Bitcoin Forum
March 30, 2024, 06:53:46 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: An Imaginary Budget and Debt Crisis  (Read 2376 times)
zolace
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 30, 2014, 10:16:18 AM
 #21

Article I, Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

⚂⚄ Pocket Dice — Real dice experienceProvably Fair
Free BTC Faucet
⚅⚁
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
1711781626
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711781626

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711781626
Reply with quote  #2

1711781626
Report to moderator
1711781626
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711781626

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711781626
Reply with quote  #2

1711781626
Report to moderator
Each block is stacked on top of the previous one. Adding another block to the top makes all lower blocks more difficult to remove: there is more "weight" above each block. A transaction in a block 6 blocks deep (6 confirmations) will be very difficult to remove.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711781626
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711781626

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711781626
Reply with quote  #2

1711781626
Report to moderator
1711781626
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711781626

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711781626
Reply with quote  #2

1711781626
Report to moderator
1711781626
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711781626

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711781626
Reply with quote  #2

1711781626
Report to moderator
blumangroup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250


'Slow and steady wins the race'


View Profile
August 01, 2014, 01:52:14 AM
 #22

There is not (and never in recent history has there been) a debt crisis in the US.Anyone saying otherwise gives you a good idea of who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
Do you believe that the U.S. is immune to a situation a la Argentina in 2001?
The Fourth Circuit also issued an opinion today on the same exact issue, but found that the statute was ambiguous and sided with the Obama administration, saying that the statute can be interpreted to authorize subsidies for insurance purchased on federal exchanges. Finding ambiguity in the statute is not a pretty big stretch; it's an outright sham.

Here's the language:
Quote
The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—
(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
The other decision used the wording of the law, and the wording of the law does not support that conclusion.

That conclusion came from stringing together text from four or five different areas, liberal use of the words "so it could only mean," and much hand waving.
libtards live in the fantasy liberal world where you never have to pay your debts and money you owe never comes due. You Think the 1st amendment forbids congress from Making any laws.
Liberals do want to have a lot of laws regulating many industries that they do not like, while giving subsidies to industries that they do like. I agree that they generally believe that there are no consequences to borrowing and spending money that you do not have. 

cloudthink.io   



 



 



 



 



 



Truly Profitable Investment Packages
Custom-Built ASIC Miners ● #1 Self-Sustainable Bitcoin Mining Service in the World ●
sana8410
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 250



View Profile
August 02, 2014, 11:52:25 AM
 #23

Argentina.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/argen...LEFTTopStories
Argentina Teeters on Default as Talks Collapse
Setback Sends Argentine Shares Down in After-Hours Trading

Argentina teetered on the brink of its second default in 13 years after talks with bondholders collapsed late Wednesday.

The setback, after glimmers of hope in recent days that a last-minute agreement could be reached, immediately sent Argentine stocks plunging in after-hours trading.

Still, there remained the possibility that talks could resume and a deal could eventually be reached.

At a press conference after talks with a court-appointed mediator ended Wednesday, Argentine Economy Minister Axel Kicillof, who had led the country's delegation to New York, said "we won't sign an agreement that would compromise Argentina's future." A spokeswoman later said negotiations would continue, without giving a timetable.

"Default is not a mere 'technical' condition, but rather a real and painful event that will hurt real people," said Daniel Pollack, the mediator, in a statement late Wednesday. He added, "The full consequences of default are not predictable, but they certainly are not positive."

The development is the latest turn in a yearslong battle between Argentina and a small group of hedge funds that have demanded full payment for bonds the country defaulted on in 2001. Argentina has refused to pay, despite an order by a U.S. District Court judge requiring it to pay the hedge funds. The issue came to a head Wednesday as Argentina missed a deadline to make a payment it owed to other bondholders, because the court order had prevented such a move.

Mr. Pollack, who had been trying to broker a deal between the two sides, said the country would "imminently" be in default. Standard & Poor's Ratings Services had earlier Wednesday declared Argentina in default on some of its bonds.

A default would pressure an economy already mired in recession, potentially leading to higher inflation and a weaker currency. The breakdown of negotiations also complicates President Cristina Kirchner's efforts to stabilize the economy ahead of elections next year.

Wednesday marked the end of a 30-day grace period for Argentina to make a $539 million interest payment to the holders of $29 billion of the country's restructured bonds that was due on June 30. A ruling by U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa prevents Argentina from paying its restructured bondholders until the hedge funds, also known as the holdout creditors, are compensated. The holdout creditors are owed about $1.5 billion.

Mr. Kicillof hinted on Wednesday that a private-sector solution was a possibility, apparently referring to a proposal by a group of Argentine banks to offer a $250 million guarantee to the holdouts. The idea would be to give the hedge funds a financial incentive to ask Judge Griesa to suspend his ruling until the end of the year and allow payment of holders of the other bonds.

A default could shave as much as one percentage point off growth this year, said Martin Redrado, former governor of Argentina's central bank. Analysts said it would also fuel inflation, which some economists already estimate to be close to 40%, and deepen the country's recession. It could roil the country's financial markets, ending a period of relative calm in the peso's exchange rate and Argentine bond prices.

The economic damage from a prolonged default could prove politically costly for Mrs. Kirchner, who is trying to stabilize a shaky economy and win influence for her party ahead of presidential and congressional elections in October 2015.

Even if Argentina reaches a deal with holdouts, it likely won't be enough on its own to right the country's finances, said Roberto Sifon-Arevalo, head of the Latin America sovereign group at S&P.

A deal "would definitely be a good thing. I don't think that it would automatically be a solution, or a dramatic game-changer," he said. "The macroeconomic environment in the country has deteriorated significantly. It's weak and getting weaker. This situation certainly does not help."

The immediate impact to debt markets outside Argentina is expected to be limited. Argentina has been relatively isolated from global financial markets since its default in 2001, and the country's legal battles with its creditors are unprecedented and have dragged on in U.S. courts for years. In 2001, the country's bonds made up 20% of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.'s widely followed emerging-market debt index. Now, they are only 1.3% of the index, signaling little chance that another default would rattle the global economy.

"I don't think this is going to have much repercussion outside of Argentina," said Clyde Wardle, a senior currency strategist with HSBC Holdings PLC.

However, the case has raised questions about the power of U.S. courts to adjudicate cases involving sovereign nations and their creditors.

The concerns stem from the controversial 2012 ruling made by Judge Griesa, who has presided over disputes between Argentina and its creditors for more than a decade. He ruled that Argentina isn't allowed to pay the bondholders who accepted the country's restructuring offers since its 2001 default, unless it also pays the holdouts, who have refused those offers.

Lawyers said the ruling marked the first time a U.S. judge had issued such an injunction on the so-called "pari passu" clause, which states that all bondholders must be treated equally.

The U.S. government has called Judge Griesa's ruling "impermissibly broad" and said it could undermine U.S. foreign relations. The International Monetary Fund warned that Judge Griesa's ruling could make it easier for a handful of creditors to disrupt other debt restructurings. "There is a cost to the world," IMF Chief Economist Olivier Blanchard said last week.

Analysts say Wednesday's developments will likely rock Argentine markets on Thursday, as the country's stocks and bonds had rallied this week on hopes that the two sides would reach a deal and avert default. Investors said they had been encouraged by marathon talks on Tuesday and Wednesday between Argentine officials and a court-appointed mediator, as well as a proposal by Argentine banks to pay the holdout creditors.

"The market reaction won't be positive," said Brian Joseph, head trader at local brokerage Puente. "There were big expectations of a deal. This isn't good news."

There are many investors who have actually bet on an Argentine default through so-called credit default swaps, but it could be days before those investors find out whether they can collect on their bets. Decisions about CDS payouts are made by a panel convened by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, a financial trade group. There are $20.7 billion of CDS outstanding on Argentine government debt, according to Depository Trust & Clearing Corp.

The idea of default isn't much of a concern for many Argentines, who have lived through much greater crises over the decades and are adept at adapting to economic setbacks.

"We talk about this as if it's something normal. I'm not losing any sleep over it," said Juan Chamale, 36, who works at a Kodak store in downtown Buenos Aires. "We're very used to this kind of thing and have learned to take it in stride."

Argentina's default in 2001 led to the country's worst economic slump since the Great Depression. At the time, it was the largest sovereign default in history and triggered dozens of lawsuits against Argentina by creditors around the world.

After years of contentious talks, the country persuaded approximately 93% of its bondholders to take heavily discounted restructured bonds in exchanges held in 2005 and 2010. But a small group of investors refused to take the new bonds, with many suing in U.S. courts for full repayment. These included hedge funds led by Elliott Management Corp.'s NML Capital Ltd. and Aurelius Capital Ltd.

U.S. courts had jurisdiction over these lawsuits because Argentina had agreed in some of its bond contracts to resolve any disputes under New York law.

After Argentina denounced several U.S. court rulings awarding judgments to creditors and consistently refused to pay the holdouts, Judge Griesa issued his unprecedented 2012 ruling that barred Argentina from paying its restructured bondholders until it pays the holdouts.

For the next two years, Argentina tried every legal avenue to appeal the decision. But the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Griesa's ruling, and the U.S. Supreme Court in June declined to hear Argentina's appeal.

Meanwhile, the holdout hedge funds chased Argentine assets around the globe in an attempt to get paid. NML seized an Argentine navy training vessel in 2012 and this year tried to block the country from launching a pair of satellites. Other creditors attempted to seize the presidential plane in 2007.

RENT MY SIG FOR A DAY
noviapriani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 02, 2014, 02:11:33 PM
 #24

Argentina.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/argen...LEFTTopStories
Argentina Teeters on Default as Talks Collapse
Setback Sends Argentine Shares Down in After-Hours Trading

Argentina teetered on the brink of its second default in 13 years after talks with bondholders collapsed late Wednesday.

The setback, after glimmers of hope in recent days that a last-minute agreement could be reached, immediately sent Argentine stocks plunging in after-hours trading.

Still, there remained the possibility that talks could resume and a deal could eventually be reached.

At a press conference after talks with a court-appointed mediator ended Wednesday, Argentine Economy Minister Axel Kicillof, who had led the country's delegation to New York, said "we won't sign an agreement that would compromise Argentina's future." A spokeswoman later said negotiations would continue, without giving a timetable.

"Default is not a mere 'technical' condition, but rather a real and painful event that will hurt real people," said Daniel Pollack, the mediator, in a statement late Wednesday. He added, "The full consequences of default are not predictable, but they certainly are not positive."

The development is the latest turn in a yearslong battle between Argentina and a small group of hedge funds that have demanded full payment for bonds the country defaulted on in 2001. Argentina has refused to pay, despite an order by a U.S. District Court judge requiring it to pay the hedge funds. The issue came to a head Wednesday as Argentina missed a deadline to make a payment it owed to other bondholders, because the court order had prevented such a move.

Mr. Pollack, who had been trying to broker a deal between the two sides, said the country would "imminently" be in default. Standard & Poor's Ratings Services had earlier Wednesday declared Argentina in default on some of its bonds.

A default would pressure an economy already mired in recession, potentially leading to higher inflation and a weaker currency. The breakdown of negotiations also complicates President Cristina Kirchner's efforts to stabilize the economy ahead of elections next year.

Wednesday marked the end of a 30-day grace period for Argentina to make a $539 million interest payment to the holders of $29 billion of the country's restructured bonds that was due on June 30. A ruling by U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa prevents Argentina from paying its restructured bondholders until the hedge funds, also known as the holdout creditors, are compensated. The holdout creditors are owed about $1.5 billion.

Mr. Kicillof hinted on Wednesday that a private-sector solution was a possibility, apparently referring to a proposal by a group of Argentine banks to offer a $250 million guarantee to the holdouts. The idea would be to give the hedge funds a financial incentive to ask Judge Griesa to suspend his ruling until the end of the year and allow payment of holders of the other bonds.

A default could shave as much as one percentage point off growth this year, said Martin Redrado, former governor of Argentina's central bank. Analysts said it would also fuel inflation, which some economists already estimate to be close to 40%, and deepen the country's recession. It could roil the country's financial markets, ending a period of relative calm in the peso's exchange rate and Argentine bond prices.

The economic damage from a prolonged default could prove politically costly for Mrs. Kirchner, who is trying to stabilize a shaky economy and win influence for her party ahead of presidential and congressional elections in October 2015.

Even if Argentina reaches a deal with holdouts, it likely won't be enough on its own to right the country's finances, said Roberto Sifon-Arevalo, head of the Latin America sovereign group at S&P.

A deal "would definitely be a good thing. I don't think that it would automatically be a solution, or a dramatic game-changer," he said. "The macroeconomic environment in the country has deteriorated significantly. It's weak and getting weaker. This situation certainly does not help."

The immediate impact to debt markets outside Argentina is expected to be limited. Argentina has been relatively isolated from global financial markets since its default in 2001, and the country's legal battles with its creditors are unprecedented and have dragged on in U.S. courts for years. In 2001, the country's bonds made up 20% of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.'s widely followed emerging-market debt index. Now, they are only 1.3% of the index, signaling little chance that another default would rattle the global economy.

"I don't think this is going to have much repercussion outside of Argentina," said Clyde Wardle, a senior currency strategist with HSBC Holdings PLC.

However, the case has raised questions about the power of U.S. courts to adjudicate cases involving sovereign nations and their creditors.

The concerns stem from the controversial 2012 ruling made by Judge Griesa, who has presided over disputes between Argentina and its creditors for more than a decade. He ruled that Argentina isn't allowed to pay the bondholders who accepted the country's restructuring offers since its 2001 default, unless it also pays the holdouts, who have refused those offers.

Lawyers said the ruling marked the first time a U.S. judge had issued such an injunction on the so-called "pari passu" clause, which states that all bondholders must be treated equally.

The U.S. government has called Judge Griesa's ruling "impermissibly broad" and said it could undermine U.S. foreign relations. The International Monetary Fund warned that Judge Griesa's ruling could make it easier for a handful of creditors to disrupt other debt restructurings. "There is a cost to the world," IMF Chief Economist Olivier Blanchard said last week.

Analysts say Wednesday's developments will likely rock Argentine markets on Thursday, as the country's stocks and bonds had rallied this week on hopes that the two sides would reach a deal and avert default. Investors said they had been encouraged by marathon talks on Tuesday and Wednesday between Argentine officials and a court-appointed mediator, as well as a proposal by Argentine banks to pay the holdout creditors.

"The market reaction won't be positive," said Brian Joseph, head trader at local brokerage Puente. "There were big expectations of a deal. This isn't good news."

There are many investors who have actually bet on an Argentine default through so-called credit default swaps, but it could be days before those investors find out whether they can collect on their bets. Decisions about CDS payouts are made by a panel convened by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, a financial trade group. There are $20.7 billion of CDS outstanding on Argentine government debt, according to Depository Trust & Clearing Corp.

The idea of default isn't much of a concern for many Argentines, who have lived through much greater crises over the decades and are adept at adapting to economic setbacks.

"We talk about this as if it's something normal. I'm not losing any sleep over it," said Juan Chamale, 36, who works at a Kodak store in downtown Buenos Aires. "We're very used to this kind of thing and have learned to take it in stride."

Argentina's default in 2001 led to the country's worst economic slump since the Great Depression. At the time, it was the largest sovereign default in history and triggered dozens of lawsuits against Argentina by creditors around the world.

After years of contentious talks, the country persuaded approximately 93% of its bondholders to take heavily discounted restructured bonds in exchanges held in 2005 and 2010. But a small group of investors refused to take the new bonds, with many suing in U.S. courts for full repayment. These included hedge funds led by Elliott Management Corp.'s NML Capital Ltd. and Aurelius Capital Ltd.

U.S. courts had jurisdiction over these lawsuits because Argentina had agreed in some of its bond contracts to resolve any disputes under New York law.

After Argentina denounced several U.S. court rulings awarding judgments to creditors and consistently refused to pay the holdouts, Judge Griesa issued his unprecedented 2012 ruling that barred Argentina from paying its restructured bondholders until it pays the holdouts.

For the next two years, Argentina tried every legal avenue to appeal the decision. But the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Griesa's ruling, and the U.S. Supreme Court in June declined to hear Argentina's appeal.

Meanwhile, the holdout hedge funds chased Argentine assets around the globe in an attempt to get paid. NML seized an Argentine navy training vessel in 2012 and this year tried to block the country from launching a pair of satellites. Other creditors attempted to seize the presidential plane in 2007.
And to think, Republicans were toying with the idea of a US default. Lets see how it works for Argentina. The US is not comparable to Argentina. Completely different context.

sana8410
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 250



View Profile
August 02, 2014, 02:33:57 PM
 #25

How is the U.S. different from Argentina?

RENT MY SIG FOR A DAY
noviapriani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 02, 2014, 02:44:12 PM
 #26

How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
How about in every possible imaginable way? The dollar is the reserve currency. People buy our debt with 0% real return. And people do so in large quantities.

sana8410
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 250



View Profile
August 02, 2014, 02:53:56 PM
 #27

How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
How about in every possible imaginable way? The dollar is the reserve currency. People buy our debt with 0% real return. And people do so in large quantities.
with the US massaging many of their fiscal figures and stats most of the time (usually debt and annually adjusted monthly gdp figures), plus a drop in the strength of € to $ now 1.33, and an emerging housing bubble, the forecast is a bit grim for the next few years ahead

RENT MY SIG FOR A DAY
noviapriani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 02, 2014, 02:57:59 PM
 #28

How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
How about in every possible imaginable way? The dollar is the reserve currency. People buy our debt with 0% real return. And people do so in large quantities.
with the US massaging many of their fiscal figures and stats most of the time (usually debt and annually adjusted monthly gdp figures), plus a drop in the strength of € to $ now 1.33, and an emerging housing bubble, the forecast is a bit grim for the next few years ahead
Republicans refuse to undo the the Bush tax cuts which are largely responsible for our budget deficits as government spending as a percentage of GPD is about what it was under Reagan.

sana8410
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 250



View Profile
August 02, 2014, 03:01:40 PM
 #29

It's a simple fact that both the democrats and the republicans are destroying the US. What baffles me is that you idiots buy into their shit and fight eachother instead of turning on them and installing a governing party that will actually try to serve the people.

RENT MY SIG FOR A DAY
RoadTrain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1009


View Profile
August 02, 2014, 03:15:27 PM
 #30

How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
At least in these subjects:
1. US have developed and sophisticated financial markets with a lot of liquidity
2. US have their federal debt denominated in their own currency while Argentine crisis happened because their debt was denominated in dollars.
Rigon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 441



View Profile
August 02, 2014, 03:34:11 PM
 #31

I used to think you were more intelligent than this, but you're obviously a troll. Can you offer proof of this 'record' pace? Try this: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

Oh, and remember the 'Grand Bargain'? The GOP refused to raise taxes as part of the compromise.
Mobius
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 988
Merit: 1000



View Profile
August 02, 2014, 06:22:49 PM
 #32

I used to think you were more intelligent than this, but you're obviously a troll. Can you offer proof of this 'record' pace? Try this: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

Oh, and remember the 'Grand Bargain'? The GOP refused to raise taxes as part of the compromise.
The liberals didn't want to simply raise taxes, they wanted to raise taxes on the successful only while expanding social programs. They were really not proposing anything that would actually cut the deficit
zolace
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 04, 2014, 11:27:54 AM
 #33

Krugman's editorial

http://online.barrons.com/news/artic...43323337920154
How Krugman Fudged the Truth on U.S. Debt
By mentioning only the baseline projection from the Congressional Budget Office, he downplayed the potentially dangerous growth of U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP.

Last week, I reported that the Congressional Budget Office's recently released "2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook" warned "the fiscal ship of state is in danger of hitting an iceberg" ("New Warning on U.S.'s Gathering Debt Storm," July 21). Readers asked me how New York Times columnist Paul Krugman could cite the same study and conclude that the agency's projections are "distinctly non-alarming" ("The Fiscal Fizzle," the New York Times, July 20).

The key difference is that Krugman reported only one of the estimates from the CBO for the possible trajectory of the debt-to-gross-domestic-product ratio between now and the late-2030s. He cited only the agency's "extended baseline" scenario, which put the ratio above 100% by the late 2030s from the current 74%. He did not mention that the CBO study also presented its "extended alternative fiscal scenario," which projected that by the late-2030s, the debt-to-GDP ratio would climb above 180%.

EVEN THE BASELINE SCENARIO, which assumes that "current laws governing taxes and spending will remain generally unchanged," can hardly be characterized as "distinctly non-alarming." It shows, for example, that if current laws aren't changed, the debt-to-GDP ratio will continue to climb, from 106% in 2039, to 126% by 2050, to 147% by 2060. By neglecting to mention this, Krugman manages to dismiss the scary number by pointing out that by 2039, the debt would be "no higher, as a percentage of GDP, than the debt America had at the end of World War II."

The CBO itself makes this comparison, but then points out that, unlike at the end of World War II, the debt would still be on an "upward path," a "trajectory [that] ultimately would be unsustainable."

But as mentioned, Krugman's main omission in his column was to leave out the far scarier extended alternative fiscal scenario, which puts the debt-to-GDP ratio at more than 180% by 2039. The omission gives readers the impression that the baseline was the CBO's only projected figure.

As I pointed out in my write-up, the extended alternative is more realistic than the baseline scenario. The CBO is obligated to release baseline projections, but the problem with assuming that current laws will remain unchanged is that it's not the way the budget process works in the real world of Washington, where laws are altered routinely.

It's part of the budgetary game to arrange matters so as to minimize the long-term effects of tax and spending provisions. To choose the most glaring example: the perennial plan, codified in law, to cut doctor's fees paid by Medicare. The baseline scenario assumes the cuts will take place, while the alternative scenario knows otherwise; the cuts have always been rescinded in a maneuver now dubbed the "doc fix."

There are also about 70 "expiring tax provisions" that grant tax favors to lobbying groups. Again, to minimize the long-term effects on the budget, they are routinely set up to expire, but they are almost always extended. The baseline must assume these provisions will expire, but the extended-alternative scenario more realistically assumes they indeed will continue.

Also, as the CBO study explains, "In the extended baseline, total federal spending for everything other than the major health-care programs, Social Security, and net interest declines to a smaller percentage of GDP than has been the case for more than 70 years." In contrast, in the extended alternative, the agency assumes that this spending would "rise by 2024 to its average as a percentage of GDP over the past two decades." That's more plausible than the extended baseline -- and we may even wonder if it would be still more plausible to assume the same rise in this spending even before 2024.

IN A FOLLOW-UP BLOG POST, Krugman responded to readers by acknowledging a Wall Street Journal op-ed that presents the extended-alternative scenario. He made a brief, dismissive reference to the numbers (pointing out, irrelevantly, that "well over half of the projected spending…has nothing to do with entitlements"), and ironically faulted the writer of the op-ed for omitting to mention that he is not reporting the baseline numbers.

But there is no coverup; the op-ed makes the distinction clear. It was Krugman who engaged in a glaring omission by reporting the CBO results while ignoring the extended-alternative projections.

⚂⚄ Pocket Dice — Real dice experienceProvably Fair
Free BTC Faucet
⚅⚁
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
noviapriani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 04, 2014, 11:37:05 AM
 #34

I used to think you were more intelligent than this, but you're obviously a troll. Can you offer proof of this 'record' pace? Try this: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

Oh, and remember the 'Grand Bargain'? The GOP refused to raise taxes as part of the compromise.
Govt debt has increased 99.8% since Obama took office.

Are you trying to tell me he's responsible for everything good that's happened since his election, but Bush is responsible for everything bad?

Rigon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 441



View Profile
August 04, 2014, 11:47:28 AM
 #35

I'm trying to understand this. Are you saying that "congress shall make no law" has a full stop after it? As in congress shall actually make no laws, rather than not making laws in reference to the context of the first amendment?
noviapriani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 04, 2014, 12:03:53 PM
 #36

I'm trying to understand this. Are you saying that "congress shall make no law" has a full stop after it? As in congress shall actually make no laws, rather than not making laws in reference to the context of the first amendment?
CLEARLY the original intent of the Founding Fathers was that
a) there would be no state religion as was status quo everywhere else at that time
b) no ones religion would be controlled or bothered or interfered with in any way
c) now human sacrifice and such were clearly against OTHER laws and would not be considered religion connected
d) when you consider how many of them constantly made some reference to god in just about everything they did it is also clear that there was no intent to remove the 10 commandments from courtrooms, prohibit mangers and so on in public squares, etc.

sadly the COURTS have proceeded to do what the Founding Fathers made sure the CONGRESS could not do.

That is why I would word it this way
"Congress shall make no laws; and the Courts shall make no rulings"

Anything else would be left up to the STATES.

NOT THE FEDERAL COURTS

Only a totally ignorant moron would not understand that the Founding Fathers meant all these issues were meant to be settled by the STATES individually

their NIGHTMARE was a powerful federal government- which is what we have now.

Rigon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 441



View Profile
August 04, 2014, 12:17:16 PM
 #37

I'm trying to understand this. Are you saying that "congress shall make no law" has a full stop after it? As in congress shall actually make no laws, rather than not making laws in reference to the context of the first amendment?
CLEARLY the original intent of the Founding Fathers was that
a) there would be no state religion as was status quo everywhere else at that time
b) no ones religion would be controlled or bothered or interfered with in any way
c) now human sacrifice and such were clearly against OTHER laws and would not be considered religion connected
d) when you consider how many of them constantly made some reference to god in just about everything they did it is also clear that there was no intent to remove the 10 commandments from courtrooms, prohibit mangers and so on in public squares, etc.

sadly the COURTS have proceeded to do what the Founding Fathers made sure the CONGRESS could not do.

That is why I would word it this way
"Congress shall make no laws; and the Courts shall make no rulings"

Anything else would be left up to the STATES.

NOT THE FEDERAL COURTS

Only a totally ignorant moron would not understand that the Founding Fathers meant all these issues were meant to be settled by the STATES individually

their NIGHTMARE was a powerful federal government- which is what we have now.
I'm asking a very specific question. Those words about making no law are within the context of the first amendment ONLY. Do you disagree with that? Forget everything else in the constitution for a moment. Do you disagree that those words are meant for the context of the first amendment?

In essence, you appear to be saying congress shall make no laws about anything ever. I need to know if that's what you actually mean.
zolace
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 04, 2014, 12:17:58 PM
 #38

How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
How about in every possible imaginable way? The dollar is the reserve currency. People buy our debt with 0% real return. And people do so in large quantities.
with the US massaging many of their fiscal figures and stats most of the time (usually debt and annually adjusted monthly gdp figures), plus a drop in the strength of € to $ now 1.33, and an emerging housing bubble, the forecast is a bit grim for the next few years ahead
Republicans refuse to undo the the Bush tax cuts which are largely responsible for our budget deficits as government spending as a percentage of GPD is about what it was under Reagan.
yeah sure. How much of a percentage of the Deficit has come since 2008?

Which by the way had a Democrat House and Senate? Even before Obama took over?

your pathetic attempt to try and blame everyone else but Obama is amusing.

⚂⚄ Pocket Dice — Real dice experienceProvably Fair
Free BTC Faucet
⚅⚁
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
zolace
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 04, 2014, 12:27:57 PM
 #39

National debt and Social Security, among other topics:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/op...ting.html?_r=0
Every month, my mom receives a yellow and green benefit check for $1,600 from the Treasury. I expect she’ll keep collecting those Social Security checks for a long time. She’s crushing 50-year-olds at bridge and doing yoga. Apart from their amount, the checks look identical to the $400 checks she receives every six months on her small remaining holdings of Treasury bonds. Yet Uncle Sam’s obligation to send her the $400 checks is recorded on its books, whereas his obligation to send her the $1,600 checks is not. (I’m 63, but not collecting benefits yet.)

True, Social Security benefits could be cut by Congress and the president. But so can official debt, as Argentina’s likely default reminds us. The prospect of formal default by the United States is remote. Informal default via the inflationary, easy-money policies of the Federal Reserve since 2007, is more likely. (Social Security is pegged to inflation, so while inflation would help with our official debts to creditors, like China, it is far from a panacea.)

Social Security’s hidden debt is just a small part of the story. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its annual long-term budget outlook. The good news: This year’s deficit — about 3 percent of gross domestic product — is the smallest since 2007 and way down from the peak of almost 10 percent in 2009. The bad: Without action, the deficit will grow “notably larger” starting in about four years, a result of our aging population, rising health costs and the new subsidies for health insurance.

Even worse, the budget office raised what’s called the alternative fiscal scenario, the most realistic projection of fiscal outcomes absent major policy changes. Based on these estimates, I calculate that the “fiscal gap” — a yardstick of total government indebtedness that I’ve worked on with the economists Alan J. Auerbach and Jagadeesh Gokhale — was $210 trillion last year, up from $205 trillion the previous year. Thus $5 trillion was the true deficit.

The fiscal gap — the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts — is, effectively, our nation’s credit card bill. Eliminating it, would require an immediate, permanent 59 percent increase in federal tax revenue. An immediate, permanent 38 percent cut in federal spending would also suffice. The longer we wait, the worse the pain. If, for example, we do nothing for 20 years, the requisite federal tax increase would be 70 percent, or the requisite spending cut, 43 percent.

⚂⚄ Pocket Dice — Real dice experienceProvably Fair
Free BTC Faucet
⚅⚁
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
sana8410
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 250



View Profile
August 04, 2014, 12:38:23 PM
 #40

National debt and Social Security, among other topics:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/op...ting.html?_r=0
Every month, my mom receives a yellow and green benefit check for $1,600 from the Treasury. I expect she’ll keep collecting those Social Security checks for a long time. She’s crushing 50-year-olds at bridge and doing yoga. Apart from their amount, the checks look identical to the $400 checks she receives every six months on her small remaining holdings of Treasury bonds. Yet Uncle Sam’s obligation to send her the $400 checks is recorded on its books, whereas his obligation to send her the $1,600 checks is not. (I’m 63, but not collecting benefits yet.)

True, Social Security benefits could be cut by Congress and the president. But so can official debt, as Argentina’s likely default reminds us. The prospect of formal default by the United States is remote. Informal default via the inflationary, easy-money policies of the Federal Reserve since 2007, is more likely. (Social Security is pegged to inflation, so while inflation would help with our official debts to creditors, like China, it is far from a panacea.)

Social Security’s hidden debt is just a small part of the story. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its annual long-term budget outlook. The good news: This year’s deficit — about 3 percent of gross domestic product — is the smallest since 2007 and way down from the peak of almost 10 percent in 2009. The bad: Without action, the deficit will grow “notably larger” starting in about four years, a result of our aging population, rising health costs and the new subsidies for health insurance.

Even worse, the budget office raised what’s called the alternative fiscal scenario, the most realistic projection of fiscal outcomes absent major policy changes. Based on these estimates, I calculate that the “fiscal gap” — a yardstick of total government indebtedness that I’ve worked on with the economists Alan J. Auerbach and Jagadeesh Gokhale — was $210 trillion last year, up from $205 trillion the previous year. Thus $5 trillion was the true deficit.

The fiscal gap — the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts — is, effectively, our nation’s credit card bill. Eliminating it, would require an immediate, permanent 59 percent increase in federal tax revenue. An immediate, permanent 38 percent cut in federal spending would also suffice. The longer we wait, the worse the pain. If, for example, we do nothing for 20 years, the requisite federal tax increase would be 70 percent, or the requisite spending cut, 43 percent.
The section that you quoted was a compilation from working with the Cato Institute; one which they didn't bother linking to. I tend not to trust studies done by authors who like to cite themselves unless I can look over their methodology myself. This author doesn't seem to be that interested in the transparency of his work and simply wants us to take his word for it.

RENT MY SIG FOR A DAY
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!