2016 Presidential Horse Race

[IrishJayhawk]

They're talking about $8.6 trillion over a decade as "exploding" the debt when Obama has seen the debt go from $10.6 trillion to probably over $20 trillion by the time he is done with his 8 year term. Cute.

Obviously, a large chunk of the debt increase is not Obama's fault at all. But during his reign the rate of increase for the debt -- before, during, and after the financial crisis -- is basically static. Obama and Bush (and Congress) have all been incredibly lavish with their spending over the past 2 decades-ish... so I don't really understand throwing a fit about a tax proposal that has a number of obviously smart qualities to it (to go along with some pretty stupid ones).

It's worth noting that Obama's debt came largely because of drastically decreased revenues related to the great recession and huge expenditures related to the two wars that he inherited.

ETA: He also inherited the Bush tax cuts, which drastically decreased revenues as well.

 

[phgreek]

They're talking about $8.6 trillion over a decade as "exploding" the debt when Obama has seen the debt go from $10.6 trillion to probably over $20 trillion by the time he is done with his 8 year term. Cute.

Obviously, a large chunk of the debt increase is not Obama's fault at all. But during his reign the rate of increase for the debt -- before, during, and after the financial crisis -- is basically static. Obama and Bush (and Congress) have all been incredibly lavish with their spending over the past 2 decades-ish... so I don't really understand throwing a fit about a tax proposal that has a number of obviously smart qualities to it (to go along with some pretty stupid ones).

...beat me to it

 

[phgreek]

It's worth noting that Obama's debt came largely because of drastically decreased revenues related to the great recession and huge expenditures related to the two wars that he inherited.

...challenges which conveniently disappear when an R is president?

...ie the economy is not good, and we will be re-doing some fighting in Iraq. Admittedly, those are drains not to the extent of Mr. Obama...but lets not act like the debt isn't still rocketing along.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

...challenges which conveniently disappear when an R is president?

...ie the economy is not good, and we will be re-doing some fighting in Iraq. Admittedly, those are drains not to the extent of Mr. Obama...but lets not act like the debt isn't still rocketing along.

Not sure what you're saying. They were challenges that were presided over by a Republican president and handed off to Obama. The deficit has decreased quite a lot during the Obama presidency, primarily because the economy is so much better. 72 months of job creation, I believe? That's never happened before.

 

[pkt77242]

They're talking about $8.6 trillion over a decade as "exploding" the debt when Obama has seen the debt go from $10.6 trillion to probably over $20 trillion by the time he is done with his 8 year term. Cute.

Obviously, a large chunk of the debt increase is not Obama's fault at all. But during his reign the rate of increase for the debt -- before, during, and after the financial crisis -- is basically static. Obama and Bush (and Congress) have all been incredibly lavish with their spending over the past 2 decades-ish... so I don't really understand throwing a fit about a tax proposal that has a number of obviously smart qualities to it (to go along with some pretty stupid ones).

Huh? Care to explain the part in bold? The deficit per year has decreased pretty drastically from 2009 to now. Color me confused.

Also the 8.6 Trillion is under normal conditions (no massive downturn in the economy), I am willing to bet if they calculated the deficit with a massive economic downturn it would be a heck of a lot more than that.

 

[RDU Irish]

GW spent like a Democrat, not sure who even tries to defend that he didn't. Even outside the wars he did virtually nothing to push influence back to states and reduce the size of government. Reducing taxes does not equal reducing spending.

What I would love some insight on - who is cutting any spending anywhere? Like real cuts, not reduced growth of the same ole sh!t. All I hear is "let's explode the size of the military and cut taxes". While Trump says Iraq was stupid, he also wants to rip off his shirt and mud wrestle anyone and everyone.

 

[pkt77242]

GW spent like a Democrat, not sure who even tries to defend that he didn't. Even outside the wars he did virtually nothing to push influence back to states and reduce the size of government. Reducing taxes does not equal reducing spending.

What I would love some insight on - who is cutting any spending anywhere? Like real cuts, not reduced growth of the same ole sh!t. All I hear is "let's explode the size of the military and cut taxes". While Trump says Iraq was stupid, he also wants to rip off his shirt and mud wrestle anyone and everyone.

I think that this is what I find interesting. I see many people questioning how we will pay for Sanders spending (and rightly so, he should answer how he will cover the costs) but when it comes to the Republicans and their increasing military spending, going to war with ISIS, etc., no one seems to be questioning how they will pay for it.

*This isn't aimed at you RDU just something that I have generally noticed.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I think that this is what I find interesting. I see many people questioning how we will pay for Sanders spending (and rightly so, he should answer how he will cover the costs) but when it comes to the Republicans and their increasing military spending, going to war with ISIS, etc., no one seems to be questioning how they will pay for it.

*This isn't aimed at you RDU just something that I have generally noticed.

I think military spending is generally seen as patriotic, even if we don't need it.

 

[wizards8507]

I think that this is what I find interesting. I see many people questioning how we will pay for Sanders spending (and rightly so, he should answer how he will cover the costs) but when it comes to the Republicans and their increasing military spending, going to war with ISIS, etc., no one seems to be questioning how they will pay for it.

*This isn't aimed at you RDU just something that I have generally noticed.

You pay for it with economic growth. With an appropriately dynamic revenue model, a well-designed tax plan can and should have lower rates and increased revenues.

But you're right about military spending. Rand Paul made the point up and down that you can't be "conservative" if you're lining up to spend just as much as Bernie Sanders just in different departments. He was summarily dismissed from the Republican primary.

 

[Cackalacky]

Many more people here than for Trump.

 

[pkt77242]

You pay for it with economic growth. With an appropriately dynamic revenue model, a well-designed tax plan can and should have lower rates and increased revenues.

But you're right about military spending. Rand Paul made the point up and down that you can't be "conservative" if you're lining up to spend just as much as Bernie Sanders just in different departments. He was summarily dismissed from the Republican primary.

What you mean is an appropriately rosy dynamic revenue model. I think that this is an appropriate article about Dynamic scoring. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/upshot/tax-cuts-still-dont-pay-for-themselves.html?_r=0

 

[phgreek]

Not sure what you're saying. They were challenges that were presided over by a Republican president and handed off to Obama. The deficit has decreased quite a lot during the Obama presidency, primarily because the economy is so much better. 72 months of job creation, I believe? That's never happened before.

Whats the employment participation rate? What is the average growth coming out of the recession, and how does it stack up historically?

We can talk about deficit management...but the national debt is a) still increasing, b) decreasing? What are the deficit reductions in actual numbers vs. the actual deficit spending? Realized...not some pie in the sky forward looking budget. When you present the data, the real story is not all that great.

back to the point...which is, the increase in debt presumed by the analysis contained in the article the op cited is pretty much in line with what has been going on...yet it seemed to be decried as something worthy of concern...where is the concern about what we've been doing?

I don't like deficit spending of any kind...I think Ted's approach needs to get tighter/cleaner for sure. But I am cognizant of what has passed for budgeting over the last 7 years too...

 

[phgreek]

Many more people here than for Trump.

Gotta go to see Bernie...Trump will undoubtedly be covered by someone. Kinda sad, but nice to see people turnout nonetheless.

 

[Buster Bluth]

...challenges which conveniently disappear when an R is president?

...ie the economy is not good, and we will be re-doing some fighting in Iraq. Admittedly, those are drains not to the extent of Mr. Obama...but lets not act like the debt isn't still rocketing along.

Debt isn't rocketing along at all. That is simply untrue.

<iframe src="//research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/graph-landing.php?g=2N41" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; width:670px; height:475px;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>

Yeah, we're in a bad situation and it needs to be of greater national concern, but the fiscal irresponsibility under Obama is highly exaggerated and it's laughable that the GOP continues to put out candidates who waste time talking about balanced budgets and flat taxes instead of a mature conversation how we get debt under control and back to ~60% GDP. Any dime they'd cut from domestic spending they'd spend on an air craft carrier, I think we can all agree on that.

 

[pkt77242]

Whats the employment participation rate? What is the average growth coming out of the recession, and how does it stack up historically?

We can talk about deficit management...but the national debt is a) still increasing, b) decreasing? What are the deficit reductions in actual numbers vs. the actual deficit spending? Realized...not some pie in the sky forward looking budget. When you present the data, the real story is not all that great.

back to the point...which is, the increase in debt presumed by the analysis contained in the article the op cited is pretty much in line with what has been going on...yet it seemed to be decried as something worthy of concern...where is the concern about what we've been doing?

I don't like deficit spending of any kind...I think Ted's approach needs to get tighter/cleaner for sure. But I am cognizant of what has passed for budgeting over the last 7 years too...

Not the past couple of years where the deficit has been around 400-500 Billion which if taken out to 10 years would be 4-5 trillion. So he would be causing the deficit to start going the opposite way again (it has been decreasing the past few year and would start increasing again under Cruz). So the question is do you consider a jump from 450 Billion to 800 Billion a year as important? That I can't answer. Also the most interesting part of Cruz's tax plan is that it very beneficial to the rich while the middle class get very little relief.

 

[wizards8507]

Many more people here than for Trump.

That sends a pretty clear message to me. Bernie Sanders' supporters have nothing productive to do at 3:30 on a Tuesday.

What you mean is an appropriately rosy dynamic revenue model. I think that this is an appropriate article about Dynamic scoring.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/upshot/tax-cuts-still-dont-pay-for-themselves.html?_r=0

The headline is woefully misleading.

1. It's not necessary that tax cuts completely pay for themselves if they're also accompanied with spending cuts elsewhere. For example, $400M in tax cuts might "cost" $250M in a dynamic model. That's completely fine if you also cut $150M in spending.

2. Conceptually, there's no such thing as "paying" for tax cuts. Tax cuts are letting people keep more of the money that was theirs in the first place. Taking less of something that doesn't belong to you in the first place does not need to be paid for. It's not government's money that they're doling out to people, it's the people's money that they're keeping.

3. The article criticizes specific dynamic scoring models for specific tax plans. It doesn't reject the notion of dynamic scoring all together.

 

[pkt77242]

That sends a pretty clear message to me. Bernie Sanders' supporters have nothing productive to do at 3:30 on a Tuesday.


The headline is woefully misleading.

1. It's not necessary that tax cuts completely pay for themselves if they're also accompanied with spending cuts elsewhere. For example, $400M in tax cuts might "cost" $250M in a dynamic model. That's completely fine if you also cut $150M in spending.

2. Conceptually, there's no such thing as "paying" for tax cuts. Tax cuts are letting people keep more of the money that was theirs in the first place. Taking less of something that doesn't belong to you in the first place does not need to be paid for. It's not government's money that they're doling out to people, it's the people's money that they're keeping.

3. The article criticizes specific dynamic scoring models for specific tax plans. It doesn't reject the notion of dynamic scoring all together.

Agreed but the problem is that many conservatives have been way over the top rosy with their projections when using Dynamic Scoring. Dynamic Scoring isn't horrible but the problem is that it is easily manipulate to get the "answer" that you want. Having said that recent research shows that lowering taxes on the middle class and poor stimulate the economy while tax breaks to the rich does not. So I would agree that a tax cut to the middle class can improve revenue but on the flip side a tax cut to the rich probably won't.

 

[pkt77242]

Tax Cuts Boost Jobs, Just Not When Targeted at Rich - Real Time Economics - WSJ

 

[wizards8507]

Having said that recent research shows that lowering taxes on the middle class and poor stimulate the economy while tax breaks to the rich does not. So I would agree that a tax cut to the middle class can improve revenue but on the flip side a tax cut to the rich probably won't.

That's fine, but I don't think taxation should be based solely on the teleological notion of what benefits "the economy" the most. Even if there was absolute proof that taxing white people making over $100,000 at 98% would cause booming economic growth, it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Tax policy should be deontological - what is right and wrong. Spending policy should be teleological - what works.

 

[RDU Irish]

I think that this is what I find interesting. I see many people questioning how we will pay for Sanders spending (and rightly so, he should answer how he will cover the costs) but when it comes to the Republicans and their increasing military spending, going to war with ISIS, etc., no one seems to be questioning how they will pay for it.

*This isn't aimed at you RDU just something that I have generally noticed.

You are exactly right. It is why die hard Republicans are just as obnoxious as die hard Democrats (I'm sorry, progressives). Blinded by their own hypocrisy.

Pulled up a few charts - VA disability in 2000 - 2.3 million receiving $20 billion, 2013 - 3.5 million receiving $54 billion. That is some exploding expenses - without digging deeper it is easy to imagine that expansion of disability folks are those returning from the Middle East whereas the 2000 number would have largely consisted of WWII, Korean, Vietnam vets.

So we get to restock our rolls of old disabled vets with some young ones - a nice 50 year obligation that gets glossed over. Cost increases of 170% over 13 years!

If those twats wanted to tell me how we will fight smarter and keep kids out of harms way I might be willing to say we should increase some spending. In the meantime, we should be able to "get by" spending as much as the rest of the entire world combined on military spending.

But we saw how much traction that line got for Rand Paul and Donald is also increasing military rhetoric as he reads the crowd.

 

[Buster Bluth]

That's fine, but I don't think taxation should be based solely on the teleological notion of what benefits "the economy" the most. Even if there was absolute proof that taxing white people making over $100,000 at 98% would cause booming economic growth, it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Tax policy should be deontological - what is right and wrong. Spending policy should be teleological - what works.

Oh so now fairnesss comes into play...

 

[wizards8507]

Oh so now fairnesss comes into play...

Yes, fairness with regard to the relationship between Government and individuals, not between individuals and one another. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are filthy rich because they invented products that people need, want, or desire. I'm not filthy rich because I have zero creativity and will be a cubicle warrior until I get promoted to office warrior and die in Eddie Bauer chinos and a pink Oxford. The "fairness" of that is based on the relative merits of what they've contributed to the betterment of mankind versus what I've done in the same space. Conversely, they pay more in taxes than I do, both in total and in percentage, because the government says "fuck you rich people. Give me your money or go to prison."

"Give me more money or go to prison" is not the same as "invent a thing people want and sell a shit ton of it."

 

[Buster Bluth]

Yes, fairness with regard to the relationship between Government and individuals, not between individuals and one another. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are filthy rich because they invented products that people need, want, or desire. I'm not filthy rich because I have zero creativity and will be a cubicle warrior until I get promoted to office warrior and die in Eddie Bauer chinos and a pink Oxford. The "fairness" of that is based on the relative merits of what they've contributed to the betterment of mankind versus what I've done in the same space. Conversely, they pay more in taxes than I do, both in total and in percentage, because the government says "fuck you rich people. Give me your money or go to prison."

"Give me more money or go to prison" is not the same as "invent a thing people want and sell a shit ton of it."

You know you keep acting like they're being punished and yet the rich are richer than they've ever been and are getting even richer at the fastest rate in our history.

This is one of the reasons libertarians are laughed out of the room, you're all so fixated on dismantling things like progressive tax rates solely for ideological purposes.

 

[RDU Irish]

You know you keep acting like they're being punished and yet the rich are richer than they've ever been and are getting even richer at the fastest rate in our history.

This is one of the reasons libertarians are laughed out of the room, you're all so fixated on dismantling things like progressive tax rates solely for ideological purposes.

Because your choo-choo train, suburban utopian ideas aren't laughed at by anyone...

 

[wizards8507]

You know you keep acting like they're being punished and yet the rich are richer than they've ever been and are getting even richer at the fastest rate in our history.

Good for rich people! That makes me happy. If a rich person is rich, it's because he provided a whole lot of a good or service that people want. That means everyone is better off. The rich guy is happy because he gets a ton of money and the people buying his good or service are happy because they like the good or service (otherwise they wouldn't buy it). What's the incentive to entrepreneurship if not profit? People like iPhones and Prius but they want to limit the rewards of those who create such things.

This is one of the reasons libertarians are laughed out of the room, you're all so fixated on dismantling things like progressive tax rates solely for ideological purposes.

You're right. The world would be so much better if nobody had principles.

Regardless, the profit motive is not only a principled idea but it's also a practical one. Prosperity and quality of life for all goes up through free market entrepreneurship. Where would you rather be a 50%-er than 2016 America? No matter how big the gap between you and the richest of the rich, the quality of life for the average person is AMAZING compared to any other time in history due to the fact that entrepreneurs have been able to profit from their improvements.

 

[pkt77242]

Good for rich people! That makes me happy. If a rich person is rich, it's because he provided a whole lot of a good or service that people want. That means everyone is better off. The rich guy is happy because he gets a ton of money and the people buying his good or service are happy because they like the good or service (otherwise they wouldn't buy it). What's the incentive to entrepreneurship if not profit? People like iPhones and Prius but they want to limit the rewards of those who create such things.


You're right. The world would be so much better if nobody had principles.

Regardless, the profit motive is not only a principled idea but it's also a practical one. Prosperity and quality of life for all goes up through free market entrepreneurship. Where would you rather be a 50%-er than 2016 America? No matter how big the gap between you and the richest of the rich, the quality of life for the average person is AMAZING compared to any other time in history due to the fact that entrepreneurs have been able to profit from their improvements.

I somewhat disagree with this. Yes there are people like Gates and Zuckerburg but there are also people like many of the recent CEOs at HP or Mayer at Yahoo that really have done jack shit but have gotten rich. Many liberals have little issue with true entrepreneurs.

 

[phgreek]

Debt isn't rocketing along at all. That is simply untrue.

<iframe src="//research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/graph-landing.php?g=2N41" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; width:670px; height:475px;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>

Yeah, we're in a bad situation and it needs to be of greater national concern, but the fiscal irresponsibility under Obama is highly exaggerated and it's laughable that the GOP continues to put out candidates who waste time talking about balanced budgets and flat taxes instead of a mature conversation how we get debt under control and back to ~60% GDP. Any dime they'd cut from domestic spending they'd spend on an air craft carrier, I think we can all agree on that.

WHAT....Debt isn't rocketing along...ok you and I have different ideas of "Rocket". I see a Rocket as fucking fast...Maybe you see Rocket=accelerating???

what did we end '15 at...about 18+ Trillion? '16 is projected to be what 19+ Trillion.

So at the given rate we are adding 1+ Trillion a year (realized 15 to 16 projected...not some 3-5 year budget guestimate/fantasy)...if that isn't "rocketing", can we call it something you like that means going really fast?

This economy and recovery aren't good. I don't think stats like 72 months and unemployment rates are telling as relates to health of the economy. So, improvement, kinda, but 72 months of the smallest increments of growth are not good, just better than holding steady or losing...average salaries dropping...not good...work force participation...not good. This economy is not good. When was the last time negative interest came up??? I don't think I was alive if it ever did.

Also...back to my point...lets attribute the achieved rate of Debt increase (improved) to Mr. Obama (yes I know way more than him involved...but to keep it simple), and extrapolate. Lets say his performance for 2015 resulted in us feeling pretty comfortable saying he has proven he can slow things to 1.2 Trillion a year. over 10 years thats what...12 trillion. OK what Teddy boy was proposing was evaluated by the article cited in the OP as 8.6 Trillion over 10 years, and 12 Trillion over the second decade. Even if Mr. Obama made modest improvements in the out years, is it really reasonably arguable that this is not...about the same given the size of the numbers and sources of error involved here...??? So my evaluation of the response to Teddy boy in the article cited by the OP stands...why the concern there, and not currently???

 

[pkt77242]

WHAT....Debt isn't rocketing along...ok you and I have different ideas of "Rocket". I see a Rocket as fucking fast...Maybe you see Rocket=accelerating???

what did we end '15 at...about 18+ Trillion? '16 is projected to be what 19+ Trillion.

So at the given rate we are adding 1+ Trillion a year (realized 15 to 16 projected...not some 3-5 year budget guestimate/fantasy)...if that isn't "rocketing", can we call it something you like that means going really fast?

This economy and recovery aren't good. I don't think stats like 72 months and unemployment rates are telling as relates to health of the economy. So, improvement, kinda, but 72 months of the smallest increments of growth are not good, just better than holding steady or losing...average salaries dropping...not good...work force participation...not good. This economy is not good. When was the last time negative interest came up??? I don't think I was alive if it ever did.

Also...back to my point...lets attribute the achieved rate of Debt increase (improved) to Mr. Obama (yes I know way more than him involved...but to keep it simple), and extrapolate. Lets say his performance for 2015 resulted in us feeling pretty comfortable saying he has proven he can slow things to 1.2 Trillion a year. over 10 years thats what...12 trillion. OK what Teddy boy was proposing was evaluated by the article cited in the OP as 8.6 Trillion over 10 years, and 12 Trillion over the second decade. Even if Mr. Obama made modest improvements in the out years, is it really reasonably arguable that this is not...about the same given the size of the numbers and sources of error involved here...??? So my evaluation of the response to Teddy boy in the article cited by the OP stands...why the concern there, and not currently???

Your numbers are completely off. The last 2 years the deficit has been between 400 Billion and 500 Billion each year. Still large but nowhere near what you are saying. Sorry

 

[kmoose]

Your numbers are completely off. The last 3 years the deficit has been between 400 Billion and 500 Billion each year. Still large but nowhere near what you are saying. Sorry

There is a difference between "debt" and "deficit", though, isn't there? "Debt" is how much we owe people; "deficit" is how much more we spend than we bring in. "Deficit" wouldn't include interest on outstanding debt? "Deficit" wouldn't include deferred payments to debtors?

 

[phgreek]

Not the past couple of years where the deficit has been around 400-500 Billion which if taken out to 10 years would be 4-5 trillion. So he would be causing the deficit to start going the opposite way again (it has been decreasing the past few year and would start increasing again under Cruz). So the question is do you consider a jump from 450 Billion to 800 Billion a year as important? That I can't answer. Also the most interesting part of Cruz's tax plan is that it very beneficial to the rich while the middle class get very little relief.

important yes...but I'm operating from different numbers here. As I said above...It looks like the debt will increase from 18+T to 19+T from 15-16. So extrapolate those numbers. I tend not to go out year beyond 1 year...and tend to average backward to get an understanding of performance...in this case I'll just say give Mr. Obama credit for 1.2 Trillion in growth of national debt and extrapolate...again my point is, I wouldn't say Teddy boy is better or worse (on budgets), Pluss lots of error involved here with real big numbers so, I'm trying not to get too hung up on tight precision here. again my point was...article seemed a little freaked out...made me think...why freak out at teddy boy? Why not now?