Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

Three days is more than enough time to warrant a double post

I wonder what people in Florida are saying about this – the whole disney thing i mean. Then again, I don't even know what the consensus on Disney's presence in Florida is among Floridians to begin with.

[Starver]

Disney? Pah! ...they're a Mickey Mouse organisation.

[EuchreJack]

Hm, I am more interested in how Republicans outside Florida view Disney. They're the ones DeSantis has to win over. Florida Republicans have probably already decided whether their backing their Governor or their Former President.

[MrRoboto75]

I wonder what the abducted trans florida kids think about disney.

[Frumple]

Probably too worried about other stuff to care, really.

... anyway, I can't remember where I saw it, but iirc someone went and checked on actual florida people's opinion on the whole disney shitting on deshitis thing, and the majority of the responses basically boiled down to "what?". Most folks knew about it about as much as they cared about it, which is to say they didn't. Opinion among residents actually aware of it was generally negative overall, and only somewhat positive even among conservatives.

So, like. It's not going great for the jackass down here on that particular issue, ha.

[EuchreJack]

So, as negotiation pause on the Debt Ceiling, enjoy this trip in the Way back Machine to see what happened when former President Trump was in a similar position:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/house-prepares-for-harvey-relief-vote/2017/09/06/62919058-92fc-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html

[Maximum Spin]

So, as negotiation pause on the Debt Ceiling, enjoy this trip in the Way back Machine to see what happened when former President Trump was in a similar position:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/house-prepares-for-harvey-relief-vote/2017/09/06/62919058-92fc-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html

In perfect fairness, the calculus should be different in the middle of an economic boom as compared to... now.

[MrRoboto75]

We have debt ceiling/budgetary bullshit every year now because our legislative branch is borderline defunct.

[nenjin]

We have debt ceiling/budgetary bullshit every year now because our legislative branch is borderline defunct.

Borderline?

[McTraveller]

It's almost as if Congress doesn't really have balancing the budget, let alone paying down the debt, as a priority.

Unfortunately it means they spend tons of time dealing with the issue at least every several years.

It's not really that difficult a problem to solve, there's just no will to do it.

[Maximum Spin]

It's not really that difficult a problem to solve, there's just no will to do it.

Hahahahahahaha, are you serious?
I mean sure, it's not a difficult problem to solve in principle, if you don't care about getting reelected and don't care if your successor immediately reverses all your policies. "Just spend less than you earn, bro!"

Balancing the budget implies cuts to Medicare, cuts to Social Security, and cuts to defense spending, at a minimum. All three of those mean attack ads. You'll hear about how you're betraying seniors and betraying the Ukraine at the same time.

Meanwhile, the government is taking out loans to pay off its older loans, and the interest rate on those loans keeps going up.

[McTraveller]

Yeah I agree there: if the goal is to get re-elected, rather than solve real problems, this like the budget "crisis" persist.

Fixing a budget implies cutting spending only if revenue doesn't increase: if revenue is increasing it really just needs to cut the increase in spending to less than the increase in revenue.  Pretty much every year in the past decade (except for the obviously anomalous 2019 to 2020) tax revenue has increased. So there's no reason to actually cut spending (in nominal terms).

There's an even easier easier fix: just change the debt limit to a percentage of GDP or a percentage of tax revenue or something, like "total debt can be no more than 130% GDP", instead of a fixed dollar amount.  Having it be in nominal values is what causes the periodic pain, and that dollar limit doesn't even solve the problem it's intended to solve. I think, as many do, that it's merely used as a political bludgeon.

Incidentally debt-to-GDP really started being a problem only around 2009; before then it was below 70% and it jumped up to over 100% GDP by 2014.  Presently it's about 125%.

[Schmaven]

Debt is the future generation's problem though, and the majority of those in government, well, probably don't buy green bananas anymore, so it's not a problem for them at all.  And the future generations, they can just print more money to pay for everything right?

[Maximum Spin]

Debt is the future generation's problem though, and the majority of those in government, well, probably don't buy green bananas anymore, so it's not a problem for them at all.  And the future generations, they can just print more money to pay for everything right?

Yeah, that's half the problem. I wish it were all the problem, though, because then it would just be a matter of trying to elect younger politicians - but in reality, look what we get when we try that: people who think your last comment would really work.

Yeah I agree there: if the goal is to get re-elected, rather than solve real problems, this like the budget "crisis" persist.

Fixing a budget implies cutting spending only if revenue doesn't increase: if revenue is increasing it really just needs to cut the increase in spending to less than the increase in revenue.  Pretty much every year in the past decade (except for the obviously anomalous 2019 to 2020) tax revenue has increased. So there's no reason to actually cut spending (in nominal terms).

Bro. No. Income already doesn't cover outlays. Income has not covered outlays since I was a kid. Increasing nominal revenue can't save us, because nominal spending also increases with inflation (or it's a cut in real terms and the attack ads start happening); real revenue will not increase enough no matter what you do.

This country has been eating its seed corn for a long time. You don't know how screwed you really are.

Incidentally debt-to-GDP really started being a problem only around 2009; before then it was below 70% and it jumped up to over 100% GDP by 2014.  Presently it's about 125%.

The debt-to-GDP ratio is a con. Remember: if I pay you sixty dollars for your bucket of shit and you pay me sixty dollars for mine, GDP went up $120, but we both still have to empty the same amount of shit.

[McTraveller]

Why are you so defeatist? If spending goes up every year by 4% but revenue goes up by 5% a year, eventually you will close the gap; sure it won’t close as fast as if spending were flat but it will still close. That’s the whole point!

GDP is not perfect but your example makes debt to GDP too conservative - it suggests GDP is too high, which if true would mean debt is even higher relative to “meaningful” economic output, not just trading buckets of swill.