Page 1 of 2
Budget Hawks
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:09 am
by kalm
Doesn’t reducing the debt during upswings make sense?
Does congress and the executive branch talk to the Fed?
Or will we grow our way beyond inflationary concerns and higher rates?
Administration officials have downplayed the risk of simultaneously slashing taxes and boosting spending, arguing that the result will be faster growth that will then shrink the debt. But the higher deficits would come just as the Federal Reserve is on course to continue – and perhaps accelerate – the pace of its short-term rate hikes. The Fed’s rate increases will likely lead, in time, to higher borrowing rates for consumers and businesses and likely slow economic growth.
One tenet of modern economics has been that the government should run higher deficits during a recession to help the economy heal but then reduce those deficits when the economy is relatively healthy, as it is now.
The market’s plunge over the past week was initially ignited by fears of higher inflation and interest rates. But investors have also had to consider a new threat: A two-year government funding deal that would add about $300 billion to budget deficits from higher spending. The Fed might have to respond by raising rates more aggressively to counter the stimulative effect of the spending increases.
Increasing budget deficits deliver a “double whammy” to investors, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “Treasury is going to be issuing a lot more bonds to finance deficit-financed tax cuts and spending increases … and the Federal Reserve will have to be more aggressive in raising interest rates” to offset the stimulus.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/f ... oking-sto/
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:43 am
by 93henfan
The Eagles won the Super Bowl, so I don't really care.
Just being honest.
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:50 am
by Pwns
And what about the infrastructure hawks? All of the sudden that's not a dire need?
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:04 am
by AZGrizFan
Pwns wrote:And what about the infrastructure hawks? All of the sudden that's not a dire need?
I am both, and Klammy is correct.
As Cleets is fond of saying, “we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.” The complete inability to look beyond what’s good for ME and see what’s good for the COUNTRY. The inability to say NO to any pet project, porkbarrel amendment, etc., etc.
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:04 am
by houndawg
Pwns wrote:And what about the infrastructure hawks? All of the sudden that's not a dire need?
We need to get some nukes modernized first.
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:56 am
by Chizzang
AZGrizFan wrote:Pwns wrote:And what about the infrastructure hawks? All of the sudden that's not a dire need?
I am both, and Klammy is correct.
As Cleets is fond of saying, “we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.” The complete inability to look beyond what’s good for ME and see what’s good for the COUNTRY. The inability to say NO to any pet project, porkbarrel amendment, etc., etc.
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:48 pm
by AZGrizFan
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:32 pm
by Ivytalk
AZGrizFan wrote:Pwns wrote:And what about the infrastructure hawks? All of the sudden that's not a dire need?
I am both, and Klammy is correct.
As Cleets is fond of saying, “we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.” The complete inability to look beyond what’s good for ME and see what’s good for the COUNTRY. The inability to say NO to any pet project, porkbarrel amendment, etc., etc.
Also entitlements, the gazillion-dollar donkephant in the room. See my siggy. Roger, out.
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:28 pm
by JohnStOnge
We have a President who is not qualified for the job and doesn't know what he's doing. Meanwhile Republicans in Congress have to placate a base that was stupid enough to vote for him and go along with what he will support. It is what it is.
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:52 pm
by kalm
Ivytalk wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:
I am both, and Klammy is correct.
As Cleets is fond of saying, “we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.” The complete inability to look beyond what’s good for ME and see what’s good for the COUNTRY. The inability to say NO to any pet project, porkbarrel amendment, etc., etc.
Also entitlements, the gazillion-dollar donkephant in the room. See my siggy. Roger, out.
Get back to me when you want to consider defense spending, healthcare spending, education spending, and various subsidies entitlements....
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:27 pm
by AZGrizFan
kalm wrote:Ivytalk wrote:
Also entitlements, the gazillion-dollar donkephant in the room. See my siggy. Roger, out.
Get back to me when you want to consider defense spending, healthcare spending, education spending, and various subsidies entitlements....
Eliminate Dept of Education and cut defense and other depts 20%.
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:47 pm
by kalm
AZGrizFan wrote:kalm wrote:
Get back to me when you want to consider defense spending, healthcare spending, education spending, and various subsidies entitlements....
Eliminate Dept of Education and cut defense and other depts 20%.
Ok but no subsidy cuts?
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:39 am
by Ivytalk
kalm wrote:Ivytalk wrote:
Also entitlements, the gazillion-dollar donkephant in the room. See my siggy. Roger, out.
Get back to me when you want to consider defense spending, healthcare spending, education spending, and various subsidies entitlements....
Cut ‘em all. What’s your point? AZ gets it. You don’t. Get back to me when you do.
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:50 am
by kalm
Ivytalk wrote:kalm wrote:
Get back to me when you want to consider defense spending, healthcare spending, education spending, and various subsidies entitlements....
Cut ‘em all. What’s your point? AZ gets it. You don’t. Get back to me when you do.
I've agreed with AZ for awhile on cuts across the board....streamlining, forcing greater efficiency, etc. Thanks for paying attention to my posts you ill-tempered lickspittle!
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:54 am
by Ivytalk
kalm wrote:Ivytalk wrote:
Cut ‘em all. What’s your point? AZ gets it. You don’t. Get back to me when you do.
I've agreed with AZ for awhile on cuts across the board....streamlining, forcing greater efficiency, etc. Thanks for paying attention to my posts you ill-tempered lickspittle!
You’re welcome, you smarmy mountebank!
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:02 am
by kalm
Ivytalk wrote:kalm wrote:
I've agreed with AZ for awhile on cuts across the board....streamlining, forcing greater efficiency, etc. Thanks for paying attention to my posts you ill-tempered lickspittle!
You’re welcome, you smarmy mountebank!
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:43 am
by Chizzang
IT's cute how you all have detailed conversations about imaginary figures...
There are no budget Hawks on either side of the isle of any significance
You might as well be debating the specifics of Unicorn Civil Liberties
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:07 am
by Ivytalk
Chizzang wrote:IT's cute how you all have detailed conversations about imaginary figures...
There are no budget Hawks on either side of the isle of any significance
You might as well be debating the specifics of Unicorn Civil Liberties
aisle
But I agree. That’s why I’m now a Libertarian.
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:12 am
by BDKJMU
Classic example of when compromise is bad..I blame Paul Ryan..
"...Here’s how it happened, how it’s happened before, and how it will definitely happen again. In 2010, the Tea Party wave hit, rooted in outrage at Congress’s lack of fiscal discipline. In 2011, in response, Congress passed the Budget Control Act, which placed mandatory limits on annual spending with a powerful enforcement tool called sequester.
When Congress wanted to exceed those limits, then-House Budget Chair Paul Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) struck a deal to increase defense and non-defense spending in equal portions — and a new tradition of irresponsibility was born. Congress realized then that a portion of Democrats was willing to give Republicans a defense increase and a portion of Republicans were willing to pay their ransom for that increase.
In 2015 and again this week, Congress repeated that model. Each iteration of the Bipartisan Budget Act has been bigger than the last, with the most recent exceeding the last two combined by $150 billion...."
http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/373 ... deral-debt
In congress, only about 30% of conks, and a handful of donks, are fiscally responsible. And that's clearly not enough..
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politic ... 01849.html
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:16 am
by Ivytalk
The House Freedom Caucus may be batshit crazy about some issues, but they have the right instincts on spending. That said, they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into voting for the tax cut, due to the deficit increase.
McConnell, OTOH,...
Re: RE: Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:59 am
by ALPHAGRIZ1
AZGrizFan wrote:kalm wrote:
Get back to me when you want to consider defense spending, healthcare spending, education spending, and various subsidies entitlements....
Eliminate Dept of Education and cut defense and other depts 20%.
Yes!
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:18 pm
by AZGrizFan
kalm wrote:Ivytalk wrote:
You’re welcome, you smarmy mountebank!
Wow...that’s some deep state work on the name-calling!
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:19 pm
by AZGrizFan
Ivytalk wrote:Chizzang wrote:IT's cute how you all have detailed conversations about imaginary figures...
There are no budget Hawks on either side of the isle of any significance
You might as well be debating the specifics of Unicorn Civil Liberties
aisle
But I agree. That’s why I’m now a Libertarian.
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:20 pm
by AZGrizFan
kalm wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:
Eliminate Dept of Education and cut defense and other depts 20%.
Ok but no subsidy cuts?
Define “subsidy”....who exactly are you talking about here?
Re: Budget Hawks
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:39 pm
by kalm
AZGrizFan wrote:kalm wrote:
Ok but no subsidy cuts?
Define “subsidy”....who exactly are you talking about here?
Listen, Z. Until the CU’s and golf courses start getting the same advantages of TBTF banks and corn farmers, I think we can put up a unified front on all this waste. No?
Work with me here...
