I was asked to volunteer to work for Obama

[Torie]

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]

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.

[Torie]

Did you really vote for Obama in 2008?

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

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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]

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...

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!  

[Torie]

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.

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.

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

[Torie]

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.

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.

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.

[Torie]

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.  

[Torie]

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

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).   

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

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

Fossilized kelp. 

[Torie]

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

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.

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 ), for you to savor and enjoy.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.