tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.comments2023-11-03T08:36:57.066-04:00D.C. ExileUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1032125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-14024433145911145792016-12-16T22:42:41.305-05:002016-12-16T22:42:41.305-05:00Humm, I wonder which party might be rightfully lab...Humm, I wonder which party might be rightfully labeled soft on Communism now ?<br /><br />How times have changed.Bob Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01785320380712279680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-67184119617893046652015-10-14T03:43:05.475-04:002015-10-14T03:43:05.475-04:00Electricity is a necessity, so whatever companies ...Electricity is a necessity, so whatever companies charge is what the population has to pay.Business owners are always looking for ways to expand profit margins. It’s important to reduce expenses in a way that doesn't damage the quality of service or products. <a href="http://www.compareelectric.com/CompareElectricRates.aspx" rel="nofollow">compare electricity rates houston</a><br />Compare Electrichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03280729709745091442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-1306188701112728572013-12-23T11:56:32.654-05:002013-12-23T11:56:32.654-05:00Dina Temple-Raston is attempting to very politely ...<b>Dina Temple-Raston is attempting to very politely correct the record…</b><br /><br />Are you saying that the combination of <i>ad hominem</i> fallacy, condescension, and falsehood qualifies as being <i>very polite</i>?<br /><br /><b>Greenwald cannot be bothered to be civil to Temple-Raston let alone process what she's saying.</b><br /><br />Oh, I guess you are.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08236984939429237292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-4378134278964674902013-02-21T20:09:44.207-05:002013-02-21T20:09:44.207-05:00Your beef is with Sargent. Your beef is with Sargent. Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06325732717974974062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-15653679079257580742013-02-20T21:44:34.215-05:002013-02-20T21:44:34.215-05:00Republicans would sooner damage our military and e...<i> Republicans would sooner damage our military and economy than ask for a penny in new revenues from the very rich.</i><br /><br />Wait, didn't the top marginal income tax rate just go up? If so, doesn't that count as more than a few pennies in new revenues from the very rich? Meanwhile, the notion that either national security or the economy will be imperiled from <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/19/what-will-sequestration-really-look-like" rel="nofollow">$44 billion in cuts</a> this fiscal year -- 1.2% of federal spending and 0.3% of GDP -- is fairly ridiculous. Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573575140584770666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-37415657764909562192013-02-03T23:01:57.610-05:002013-02-03T23:01:57.610-05:00Great posting! This is really interesting. I guess...Great posting! This is really interesting. I guess it is a good idea to have liability insurance for guns. It would help in decreasing the incidents of gun violence. jelly andrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15739210874674200059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-13445156097839950172012-12-09T01:54:29.685-05:002012-12-09T01:54:29.685-05:00It appears that she is a favorite to be named by P...It appears that she is a favorite to be named by President Barack Obama as secretary of state, <a href="http://blog.adblaze.com/hidemyass-review/" rel="nofollow">hidemyass review</a><br /><br /> <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01813150344575149922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-2231614847353082332012-08-15T15:10:44.191-04:002012-08-15T15:10:44.191-04:00I don't think cutting all federal spending out...<i>I don't think cutting all federal spending outside of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security down to 3.7% of GDP is the status quo.</i><br /><br />BTW, where do you get this number from? According to Jeffrey Sachs in today's FT:<br /><br /><i>Of the total outlays in 2016, Mr Ryan targets “discretionary” programmes at 5.9 per cent of GDP...In Mr Obama’s 2016 budget targets, discretionary spending is set at 5.9 per cent of GDP.</i>Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573575140584770666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-26700515936215847952012-08-14T16:30:58.059-04:002012-08-14T16:30:58.059-04:00While they haven't been the topic of this exch...<i>While they haven't been the topic of this exchange, both Medicaid and Medicare are safety nets. His plan would have dramatic consequences for both of these.</i><br /><br />Sure, and doing nothing also has dramatic consequences (crushing the rest of the federal budget). President Obama's plan also has dramatic consequences (cutting Medicare by $700 billion). There are dramatic consequences regardless.<br /><br /><i>And you were quite the champion of Ryan's Roadmap. Are you walking that back now?</i><br /><br />You'll have to refresh my memory. In April of last year <a href="http://dcexile.blogspot.com/2011/04/budget-bollocks.html" rel="nofollow">I commented</a> that Ryan's plan uses "wildly optimistic assumptions" and is "too mild" with "even deeper cuts required than what he outlines." In May <a href="http://dcexile.blogspot.com/2012/05/david-brooks-false-choice.html" rel="nofollow">I noted</a> that Ryan had refused to specify which tax loopholes he would close and said that I wasn't "interested in defending Paul Ryan, whose budget I don't think cuts nearly enough." In March 2010 <a href="http://dcexile.blogspot.com/2010/03/ryans-voodoo-economics.html" rel="nofollow">I called</a> his 50+ year time horizon for the budget "a bit silly."<br /><br />Not sure any of that makes me "quite the champion."Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573575140584770666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-11054498421967123542012-08-14T15:01:30.035-04:002012-08-14T15:01:30.035-04:00The idea that we are faced with safety nets being ...<i>The idea that we are faced with safety nets being removed and government programs being gutted under a Ryan budget scenario does not appear to have much basis in reality. </i><br /><br />While they haven't been the topic of this exchange, both Medicaid and Medicare are safety nets. His plan would have dramatic consequences for both of these.<br /><br />And you were quite the champion of Ryan's Roadmap. Are you walking that back now?Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04621444962752348431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-43163183817440402922012-08-14T14:55:17.854-04:002012-08-14T14:55:17.854-04:00Gee, I don't know, maybe because our economy g...<i>Gee, I don't know, maybe because our economy grows over time and money loses value over time due to inflation?</i><br /><br />Well yes, the fact that the economy grows over time, thus changing the denominator, is why percentage of GDP is highly problematic -- as I have already demonstrated. Or perhaps you believe that from 1990-2010 that the defense budget was actually cut because it declined as a percentage of GDP?<br /><br />Anyway, since you are unwilling to provide the nominal numbers and equate this with a chasing of the tail, I decided to go ahead and do it for you. According to the CBO, the Ryan budget's projected federal spending excluding social security, medicare and interest payments is <a href="http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-20-Ryan_Specified_Paths_2.pdf" rel="nofollow">$1.74 trillion in 2023</a>. The Obama budget projects spending at somewhere <a href="http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/budget-and-defense" rel="nofollow">around $2.15 trillion</a> in 2022. I'll call it $2.25 trillion for 2023 for an apples to apples comparison.<br /><br />If we use an <a href="http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html" rel="nofollow">inflation calculator</a> and assume historical levels of inflation will continue, that $2.25 trillion is equal to $1.8 trillion in 2012 dollars. Ryan's proposed spending comes out to $1.4 trillion in 2012 dollars. <br /><br />For perspective, current discretionary spending minus interest is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget#Total_revenues_and_spending" rel="nofollow">around $1.25 trillion</a>.<br /><br />Now, while Ryan's budget would spend more, given population growth, in reality this amounts to probably a slight decrease in spending. <br /><br />Thus, this seems to further confirm my argument that this notion the coming election presents a sharp divide is mostly hot air. The Ryan budget would, at its most draconian, slightly trim current spending while the Obama budget, at the very least, merely continues the same path. <br /><br />The idea that we are faced with safety nets being removed and government programs being gutted under a Ryan budget scenario does not appear to have much basis in reality.Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573575140584770666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-8390331287931445962012-08-14T13:36:01.281-04:002012-08-14T13:36:01.281-04:00So again, why are we using percentage of GDP inste...<i>So again, why are we using percentage of GDP instead of nominal numbers?</i><br /><br />Gee, I don't know, maybe because our economy grows over time and money loses value over time due to inflation? Please Colin, this is a pathetic tail to chase.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04621444962752348431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-65741192982225566922012-08-14T12:27:52.072-04:002012-08-14T12:27:52.072-04:00I didn't measure it, Ezra Klein & Paul Rya...<i>I didn't measure it, Ezra Klein & Paul Ryan did, but it seems like a fair measure given the time value of money. Come now Colin, you're better than to suggest we should look at nominal dollars over a decade.</i><br /><br />Why wouldn't we? It's a superior metric. To illustrate the point I will use the defense budget via <a href="http://blogs.cfr.org/geographics/files/2011/02/2011.2.17.drawdown1.jpg" rel="nofollow">this chart</a> from the Council on Foreign Relations. <br /><br />Note that in 1990 the US spent roughly $400 billion ($660 billion in 2010 dollars) on national defense and somewhere around 7% of GDP. In 2010 the nominal amount was around $800 billion while the percentage of GDP was 5.5. <br /><br />Thus, as a percentage of GDP, defense was cut, when in reality spending was up by about $140 billion. Saying that defense spending was cut would be nonsensical.<br /><br />So again, why are we using percentage of GDP instead of nominal numbers? Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573575140584770666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-14230173560569400942012-08-14T10:49:23.141-04:002012-08-14T10:49:23.141-04:00Why are you measuring as a percentage of GDP? Why ...<i>Why are you measuring as a percentage of GDP? Why not use actual budget numbers?</i><br /><br />I didn't measure it, Ezra Klein & Paul Ryan did, but it seems like a fair measure given the time value of money. Come now Colin, you're better than to suggest we should look at nominal dollars over a decade.<br /><br />Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04621444962752348431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-58978909065014524002012-08-14T10:41:11.229-04:002012-08-14T10:41:11.229-04:00I don't think cutting all federal spending out...<i>I don't think cutting all federal spending outside of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security down to 3.7% of GDP is the status quo.</i><br /><br />Why are you measuring as a percentage of GDP? Why not use actual budget numbers? As shown, Ryan proposes spending trillions -- literally, trillions -- on income security programs over the next 10 years. This is not a cut, it's the status quo. <br /><br />We can also place Ryan vs. Obama in <a href="http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ryan-2012-budget.jpg" rel="nofollow">graphical terms</a>. You can find another chart <a href="http://reason.com/assets/mc/ngillespie/2011_04/ryan1.png" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Ryan spends more, while Obama spends much more. <br /><br /><i>I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. Obama isn't laying out an agenda of paying a bunch more.</i><br /><br />Yes, he is. Just look at the charts provided above. Obama projects spending in 2017 to be $4.5 trillion -- an increase of $1 trillion since GWB's last budget request. Some people might consider a trillion dollars to be real money. Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573575140584770666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-10479295307633242112012-08-14T09:27:31.990-04:002012-08-14T09:27:31.990-04:00One guy wants spending levels to continue pretty m...<i>One guy wants spending levels to continue pretty much as is</i><br /><br />I don't think cutting all federal spending outside of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security down to 3.7% of GDP is the status quo.<br /><br /><i>and another wants even more government</i><br /><br />I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. Obama isn't laying out an agenda of paying a bunch more. I mean this is the president who wanted to cut $3 in spending for every $1 in revenue.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04621444962752348431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-28579382087361978802012-08-14T09:20:20.276-04:002012-08-14T09:20:20.276-04:00You said "remove" and then said "or...You said "remove" and then said "or do we want to keep those programs," which implies they would otherwise be ended.<br /><br />Furthermore, given that current spending on income security programs in the midst of 8+% unemployment is <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258" rel="nofollow">$466 billion <br /></a>, the idea that Ryan's proposed budget -- which works out to an average of $480 billion per year on such programs -- represents a cut is rather silly. At worst, this is just more of the same. <br /><br />There is no grand choice here. One guy wants spending levels to continue pretty much as is -- which is to say, massive -- and another wants even more government. The notion that this election represents a vision of programs being "gutted" and safety nets being "removed" versus merely keeping them is a complete mischaracterization. Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573575140584770666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-5242570630568014862012-08-14T09:03:09.598-04:002012-08-14T09:03:09.598-04:00I never said "end." Though surely you ca...I never said "end." Though surely you can agree, if you cut $900 billion in income security programs you will remove safety nets for many less fortunate people?Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04621444962752348431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-2047329660837433312012-08-13T17:12:30.674-04:002012-08-13T17:12:30.674-04:00Do we want to gut government programs and remove s...<i>Do we want to gut government programs and remove safety nets for the less fortunate or do we want to keep those programs?</i><br /><br />I am unaware of any proposals by Ryan to end any aspects of the safety net. In fact, the article you linked to says the following:<br /><br /><i>Over the next decade, Ryan plans to spend about 16 percent less than the White House on “income security” programs for the poor — that’s everything from food stamps to housing assistance to the earned-income tax credit. (Ryan’s budget would authorize $4.8 trillion between 2013 and 2022; the White House’s would spend $5.7 trillion.)</i><br /><br />$4.8 trillion may be a lot of things, but an end to safety nets it certainly is not.Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573575140584770666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-51429024641005514972012-08-02T13:40:21.222-04:002012-08-02T13:40:21.222-04:00I hate to disappoint, but I don't think we'...I hate to disappoint, but I don't think we're arguing. <br /><br />At the time of my post we didn't have this Hubbard column, which is to say at the time I published the post Romney had not come out advocating to make the tax code less progressive.<br /><br />It appears since that time Hubbard, writing as a representative for the Romney has campaign, has said (somewhat obliquely) that the plan is to make the tax code less progressive by increasing the tax burden on people in the lower income brackets.<br /><br />I would add, though, that Hubbard does not suggest that the middle class will see rates increase, where as the Brookings report says they'll need to be raised in order to maintain revenue neutrality.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04621444962752348431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-10443577949427424232012-08-02T12:38:50.412-04:002012-08-02T12:38:50.412-04:00Yes, "the elimination of tax preferences/expe...<i>Yes, "the elimination of tax preferences/expenditures" that put more tax burden on the lower economic rungs of our society then they experience currently.</i><br /><br />Right, which I support and have said so from the beginning. I'm not sure what your argument is with me.Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573575140584770666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-31130517073551563192012-08-02T11:54:35.092-04:002012-08-02T11:54:35.092-04:00Yes, "the elimination of tax preferences/expe...Yes, "the elimination of tax preferences/expenditures" that put more tax burden on the lower economic rungs of our society then they experience currently.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04621444962752348431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-14443548531296170612012-08-02T11:47:51.388-04:002012-08-02T11:47:51.388-04:00When he says "broaden the tax base" it&#...<i>When he says "broaden the tax base" it's not the same thing as raising rates on the middle class.</i><br /><br />No kidding -- broadening the tax base is most commonly understood to be defined as the elimination of tax preferences/expenditures. And through such eliminations one can make the tax code less progressive without raising rates.Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573575140584770666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-67547219269540982272012-08-02T10:44:43.440-04:002012-08-02T10:44:43.440-04:00The column by Mr. Hubbard has a bit of linguistic ...The column by Mr. Hubbard has a bit of linguistic ninjutsu in it, and stops short of saying Romney will make the tax system less progressive. When he says "broaden the tax base" it's not the same thing as raising rates on the middle class. Also of note, there is no mention of eliminating tax expenditures.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04621444962752348431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-13775352224784293152012-08-02T10:29:44.474-04:002012-08-02T10:29:44.474-04:00Brookings is simply doing the arithmetic to see ho...<i>Brookings is simply doing the arithmetic to see how you cut rates like Romney has suggested and yet keep the same level of revenue.</i><br /><br />I'm aware of that. And if Romney does this, then the tax code is becoming less progressive as the eliminated tax expenditures disproportionately benefit the middle class. <br /><br />Furthermore, in today's WSJ we have this statement from Glenn Hubbard:<br /><br /><i>The Romney plan would reduce individual marginal income tax rates across the board by 20%, while keeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains...In addition, he would broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.</i><br /><br />So if Romney's plan is to cut tax rates and then make it revenue-neutral through the elimination of tax expenditures (granted, the math probably doesn't work, but this would at least somewhat offset the revenue losses) -- which will necessarily involve high profile items such as the mortgage interest deduction -- then I applaud that. It's a two-fer -- fewer distortions and less progressivity. <br /><br />As I said before, however, I don't expect Romney to actually follow through with anything like this and I suspect such a plan will never see the light of day in Congress.Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573575140584770666noreply@blogger.com