[QUOTE="Archon_basic"]Ah, ok. I guess it's just a difference in opinion, then. I look at the tendency of government programs to drastically exceed their projected costs (see: all of them) and I have no faith that government healthcare will lead us to a balanced budget. I hope I'm wrong and you're right, if we end up going down that road. As for every other reform being trivial, I disagree. I think I've been over Social Security with you several times on this board. Do you really think it's sustainable in its current form? In it's current form it is sustainable for decades to come. Somewhere around 2040 to 2050 the program might face some relatively minor funding problems (although it's important to remember that by law social security cannot add to the deficit, so the result of these funding problems would be cuts in benefits), and then if there is still no reform 75% of benefits will still be able to be paid out for decades after that. Moreover, the problems facing social security are very easy to solve. All that's involved is balancing social security benefits with the revenue that it brings in. My preferred solution is removing the payroll tax cap of $106,800. Doing so will bring in enough money to fully finance the program for the rest of the century.OK, that makes sense. I agree that benefits need to be brought in line with funding. However, I think that the adjustment needs to made now. Regardless of legal obligation, I don't think the nation can afford the Trust Fund outlays over the next few decades.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] The best thing you can do for the deficit is health care reform. If we can get a real handle on health care costs, the budget deficit becomes very manageable. If we don't continue the health care reform effort (or even worse, if we go backwards and repeal the health care law), then we really have no hope, and anything else we try to do to balance the budget will be a waste of time. -Sun_Tzu-
ArchonBasic's forum posts
You seem to place great importance on keeping SS and Medicare benefits at their current levels. From what I've seen of the projections for Medicare and Social Security, they look unsustainable, and the health care bill doesn't do much to alter the situation. I'm curious to know what you think should be done about the deficit, given that you oppose cutting SS or Medicare spending.[QUOTE="Archon_basic"]
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I don't think I ever said that they would. Choga
Raising taxes is a big one.
I don't think taxes can bridge our current spending deficits, unless we completely tank the economy. Jacking the top tax bracket above 40% has serious detriments to long term economic growth, and raising the lower tax brackets isn't good for anyone. I think tax increases need to be on the table as the country debates over a new budget, but we really can't tax our way out of the deficit.[QUOTE="Archon_basic"]You seem to place great importance on keeping SS and Medicare benefits at their current levels. From what I've seen of the projections for Medicare and Social Security, they look unsustainable, and the health care bill doesn't do much to alter the situation. I'm curious to know what you think should be done about the deficit, given that you oppose cutting SS or Medicare spending. The best thing you can do for the deficit is health care reform. If we can get a real handle on health care costs, the budget deficit becomes very manageable. If we don't continue the health care reform effort (or even worse, if we go backwards and repeal the health care law), then we really have no hope, and anything else we try to do to balance the budget will be a waste of time. Ah, ok. I guess it's just a difference in opinion, then. I look at the tendency of government programs to drastically exceed their projected costs (see: all of them) and I have no faith that government healthcare will lead us to a balanced budget. I hope I'm wrong and you're right, if we end up going down that road. As for every other reform being trivial, I disagree. I think I've been over Social Security with you several times on this board. Do you really think it's sustainable in its current form?[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I don't think I ever said that they would. -Sun_Tzu-
[QUOTE="Archon_basic"]What part of government spending is sustainable? Our yearly deficits and total deficit aren't going away on their own. I don't think I ever said that they would. You seem to place great importance on keeping SS and Medicare benefits at their current levels. From what I've seen of the projections for Medicare and Social Security, they look unsustainable, and the health care bill doesn't do much to alter the situation. I'm curious to know what you think should be done about the deficit, given that you oppose cutting SS or Medicare spending.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Because we've so long without reforming our very costly, very inefficient health care system. We finally started to do that last year, and in that health care reform law are a plethora of reforms specifically to medicare that keep the program as-is intact while making it more sustainable. -Sun_Tzu-
[QUOTE="airshocker"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Because that's what it's designed to do. Paul Ryan's solution to the medicare problem is to have the government pay less and less for the care of seniors via vouchers that grow at an incredibly inadequate rate compared to health care costs, which would in turn make health care more and more expensive for seniors as time goes on. -Sun_Tzu-
Yet we're still stuck with a program that is getting more and more expensive as time goes on.
Because we've so long without reforming our very costly, very inefficient health care system. We finally started to do that last year, and in that health care reform law are a plethora of reforms specifically to medicare that keep the program as-is intact while making it more sustainable. What part of government spending is sustainable? Our yearly deficits and total deficit aren't going away on their own.Well, if your original argument was "Now, we'll see how Ryans budget actually increases our deficit (but only in the first ten years)" then it is factually correct. I was expecting to be able to engage you in a discussion about whether Ryan's bill is ineffectual at reducing the deficit, but apparently you were just expressing your distaste for the bill. My bad.[QUOTE="Archon_basic"]
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]Avoid? Here, I'll highlight my point again.
DroidPhysX
My original arguement was that it does increase our deficit. Isnt that fact?
lol, do you think in binary? Your statement is a fact by a limited definition (see previous post), which you failed to specify. It's also a meaningless statement that I tried to add context to, and you ignored. I'd feel like I wasted my time if I hadn't learned quite a bit by researching the CBO documents. In any case, I'm not arguing that Paul Ryan's budget isn't projected to increase the deficit in the next ten years, so put your mind at ease.[QUOTE="airshocker"]
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]
Why post it, when i could show my alternative:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=g01l55uc
Choga
Not a big surprise, but I want to know what you would do specifically to fix medicare. We can't keep raising taxes everytime we need more money for our programs.
Why not?
Ever hear of the laffer curve?No, it decreases the deficit. But by all means, avoid any meaningful factual analysis and keep drinking your kool-aid.Avoid? Here, I'll highlight my point again.Well, if your original argument was "Now, we'll see how Ryans budget actually increases our deficit (but only in the first ten years)" then it is factually correct. I was expecting to be able to engage you in a discussion about whether Ryan's bill is ineffectual at reducing the deficit, but apparently you were just expressing your distaste for the bill. My bad.[QUOTE="Archon_basic"]
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]
So it does increase the deficit? Yeah, that was my point.
DroidPhysX
That actually led to some interesting research, thanks. The CBO analysis of the Ryan proposal uses three projections: the new Ryan budget, and two previous projections from last year, the extended-baseline scenario and alternative fiscal scenario. Under the extended baseline scenario, debt as a percentage of GDP grows 5% during the next 10 years. Under the alternative fiscal scenario, debt grows by 33% over the same period. Under Ryan's proposal, debt grows by 8%. Of the three, Ryan's budget is the only one that is projected to reduce the deficit over time, eventually bringing the deficit to 10% of GDP in 2050. The extended baseline projection has debt at 90% of GDP in 2050 and 344% of GDP under the alternative fiscal scenario. (figures found on page 3, table 1 of the CBO report.) Granted, such long term projections are of diluted value, but under CBO estimates Ryan's budget does decrease national debt over any period except the next 10 years.Unless you were referring to this period specifically in your original post, then your initial statement is false.Given our current yearly budget deficits, I'm really not sure if an overall debt reduction in the next 10 years is desirable, given the necessary economic consequences. In any case, using the CBO data, Ryan's proposal does decrease the federal deficit over any period except for the one ending in 2022.[QUOTE="Archon_basic"]
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/cbo-confirms-paul-ryan-s-budget-slashes-medicare-benefits-while-increasing-debt
Enjoy.
DroidPhysX
The article you linked only compares the first 10 years of the extended-baseline scenario to Ryan's proposal, ignoring the alternative fiscal scenario. The extended-baseline scenario makes several unrealistic assumptions: it assumes that most of the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 would be allowed to expire, which is unlikely, especially for the lower tax brackets. It also assumes that the alternative minimum tax would be allowed to expand, which will never happen. And it assumes that tax revenue will be allowed to grow well beyond historic averages.
The alternative fiscal scenario, on the other hand, represents a more accurate reflection of current spending and revenue trends. It assumes that revenues will stay close to their historic averages as a percentage of GDP, rather than the more unrealistic estimates of the extended-baseline scenario. It also predicts that some tax cuts will continue, and it mkaes allowance for the AMT. In a nutshell, the alternative fiscal scenario takes into account many changes that are likely to occur, while the extended-baseline scenario is merely a strict estimate of current tax inputs and obligated outlays. Paul Ryan's budget compares very favorably to the alternative fiscal scenario over any period.
So, in summary, Paul Ryan's budget represents a slight increase in the deficit over the first 10 years when compared with the extended-baseline scenario, while the longer term comparisons are favorable. However, when comparing Paul Ryan's budget with the alternative fiscal scenario (which represents a more realistic estimate of future spending and revenue by the CBO) Paul Ryan's budget marks a significant reduction in debt for each projected decade.
CBO analyis of Paul Ryan's budget proposal
The CBO long term budget outlook
So it does increase the deficit? Yeah, that was my point.
No, it decreases the deficit. But by all means, avoid any meaningful factual analysis and keep drinking your kool-aid.Way to make a completely false assertion. I mean, seriously, do you have a shred of factual information to back up this claim?[QUOTE="Archon_basic"]
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]
Now, we'll see how Ryans budget actually increases our deficit.
Anyways, they're still clowns
DroidPhysX
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/cbo-confirms-paul-ryan-s-budget-slashes-medicare-benefits-while-increasing-debt
Enjoy.
That actually led to some interesting research, thanks. The CBO analysis of the Ryan proposal uses three projections: the new Ryan budget, and two previous projections from last year, the extended-baseline scenario and alternative fiscal scenario. Under the extended baseline scenario, debt as a percentage of GDP grows 5% during the next 10 years. Under the alternative fiscal scenario, debt grows by 33% over the same period. Under Ryan's proposal, debt grows by 8%. Of the three, Ryan's budget is the only one that is projected to reduce the deficit over time, eventually bringing the deficit to 10% of GDP in 2050. The extended baseline projection has debt at 90% of GDP in 2050, while the alternative fiscal scenario pins debt at 344% of GDP in 2050. (figures found on page 3, table 1 of the CBO report.) Granted, such long term projections are of diluted value, but under CBO estimates Ryan's budget does decrease national debt over any period except the next 10 years.Unless you were referring to this period specifically in your original post, then your initial statement is false. Given our current yearly budget deficits, I'm really not sure if an overall debt reduction in the next 10 years is desirable, given the necessary economic consequences. In any case, using the CBO data, Ryan's proposal does decrease the federal deficit over any period except for the one ending in 2022.The article you linked only compares the first 10 years of the extended-baseline scenario to Ryan's proposal, ignoring the alternative fiscal scenario. The extended-baseline scenario makes several unrealistic assumptions: it assumes that most of the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 would be allowed to expire, which is unlikely, especially for the lower tax brackets. It also assumes that the alternative minimum tax would be allowed to expand, which will never happen. And it assumes that tax revenue will be allowed to grow well beyond historic averages.
The alternative fiscal scenario, on the other hand, represents a more accurate reflection of current spending and revenue trends. It assumes that revenues will stay close to their historic averages as a percentage of GDP, rather than the more unrealistic estimates of the extended-baseline scenario. It also predicts that some tax cuts will continue, and it makes allowance for the AMT. In a nutshell, the alternative fiscal scenario takes into account many changes that are likely to occur, while the extended-baseline scenario is merely a strict estimate of current tax inputs and obligated outlays. Paul Ryan's budget compares very favorably to the alternative fiscal scenario over any period.
So, in summary, Paul Ryan's budget represents a slight increase in the deficit over the first 10 years when compared with the extended-baseline scenario, while the longer term comparisons are favorable. However, when comparing Paul Ryan's budget with the alternative fiscal scenario (which represents a more realistic estimate of future spending and revenue by the CBO), Paul Ryan's budget marks a significant reduction in debt for each projected decade.
CBO analyis of Paul Ryan's budget proposal
The CBO long term budget outlook
Log in to comment