What's Really Going On With The Deficit

  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Apr 23, 2011 5:17 AM GMT

    What's Really Going On With The Deficit

  • gymlocker

    Posts: 159

    Apr 23, 2011 8:24 PM GMT

    If you're supporting the GOP, you're screwing yourself and you may not even know it. Only the top 11% have benefitted from GOP policies set in motion by Ronald Reagan. Most Americans, despite being more productive and working harder, have lost income and wealth since 1980.

    In fact, 89% of Americans have lost ground since 1980. Only 11% have benefitted from growth in the American economy.

    QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HERESince 1980, more than 80 percent of total increase in Americans' income went to the top 1 percent. Economic growth was more sluggish in the aughts, but the decade saw productivity increase by about 20 percent. Yet virtually none of the increase translated into wage growth at middle and lower incomes.


    That the rank and file GOP and Teabaggers don't know that or won't acknowledge that, doesn't surprise me. Most people don't know when they're being screwed anymore. That's why we have a GOP House of Representatives.

    QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HEREin 1915, when the richest 1 percent accounted for about 18 percent of the nation's income, the prospect of class warfare was imminent. Today, the richest 1 percent account for 24 percent of the nation's income, yet the prospect of class warfare is utterly remote. Indeed, the political question foremost in Washington's mind is how thoroughly the political party more closely associated with the working class (that would be the Democrats) will get clobbered in the next election. Why aren't the bottom 99 percent marching in the streets?

    One possible answer is sheer ignorance. People know we're living in a time of growing income inequality, Krugman told me, but "the ordinary person is not really aware of how big it is." The ignorance hypothesis gets a strong assist from a new paper for the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science: "Building a Better America—One Wealth Quintile at a Time." The authors are Michael I. Norton, a psychologist who teaches at Harvard Business School, and Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist (and blogger) at Duke. Norton and Ariely focus on the distribution of wealth, which is even more top-heavy than the distribution of income. The richest 1 percent account for 35 percent of the nation's net worth; subtract housing, and their share rises to 43 percent. The richest 20 percent (or "top quintile") account for 85 percent; subtract housing and their share rises to 93 percent. But when Norton and Ariely surveyed a group whose incomes, voting patterns, and geographic distribution approximated that of the U.S. population, the respondents guessed that the top quintile accounted for only 59 percent of the nation's wealth. Way off the mark.


    QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HEREAs part of a law passed late last year, the Bush-era tax cuts for the richest Americans were extended for two years. The estimated cost to the government of that portion of the tax deal, $42 billion this fiscal year, exceeds the stated $38 billion value of the savings from the federal budget cuts lawmakers approved last week.

    The extension of the tax breaks for the wealthy have proven more controversial, especially as job-creation has remained slow. Under the extension, a family that earns between $500,000 and $1 million gets an average $25,000 tax break, according to the Tax Policy Center. A household earning more than $1 million gets more than $130,000.

    Maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans will directly reduce revenues by about $690 billion over the next 10 years.* But the true cost of those tax cuts is actually a bit bigger than that.

    The cost of those tax cuts is going to go straight onto our national credit card unless we raise taxes from everyone else to pay for the $690 billion in tax breaks for the rich. And that means increased interest payments on the debt. When we add in the costs of additional debt service, the true price of maintaining the tax cuts for the wealthy jumps by almost $140 billion.** In total, keeping those cuts for the rich will cost almost $830 billion over the next 10 years. Tax cuts for the wealthy creates jobs, you say?

    The economy boasted 132 million jobs in June of 2001, the month that the first of the Bush tax cuts was signed into law. Three years later, in June of 2004, there were just 131.4 million jobs. The economy did not add a single new job during three years under the Bush tax cuts.

    President Clinton, after raising taxes in 1993, oversaw an economy that went from 111 million jobs in August of that year (the month Clinton’s budget plan passed, including the increase in taxes) to 129 million jobs six years later—an increase of 16.2 percent, and more than three times better than under the Bush tax cuts


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2011 8:29 PM GMT
    gymlocker said
    If you're supporting the GOP, you're screwing yourself and you may not even know it. Only the top 11% have benefitted from GOP policies set in motion by Ronald Reagan. Most Americans, despite being more productive and working harder, have lost income and wealth since 1980.

    In fact, 89% of Americans have lost ground since 1980. Only 11% have benefitted from growth in the American economy.

    QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HERESince 1980, more than 80 percent of total increase in Americans' income went to the top 1 percent. Economic growth was more sluggish in the aughts, but the decade saw productivity increase by about 20 percent. Yet virtually none of the increase translated into wage growth at middle and lower incomes.


    Cite the following please: "Most Americans, despite being more productive and working harder, have lost income and wealth since 1980." Are you referring to relative or absolute wealth?

    A response:

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2011 9:03 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    gymlocker said
    If you're supporting the GOP, you're screwing yourself and you may not even know it. Only the top 11% have benefitted from GOP policies set in motion by Ronald Reagan. Most Americans, despite being more productive and working harder, have lost income and wealth since 1980.

    In fact, 89% of Americans have lost ground since 1980. Only 11% have benefitted from growth in the American economy.

    QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HERESince 1980, more than 80 percent of total increase in Americans' income went to the top 1 percent. Economic growth was more sluggish in the aughts, but the decade saw productivity increase by about 20 percent. Yet virtually none of the increase translated into wage growth at middle and lower incomes.


    Cite the following please: "Most Americans, despite being more productive and working harder, have lost income and wealth since 1980." Are you referring to relative or absolute wealth?

    A response:


    That is the most stunning piece of rationalized, contrived bullshit I ever wasted 3 1/2 minutes on. IF he's an economist, he should have his PhD revoked for propagandizing. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2011 9:12 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    gymlocker said
    If you're supporting the GOP, you're screwing yourself and you may not even know it. Only the top 11% have benefitted from GOP policies set in motion by Ronald Reagan. Most Americans, despite being more productive and working harder, have lost income and wealth since 1980.

    In fact, 89% of Americans have lost ground since 1980. Only 11% have benefitted from growth in the American economy.

    QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HERESince 1980, more than 80 percent of total increase in Americans' income went to the top 1 percent. Economic growth was more sluggish in the aughts, but the decade saw productivity increase by about 20 percent. Yet virtually none of the increase translated into wage growth at middle and lower incomes.


    Cite the following please: "Most Americans, despite being more productive and working harder, have lost income and wealth since 1980." Are you referring to relative or absolute wealth?

    A response:


    That is the most stunning piece of rationalized, contrived bullshit I ever wasted 3 1/2 minutes on. IF he's an economist, he should have his PhD revoked for propagandizing. icon_rolleyes.gif


    I agree. That pizza pie bullshit doesn't make sense. If it is true that'd mean US as a whole is getting richer, because the pie is getting larger...which is not the case.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2011 9:15 PM GMT
    Waimea saidI agree. That pizza pie bullshit doesn't make sense. If it is true that'd mean US as a whole is getting richer, because the pie is getting larger...which is not the case.


    So the US as a whole isn't getting richer? Ah, so GDP has been shrinking then with time?
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Apr 23, 2011 9:17 PM GMT
    quoting the old ronnie reagan Presidential campaign tag line of 30 years ago: "are you better off now that you were 4 years ago?"


    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2011 9:23 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Waimea saidI agree. That pizza pie bullshit doesn't make sense. If it is true that'd mean US as a whole is getting richer, because the pie is getting larger...which is not the case.


    So the US as a whole isn't getting richer? Ah, so GDP has been shrinking then with time?


    You can't look at GDP as the only indicator. What about trade deficit, that's increasing. What about the value of the US fiat currency? That's decreasing. The US dollar index right now is at it's historical low, while the precious metals and oil price is at historical high and near-historical high, respectively. Therefore, factoring in these additional economical aspects, yeah I would say the pie is shrinking rather than expanding.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2011 9:32 PM GMT
    Waimea said
    riddler78 said
    Waimea saidI agree. That pizza pie bullshit doesn't make sense. If it is true that'd mean US as a whole is getting richer, because the pie is getting larger...which is not the case.


    So the US as a whole isn't getting richer? Ah, so GDP has been shrinking then with time?


    You can't look at GDP as the only indicator. What about trade deficit, that's increasing. What about the value of the US fiat currency? That's decreasing. The US dollar index right now is at it's historical low, while the precious metals and oil price is at historical high and near-historical high, respectively. Therefore, factoring in these additional economical aspects, yeah I would say the pie is shrinking rather than expanding.


    GDP is the indicator of income. The trade deficit does not show either increases or decreases to wealth or the size of the pie (just as a mental exercise, it's easy to see that the sale of say an Apple product to China is worth far more to the US than the contracting by Apple to manufacture those products given the margins). As for USD falling? That's a relatively recent phenomenon in no small part the result of policies like the bank bailouts, auto bailouts and stimulus spending - but wealth by any other measure has risen substantially for the US as a whole:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States just as GDP has also risen substantially in the US. The pie has in fact been growing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2011 9:36 PM GMT
    For now, as per Lord Keynes, we need a large defect, but once unemployment goes down, we need to reduce the size of both the defect and the debt.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2011 9:48 PM GMT
    rnch saidquoting the old ronnie reagan Presidential campaign tag line of 30 years ago: "are you better off now that you were 4 years ago?"


    icon_rolleyes.gif




    That tag line is going to get revived big time in the next election.
    And the Repubs will continue to try to ERASE that old GOP mantra "deficits don't matter" from history.

    The Repubs will say ANYTHING to try to get people to vote GOP.
    They're more than willing to spin lie or rewrite history.
    THE REPUBS WILL SAY ANYTHING.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2011 10:00 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Waimea said
    riddler78 said
    Waimea saidI agree. That pizza pie bullshit doesn't make sense. If it is true that'd mean US as a whole is getting richer, because the pie is getting larger...which is not the case.


    So the US as a whole isn't getting richer? Ah, so GDP has been shrinking then with time?


    You can't look at GDP as the only indicator. What about trade deficit, that's increasing. What about the value of the US fiat currency? That's decreasing. The US dollar index right now is at it's historical low, while the precious metals and oil price is at historical high and near-historical high, respectively. Therefore, factoring in these additional economical aspects, yeah I would say the pie is shrinking rather than expanding.


    GDP is the indicator of income. The trade deficit does not show either increases or decreases to wealth or the size of the pie (just as a mental exercise, it's easy to see that the sale of say an Apple product to China is worth far more to the US than the contracting by Apple to manufacture those products given the margins). As for USD falling? That's a relatively recent phenomenon in no small part the result of policies like the bank bailouts, auto bailouts and stimulus spending - but wealth by any other measure has risen substantially for the US as a whole:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States just as GDP has also risen substantially in the US. The pie has in fact been growing.


    But how much of it is funneled to the riches first, then when it got to the general public it has been devalued already? Btw the USD falling is NOT a recent phenomenon, back then in 1930s one ounce of gold was 35 dollars and now is over 1500 with very little sign of a correction. If you measure the USD to a gold-standard, it has depreciated about 98% over time from 1930s. It's just the status as the world reserve currency and the petro-dollar system that's holding the USD up right now. Just the fact that Bill Gross is decreasingly his long positions on US bond is a sign, and he's rarely wrong.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2011 10:34 PM GMT
    Waimea said
    riddler78 saidGDP is the indicator of income. The trade deficit does not show either increases or decreases to wealth or the size of the pie (just as a mental exercise, it's easy to see that the sale of say an Apple product to China is worth far more to the US than the contracting by Apple to manufacture those products given the margins). As for USD falling? That's a relatively recent phenomenon in no small part the result of policies like the bank bailouts, auto bailouts and stimulus spending - but wealth by any other measure has risen substantially for the US as a whole:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States just as GDP has also risen substantially in the US. The pie has in fact been growing.


    But how much of it is funneled to the riches first, then when it got to the general public it has been devalued already? Btw the USD falling is NOT a recent phenomenon, back then in 1930s one ounce of gold was 35 dollars and now is over 1500 with very little sign of a correction. If you measure the USD to a gold-standard, it has depreciated about 98% over time from 1930s. It's just the status as the world reserve currency and the petro-dollar system that's holding the USD up right now. Just the fact that Bill Gross is decreasingly his long positions on US bond is a sign, and he's rarely wrong.



    You've claimed that the pie is shrinking. The facts show otherwise - by any objective measure relative to any currency. Bill Gross has been reducing his USD holdings because of runaway entitlement spending which ironically are social policies that attempt to reduce income inequality. I agree. I was referring more to the fall relative to other currencies - but all fiat currencies by that measure have fallen relative to gold because of inflation (which in many cases has been official government policy). You may want to modify your original view of "that pizza pie bullshit".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2011 12:01 AM GMT
    rnch saidquoting the old ronnie reagan Presidential campaign tag line of 30 years ago: "are you better off now that you were 4 years ago?"


    For me?

    Well, I'm no millionaire, but I can safely say yes... I am doing better than I was 4 years ago.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2011 1:31 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Waimea said
    riddler78 saidGDP is the indicator of income. The trade deficit does not show either increases or decreases to wealth or the size of the pie (just as a mental exercise, it's easy to see that the sale of say an Apple product to China is worth far more to the US than the contracting by Apple to manufacture those products given the margins). As for USD falling? That's a relatively recent phenomenon in no small part the result of policies like the bank bailouts, auto bailouts and stimulus spending - but wealth by any other measure has risen substantially for the US as a whole:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States just as GDP has also risen substantially in the US. The pie has in fact been growing.


    But how much of it is funneled to the riches first, then when it got to the general public it has been devalued already? Btw the USD falling is NOT a recent phenomenon, back then in 1930s one ounce of gold was 35 dollars and now is over 1500 with very little sign of a correction. If you measure the USD to a gold-standard, it has depreciated about 98% over time from 1930s. It's just the status as the world reserve currency and the petro-dollar system that's holding the USD up right now. Just the fact that Bill Gross is decreasingly his long positions on US bond is a sign, and he's rarely wrong.



    You've claimed that the pie is shrinking. The facts show otherwise - by any objective measure relative to any currency. Bill Gross has been reducing his USD holdings because of runaway entitlement spending which ironically are social policies that attempt to reduce income inequality. I agree. I was referring more to the fall relative to other currencies - but all fiat currencies by that measure have fallen relative to gold because of inflation (which in many cases has been official government policy). You may want to modify your original view of "that pizza pie bullshit".


    I guess in terms of mere numbers it looks like it is growing. But factor in inflation / money printing, purchasing power is in fact, either stagnant or shrinking. You should watch "money as debt" here a video to the first part. I'm too lazy to post the rest but I'm sure a smart guy like you can YouTube the rest.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2011 2:01 AM GMT
    GDP growing or not, for christ's sake there isn't any economist saying its the bottom 80% of wage earners getting the largest share of any growth. Its all going to the top earners, If it were reversed we'd be doing a lot better at coming out of this recession, because the bottom 80% would be spending turning the wheels of the economy, which would in turn lead to the top 20% comeing off their horded money to expand businesses and hire workers.

    Not even Riddler can make the reverse of this natural order of things by his propaganda for the trickle down theory of Reagans.