he also vows to raise military spending. You say the country needs to make hard choices, and so you choose the guy who will prioritize military spending over spending those precious dollars on health care (where every cent counts)?

()

First, as the above chart using nonpartisan Commerce Department data shows, Obama is the only recent president under whom government spending has shrunk. This is because the increase in federal spending has been smaller than the decrease in state spending. Arguably, the overall size of the public sector is what matters more from a macroeconomic perspective; the public sector as a whole has been implementing austerity rather than stimulus.

Second, though, again re the above chart, even if we're assessing the different levels of government on their own, it remains the case that under Obama, federal nonmilitary spending has grown more slowly than the private sector contribution to GDP. In this sense the trajectory of federal nonmilitary spending is sustainable. Now, it's not completely obvious that this will continue, since the American system of having basically a European-style welfare state for those 65 and above makes it unusually sensitive to the percentage of the population who are seniors, but that would take a reversal of the current trend. And even if that does occur, it remains the case that...

third, public spending as a % of GDP is lower in the US than in many central and northern European countries that have lower public debt and whose economies are broadly successful when they don't enter into hasty currency-union schemes with weaker economies. This suggests, broadly, that the US could easily afford to fund its current (quite limited) entitlement regime in a fiscally sustainable way with increases in taxation.

I remain unconvinced that the idea that entitlement spending growth is threatening the country's economic health is well grounded in an accurate assessment of the state of the budget.

The thing is that Republicans don't want to raise taxes. They dont want revenue to go up to 18% of GDP as it has been historically let alone more than that. Of course spending would still need to be cut, but raising taxes a good amount with spending cuts can lead to a balanced budget when the economy picks up. To be fair it's not like Democrats are that keen on spending cuts but it's not like any of them have signed a childish pledge not to do it.....

Well of course. But if that's really what's driving things, which it is, don't tell us that it's just a matter of spending being on some kind of unaffordable upward trajectory, which it isn't.

Do you have a link to where you got these charts? I would like to read the context.  I mean we have a problem.  Paul Ryan says the computers crash if we keep on the present course, and you suggest these charts suggest, what me worry?  Something is rotten in Denmark. I want to ascertain just what it is that is noisome.

One clear problem is the centralization of non-military government spending. The federal side is roughly at the same pace as the private sector, ie 8-9% over the last three years, while the state and local side is shedding outlays. Speaking from the state perspective the stimulus acted to drive state and local spending beyond sustainable levels, and when the stimulus stopped, those outlays crashed.

Paul Ryan is also an Ayn Rand-worshiping, ideologue who's plan has no basis in reality. Why on earth would you consider a plan that cuts taxes on the wealthy dramatically and contains no real specifics on the repeal of deductions to be credible? How is a plan that does this fair?

()

I'm not sure why I ask these questions when I know the answers to them; I'm just perplexed that a supposedly sane moderate like you would consider Paul Ryan to be a fiscal savior. I guess the root lies in your irrational hatred of public unions and universal healthcare.

I didn't opine on the Ryan plan (for one thing I have not really studied it), I just stated what he said the CBO computers did when projecting cash flows forward - they crashed around 2030 or something.

I guess we have a couple of issues on the table to start to get to the bottom of this. First, since we are now combining state and federal spending as part of this exercise, we have to address the slash in state/local government spending. Is that sustainable, or will state/local government functions gradually erode down to unacceptable levels? Second, what will be the impact of the cost of debt carry when interest rates return to "normal" levels, as opposed to being near zero? We also know that the "on budget" ballooning negative cash flow from Social Security going forward will be another drain (that is part of the problem; just what is on budget, and what is off).  And at the moment, it seems that the bulk of the medical cost issue is being absorbed through rapidly increasing insurance premiums - also not sustainable.  

In other words, charts are fun, but one needs to understand what they are really saying, and the context, to formulate intelligent policy, as opposed to making campaign points.  

Uh, I think he's 61 actually ;)

Yes, one year or so short of being eligible to start collecting social security (which I won't be collecting since the implicit actuarily calculated rate of return from the government of waiting until age 70 is about 8% per year annualized).   :(

My point is that Ryan isn't credible, he's a dorky Ayn Rand troll who will blatantly lie to the public to justify his morality play wherein entitlements are leveled and those who adhere to the principles of master morality are raised to their proper place in society. Let the weaklings bow to the supreme being manna.

Why on earth would that slash be considered sustainable? Spending at the local and state level is generally more correlated with population growth because its programs need to be much more responsive to it: it's not really an option to not hire more police officers or firefighters when your cities are still growing at a steady clip and it's not really an option to avoid extra hiring teachers or building new schools for half a decade.

Interest rates won't return to normal levels until the economy starts improving at a measurable rate for various reasons and by that point, we'll be posting significant budget surpluses. See: the fact that we already posted a budget surplus last month. If we can achieve that with a sluggish economy, with continued high rates of counter-cyclical spending, we can certainly achieve that in the future.

That one month of positive cash flow appears to be doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Anyway, the first step is to see the source of those charts.  There are just not enough facts on the table here projecting out. So we are just left bouncing our opinions back and forth, with a bunch of assertions.

Do you have a mirror?  No offense, but its your class and its representatives.


Oh come now buddy, did you tell the actuary you're mainlining testosterone?  I think you better take that SS on your 62nd.  (I'm sure it is a tiny pittance to you either way).

I suggest you follow Opebo's advice. Also is that brickweed in your signature?

If you are asked to volunteer is it really volunteering?

No, its Aung San Suu Kyi.

Fossilized kelp. 

Interesting. Why is it in your signature? I was wondering the same as Seatown, and thought you needed to visit some better dispensaries. :P

Because I find it beautiful, and like the geometric shapes and light and shadows and colors and texture. It is in a wall at the Getty Museum, which I visited with a friend and his mother on Mother's Day. It was far more pleasing than most of the ponderous 18th Century French art and overdone rococo furniture (just like I prefer the Federalist Party, I prefer Federalist style furniture - less is more) inside (Getty's taste really sucked). In short, I am trying to bring beauty into all of your lives (and train your eyes to see it :P), for you to savor and enjoy. :)

Hi Torie - sorry, I didn't mean to just vanish into the kelp without a response, but I've been very busy at work the past little while, including a bunch of travel around the state. (And this despite not being involved on either side's election campaign! :P)

First, to answer your immediate question, the chart I posted was from this New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/business/economy/government-is-getting-smaller-in-the-us-off-the-charts.html

But as to the broader context you were discussing, I definitely don't think that everything is ok, budget-wise, because this is just about the spending side, and of course the rate of spending increase must be distinguished from the rate of debt increase, which depends on the difference between spending and revenue. Certainly the federal debt is very large and is increasing fast, and this isn't good. I do disagree with you strongly about what should be done about this; I have looked at the same CBO projections Paul Ryan is using, and my layman's sense is that the country could maintain the current medical entitlement regime even as the boomers age just with an increase in taxation of a few % of GDP that would leave things well in line with levels in many economically successful European nations. But we can agree, at least, that the debt is growing too fast, and something needs to change about it.

I didn't even know I was being "ignored" actually, so no problem. :)

The above issue probably deserves its own thread on the US Discussion Board. It obviously is the single most important issue out there at the moment, and it would be nice if we all could get closer to agreeing on at least the facts (after we all get a better handle on them, rather than relying on third party claims of this and that), and work towards finding where we agree, or if we don't agree, just what generates the disagreement. That to me is what a productive discussion is all about - empowering the participants with knowledge to better assist in their forming intelligent opinions which comport of course with their own individual values.