Topic: An Imaginary Budget and Debt Crisis (Read 2391 times)
Krugman is a shill... Brainless idiots are the only ones who continue to pay attention to him.
National debt and Social Security, among other topics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/op...ting.html?_r=0
Every month, my mom receives a yellow and green benefit check for $1,600 from the Treasury. I expect she’ll keep collecting those Social Security checks for a long time. She’s crushing 50-year-olds at bridge and doing yoga. Apart from their amount, the checks look identical to the $400 checks she receives every six months on her small remaining holdings of Treasury bonds. Yet Uncle Sam’s obligation to send her the $400 checks is recorded on its books, whereas his obligation to send her the $1,600 checks is not. (I’m 63, but not collecting benefits yet.)
True, Social Security benefits could be cut by Congress and the president. But so can official debt, as Argentina’s likely default reminds us. The prospect of formal default by the United States is remote. Informal default via the inflationary, easy-money policies of the Federal Reserve since 2007, is more likely. (Social Security is pegged to inflation, so while inflation would help with our official debts to creditors, like China, it is far from a panacea.)
Social Security’s hidden debt is just a small part of the story. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its annual long-term budget outlook. The good news: This year’s deficit — about 3 percent of gross domestic product — is the smallest since 2007 and way down from the peak of almost 10 percent in 2009. The bad: Without action, the deficit will grow “notably larger” starting in about four years, a result of our aging population, rising health costs and the new subsidies for health insurance.
Even worse, the budget office raised what’s called the alternative fiscal scenario, the most realistic projection of fiscal outcomes absent major policy changes. Based on these estimates, I calculate that the “fiscal gap” — a yardstick of total government indebtedness that I’ve worked on with the economists Alan J. Auerbach and Jagadeesh Gokhale — was $210 trillion last year, up from $205 trillion the previous year. Thus $5 trillion was the true deficit.
The fiscal gap — the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts — is, effectively, our nation’s credit card bill. Eliminating it, would require an immediate, permanent 59 percent increase in federal tax revenue. An immediate, permanent 38 percent cut in federal spending would also suffice. The longer we wait, the worse the pain. If, for example, we do nothing for 20 years, the requisite federal tax increase would be 70 percent, or the requisite spending cut, 43 percent.
The author of this article is better off learning how modern monetary systems operate before writing such gibberish.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/op...ting.html?_r=0
Every month, my mom receives a yellow and green benefit check for $1,600 from the Treasury. I expect she’ll keep collecting those Social Security checks for a long time. She’s crushing 50-year-olds at bridge and doing yoga. Apart from their amount, the checks look identical to the $400 checks she receives every six months on her small remaining holdings of Treasury bonds. Yet Uncle Sam’s obligation to send her the $400 checks is recorded on its books, whereas his obligation to send her the $1,600 checks is not. (I’m 63, but not collecting benefits yet.)
True, Social Security benefits could be cut by Congress and the president. But so can official debt, as Argentina’s likely default reminds us. The prospect of formal default by the United States is remote. Informal default via the inflationary, easy-money policies of the Federal Reserve since 2007, is more likely. (Social Security is pegged to inflation, so while inflation would help with our official debts to creditors, like China, it is far from a panacea.)
Social Security’s hidden debt is just a small part of the story. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its annual long-term budget outlook. The good news: This year’s deficit — about 3 percent of gross domestic product — is the smallest since 2007 and way down from the peak of almost 10 percent in 2009. The bad: Without action, the deficit will grow “notably larger” starting in about four years, a result of our aging population, rising health costs and the new subsidies for health insurance.
Even worse, the budget office raised what’s called the alternative fiscal scenario, the most realistic projection of fiscal outcomes absent major policy changes. Based on these estimates, I calculate that the “fiscal gap” — a yardstick of total government indebtedness that I’ve worked on with the economists Alan J. Auerbach and Jagadeesh Gokhale — was $210 trillion last year, up from $205 trillion the previous year. Thus $5 trillion was the true deficit.
The fiscal gap — the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts — is, effectively, our nation’s credit card bill. Eliminating it, would require an immediate, permanent 59 percent increase in federal tax revenue. An immediate, permanent 38 percent cut in federal spending would also suffice. The longer we wait, the worse the pain. If, for example, we do nothing for 20 years, the requisite federal tax increase would be 70 percent, or the requisite spending cut, 43 percent.
Learning at least the accounting basics would do I think.
How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
How about in every possible imaginable way? The dollar is the reserve currency. People buy our debt with 0% real return. And people do so in large quantities.Which by the way had a Democrat House and Senate? Even before Obama took over?
your pathetic attempt to try and blame everyone else but Obama is amusing.
If you wanted to be honest about it you'd look at deficit changes, not debt changes.
"FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE CONSTITUTION"
by that alone you show your stupidity. The whole constitution is one document; and it all has to be taken into consideration. But you want to claim otherwise so that you can twist it to your own strange agenda.
Your stupid crap about congress making no laws about anything ever is such total typical libtard stupidity its hilarious.
You want to make the world the way you want it and anything that gets in the way is 'wrong' or 'misinterpreted' etc. of course you want to go that way; not admit that most of the debt we have right now came from your messiah Obama.
At first you said the former, now you seem to be backpedaling.
What part of the massive amount of public debt that Obama has run up do you not understand?
How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
How about in every possible imaginable way? The dollar is the reserve currency. People buy our debt with 0% real return. And people do so in large quantities.Which by the way had a Democrat House and Senate? Even before Obama took over?
your pathetic attempt to try and blame everyone else but Obama is amusing.
If you wanted to be honest about it you'd look at deficit changes, not debt changes.
"FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE CONSTITUTION"
by that alone you show your stupidity. The whole constitution is one document; and it all has to be taken into consideration. But you want to claim otherwise so that you can twist it to your own strange agenda.
Your stupid crap about congress making no laws about anything ever is such total typical libtard stupidity its hilarious.
You want to make the world the way you want it and anything that gets in the way is 'wrong' or 'misinterpreted' etc. of course you want to go that way; not admit that most of the debt we have right now came from your messiah Obama.
At first you said the former, now you seem to be backpedaling.
There is no justification at all for the size of the federal government, NONE. We could shrink it to half the size it is and most people would never notice the difference. But you and yours want that power; and nothing will stop you. Even as it inevitably will destroy the country. And then you will blame it on bush even if it comes in 50 years.
I'm in favor of a smaller government and a reduction of government spending too there pumpkin, I simply have standards when it comes to data You should try it sometime. How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
How about in every possible imaginable way? The dollar is the reserve currency. People buy our debt with 0% real return. And people do so in large quantities.Which by the way had a Democrat House and Senate? Even before Obama took over?
your pathetic attempt to try and blame everyone else but Obama is amusing.
If you wanted to be honest about it you'd look at deficit changes, not debt changes.
"FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE CONSTITUTION"
by that alone you show your stupidity. The whole constitution is one document; and it all has to be taken into consideration. But you want to claim otherwise so that you can twist it to your own strange agenda.
Your stupid crap about congress making no laws about anything ever is such total typical libtard stupidity its hilarious.
You want to make the world the way you want it and anything that gets in the way is 'wrong' or 'misinterpreted' etc. of course you want to go that way; not admit that most of the debt we have right now came from your messiah Obama.
You fool libtards are all the same. You're afraid to just come out and state your position and be shown for the complete and utter fool you are.
There is no justification at all for the size of the federal government, NONE. We could shrink it to half the size it is and most people would never notice the difference. But you and yours want that power; and nothing will stop you. Even as it inevitably will destroy the country. And then you will blame it on bush even if it comes in 50 years.
How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
How about in every possible imaginable way? The dollar is the reserve currency. People buy our debt with 0% real return. And people do so in large quantities.Which by the way had a Democrat House and Senate? Even before Obama took over?
your pathetic attempt to try and blame everyone else but Obama is amusing.
If you wanted to be honest about it you'd look at deficit changes, not debt changes.
"FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE CONSTITUTION"
by that alone you show your stupidity. The whole constitution is one document; and it all has to be taken into consideration. But you want to claim otherwise so that you can twist it to your own strange agenda.
Your stupid crap about congress making no laws about anything ever is such total typical libtard stupidity its hilarious.
You want to make the world the way you want it and anything that gets in the way is 'wrong' or 'misinterpreted' etc. of course you want to go that way; not admit that most of the debt we have right now came from your messiah Obama.
Do you really need the dishonesty in order to justify your dislike for his presidency?
National debt and Social Security, among other topics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/op...ting.html?_r=0
Every month, my mom receives a yellow and green benefit check for $1,600 from the Treasury. I expect she’ll keep collecting those Social Security checks for a long time. She’s crushing 50-year-olds at bridge and doing yoga. Apart from their amount, the checks look identical to the $400 checks she receives every six months on her small remaining holdings of Treasury bonds. Yet Uncle Sam’s obligation to send her the $400 checks is recorded on its books, whereas his obligation to send her the $1,600 checks is not. (I’m 63, but not collecting benefits yet.)
True, Social Security benefits could be cut by Congress and the president. But so can official debt, as Argentina’s likely default reminds us. The prospect of formal default by the United States is remote. Informal default via the inflationary, easy-money policies of the Federal Reserve since 2007, is more likely. (Social Security is pegged to inflation, so while inflation would help with our official debts to creditors, like China, it is far from a panacea.)
Social Security’s hidden debt is just a small part of the story. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its annual long-term budget outlook. The good news: This year’s deficit — about 3 percent of gross domestic product — is the smallest since 2007 and way down from the peak of almost 10 percent in 2009. The bad: Without action, the deficit will grow “notably larger” starting in about four years, a result of our aging population, rising health costs and the new subsidies for health insurance.
Even worse, the budget office raised what’s called the alternative fiscal scenario, the most realistic projection of fiscal outcomes absent major policy changes. Based on these estimates, I calculate that the “fiscal gap” — a yardstick of total government indebtedness that I’ve worked on with the economists Alan J. Auerbach and Jagadeesh Gokhale — was $210 trillion last year, up from $205 trillion the previous year. Thus $5 trillion was the true deficit.
The fiscal gap — the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts — is, effectively, our nation’s credit card bill. Eliminating it, would require an immediate, permanent 59 percent increase in federal tax revenue. An immediate, permanent 38 percent cut in federal spending would also suffice. The longer we wait, the worse the pain. If, for example, we do nothing for 20 years, the requisite federal tax increase would be 70 percent, or the requisite spending cut, 43 percent.
The section that you quoted was a compilation from working with the Cato Institute; one which they didn't bother linking to. I tend not to trust studies done by authors who like to cite themselves unless I can look over their methodology myself. This author doesn't seem to be that interested in the transparency of his work and simply wants us to take his word for it. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/op...ting.html?_r=0
Every month, my mom receives a yellow and green benefit check for $1,600 from the Treasury. I expect she’ll keep collecting those Social Security checks for a long time. She’s crushing 50-year-olds at bridge and doing yoga. Apart from their amount, the checks look identical to the $400 checks she receives every six months on her small remaining holdings of Treasury bonds. Yet Uncle Sam’s obligation to send her the $400 checks is recorded on its books, whereas his obligation to send her the $1,600 checks is not. (I’m 63, but not collecting benefits yet.)
True, Social Security benefits could be cut by Congress and the president. But so can official debt, as Argentina’s likely default reminds us. The prospect of formal default by the United States is remote. Informal default via the inflationary, easy-money policies of the Federal Reserve since 2007, is more likely. (Social Security is pegged to inflation, so while inflation would help with our official debts to creditors, like China, it is far from a panacea.)
Social Security’s hidden debt is just a small part of the story. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its annual long-term budget outlook. The good news: This year’s deficit — about 3 percent of gross domestic product — is the smallest since 2007 and way down from the peak of almost 10 percent in 2009. The bad: Without action, the deficit will grow “notably larger” starting in about four years, a result of our aging population, rising health costs and the new subsidies for health insurance.
Even worse, the budget office raised what’s called the alternative fiscal scenario, the most realistic projection of fiscal outcomes absent major policy changes. Based on these estimates, I calculate that the “fiscal gap” — a yardstick of total government indebtedness that I’ve worked on with the economists Alan J. Auerbach and Jagadeesh Gokhale — was $210 trillion last year, up from $205 trillion the previous year. Thus $5 trillion was the true deficit.
The fiscal gap — the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts — is, effectively, our nation’s credit card bill. Eliminating it, would require an immediate, permanent 59 percent increase in federal tax revenue. An immediate, permanent 38 percent cut in federal spending would also suffice. The longer we wait, the worse the pain. If, for example, we do nothing for 20 years, the requisite federal tax increase would be 70 percent, or the requisite spending cut, 43 percent.
the REALITY is there for all that want to see it. We have huge problems coming as regards debt and deficits and we need to start handling them NOW. You and other Pollyanna's could care less as long as your messiah and his ilk stay in power.
How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
How about in every possible imaginable way? The dollar is the reserve currency. People buy our debt with 0% real return. And people do so in large quantities.Which by the way had a Democrat House and Senate? Even before Obama took over?
your pathetic attempt to try and blame everyone else but Obama is amusing.
If you wanted to be honest about it you'd look at deficit changes, not debt changes.
"FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE CONSTITUTION"
by that alone you show your stupidity. The whole constitution is one document; and it all has to be taken into consideration. But you want to claim otherwise so that you can twist it to your own strange agenda.
Your stupid crap about congress making no laws about anything ever is such total typical libtard stupidity its hilarious.
You want to make the world the way you want it and anything that gets in the way is 'wrong' or 'misinterpreted' etc. of course you want to go that way; not admit that most of the debt we have right now came from your messiah Obama.
How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
How about in every possible imaginable way? The dollar is the reserve currency. People buy our debt with 0% real return. And people do so in large quantities.Which by the way had a Democrat House and Senate? Even before Obama took over?
your pathetic attempt to try and blame everyone else but Obama is amusing.
If you wanted to be honest about it you'd look at deficit changes, not debt changes.
National debt and Social Security, among other topics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/op...ting.html?_r=0
Every month, my mom receives a yellow and green benefit check for $1,600 from the Treasury. I expect she’ll keep collecting those Social Security checks for a long time. She’s crushing 50-year-olds at bridge and doing yoga. Apart from their amount, the checks look identical to the $400 checks she receives every six months on her small remaining holdings of Treasury bonds. Yet Uncle Sam’s obligation to send her the $400 checks is recorded on its books, whereas his obligation to send her the $1,600 checks is not. (I’m 63, but not collecting benefits yet.)
True, Social Security benefits could be cut by Congress and the president. But so can official debt, as Argentina’s likely default reminds us. The prospect of formal default by the United States is remote. Informal default via the inflationary, easy-money policies of the Federal Reserve since 2007, is more likely. (Social Security is pegged to inflation, so while inflation would help with our official debts to creditors, like China, it is far from a panacea.)
Social Security’s hidden debt is just a small part of the story. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its annual long-term budget outlook. The good news: This year’s deficit — about 3 percent of gross domestic product — is the smallest since 2007 and way down from the peak of almost 10 percent in 2009. The bad: Without action, the deficit will grow “notably larger” starting in about four years, a result of our aging population, rising health costs and the new subsidies for health insurance.
Even worse, the budget office raised what’s called the alternative fiscal scenario, the most realistic projection of fiscal outcomes absent major policy changes. Based on these estimates, I calculate that the “fiscal gap” — a yardstick of total government indebtedness that I’ve worked on with the economists Alan J. Auerbach and Jagadeesh Gokhale — was $210 trillion last year, up from $205 trillion the previous year. Thus $5 trillion was the true deficit.
The fiscal gap — the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts — is, effectively, our nation’s credit card bill. Eliminating it, would require an immediate, permanent 59 percent increase in federal tax revenue. An immediate, permanent 38 percent cut in federal spending would also suffice. The longer we wait, the worse the pain. If, for example, we do nothing for 20 years, the requisite federal tax increase would be 70 percent, or the requisite spending cut, 43 percent.
The section that you quoted was a compilation from working with the Cato Institute; one which they didn't bother linking to. I tend not to trust studies done by authors who like to cite themselves unless I can look over their methodology myself. This author doesn't seem to be that interested in the transparency of his work and simply wants us to take his word for it. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/op...ting.html?_r=0
Every month, my mom receives a yellow and green benefit check for $1,600 from the Treasury. I expect she’ll keep collecting those Social Security checks for a long time. She’s crushing 50-year-olds at bridge and doing yoga. Apart from their amount, the checks look identical to the $400 checks she receives every six months on her small remaining holdings of Treasury bonds. Yet Uncle Sam’s obligation to send her the $400 checks is recorded on its books, whereas his obligation to send her the $1,600 checks is not. (I’m 63, but not collecting benefits yet.)
True, Social Security benefits could be cut by Congress and the president. But so can official debt, as Argentina’s likely default reminds us. The prospect of formal default by the United States is remote. Informal default via the inflationary, easy-money policies of the Federal Reserve since 2007, is more likely. (Social Security is pegged to inflation, so while inflation would help with our official debts to creditors, like China, it is far from a panacea.)
Social Security’s hidden debt is just a small part of the story. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its annual long-term budget outlook. The good news: This year’s deficit — about 3 percent of gross domestic product — is the smallest since 2007 and way down from the peak of almost 10 percent in 2009. The bad: Without action, the deficit will grow “notably larger” starting in about four years, a result of our aging population, rising health costs and the new subsidies for health insurance.
Even worse, the budget office raised what’s called the alternative fiscal scenario, the most realistic projection of fiscal outcomes absent major policy changes. Based on these estimates, I calculate that the “fiscal gap” — a yardstick of total government indebtedness that I’ve worked on with the economists Alan J. Auerbach and Jagadeesh Gokhale — was $210 trillion last year, up from $205 trillion the previous year. Thus $5 trillion was the true deficit.
The fiscal gap — the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts — is, effectively, our nation’s credit card bill. Eliminating it, would require an immediate, permanent 59 percent increase in federal tax revenue. An immediate, permanent 38 percent cut in federal spending would also suffice. The longer we wait, the worse the pain. If, for example, we do nothing for 20 years, the requisite federal tax increase would be 70 percent, or the requisite spending cut, 43 percent.
National debt and Social Security, among other topics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/op...ting.html?_r=0
Every month, my mom receives a yellow and green benefit check for $1,600 from the Treasury. I expect she’ll keep collecting those Social Security checks for a long time. She’s crushing 50-year-olds at bridge and doing yoga. Apart from their amount, the checks look identical to the $400 checks she receives every six months on her small remaining holdings of Treasury bonds. Yet Uncle Sam’s obligation to send her the $400 checks is recorded on its books, whereas his obligation to send her the $1,600 checks is not. (I’m 63, but not collecting benefits yet.)
True, Social Security benefits could be cut by Congress and the president. But so can official debt, as Argentina’s likely default reminds us. The prospect of formal default by the United States is remote. Informal default via the inflationary, easy-money policies of the Federal Reserve since 2007, is more likely. (Social Security is pegged to inflation, so while inflation would help with our official debts to creditors, like China, it is far from a panacea.)
Social Security’s hidden debt is just a small part of the story. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its annual long-term budget outlook. The good news: This year’s deficit — about 3 percent of gross domestic product — is the smallest since 2007 and way down from the peak of almost 10 percent in 2009. The bad: Without action, the deficit will grow “notably larger” starting in about four years, a result of our aging population, rising health costs and the new subsidies for health insurance.
Even worse, the budget office raised what’s called the alternative fiscal scenario, the most realistic projection of fiscal outcomes absent major policy changes. Based on these estimates, I calculate that the “fiscal gap” — a yardstick of total government indebtedness that I’ve worked on with the economists Alan J. Auerbach and Jagadeesh Gokhale — was $210 trillion last year, up from $205 trillion the previous year. Thus $5 trillion was the true deficit.
The fiscal gap — the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts — is, effectively, our nation’s credit card bill. Eliminating it, would require an immediate, permanent 59 percent increase in federal tax revenue. An immediate, permanent 38 percent cut in federal spending would also suffice. The longer we wait, the worse the pain. If, for example, we do nothing for 20 years, the requisite federal tax increase would be 70 percent, or the requisite spending cut, 43 percent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/op...ting.html?_r=0
Every month, my mom receives a yellow and green benefit check for $1,600 from the Treasury. I expect she’ll keep collecting those Social Security checks for a long time. She’s crushing 50-year-olds at bridge and doing yoga. Apart from their amount, the checks look identical to the $400 checks she receives every six months on her small remaining holdings of Treasury bonds. Yet Uncle Sam’s obligation to send her the $400 checks is recorded on its books, whereas his obligation to send her the $1,600 checks is not. (I’m 63, but not collecting benefits yet.)
True, Social Security benefits could be cut by Congress and the president. But so can official debt, as Argentina’s likely default reminds us. The prospect of formal default by the United States is remote. Informal default via the inflationary, easy-money policies of the Federal Reserve since 2007, is more likely. (Social Security is pegged to inflation, so while inflation would help with our official debts to creditors, like China, it is far from a panacea.)
Social Security’s hidden debt is just a small part of the story. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its annual long-term budget outlook. The good news: This year’s deficit — about 3 percent of gross domestic product — is the smallest since 2007 and way down from the peak of almost 10 percent in 2009. The bad: Without action, the deficit will grow “notably larger” starting in about four years, a result of our aging population, rising health costs and the new subsidies for health insurance.
Even worse, the budget office raised what’s called the alternative fiscal scenario, the most realistic projection of fiscal outcomes absent major policy changes. Based on these estimates, I calculate that the “fiscal gap” — a yardstick of total government indebtedness that I’ve worked on with the economists Alan J. Auerbach and Jagadeesh Gokhale — was $210 trillion last year, up from $205 trillion the previous year. Thus $5 trillion was the true deficit.
The fiscal gap — the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts — is, effectively, our nation’s credit card bill. Eliminating it, would require an immediate, permanent 59 percent increase in federal tax revenue. An immediate, permanent 38 percent cut in federal spending would also suffice. The longer we wait, the worse the pain. If, for example, we do nothing for 20 years, the requisite federal tax increase would be 70 percent, or the requisite spending cut, 43 percent.
How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
How about in every possible imaginable way? The dollar is the reserve currency. People buy our debt with 0% real return. And people do so in large quantities.Which by the way had a Democrat House and Senate? Even before Obama took over?
your pathetic attempt to try and blame everyone else but Obama is amusing.
I'm trying to understand this. Are you saying that "congress shall make no law" has a full stop after it? As in congress shall actually make no laws, rather than not making laws in reference to the context of the first amendment?
CLEARLY the original intent of the Founding Fathers was thata) there would be no state religion as was status quo everywhere else at that time
b) no ones religion would be controlled or bothered or interfered with in any way
c) now human sacrifice and such were clearly against OTHER laws and would not be considered religion connected
d) when you consider how many of them constantly made some reference to god in just about everything they did it is also clear that there was no intent to remove the 10 commandments from courtrooms, prohibit mangers and so on in public squares, etc.
sadly the COURTS have proceeded to do what the Founding Fathers made sure the CONGRESS could not do.
That is why I would word it this way
"Congress shall make no laws; and the Courts shall make no rulings"
Anything else would be left up to the STATES.
NOT THE FEDERAL COURTS
Only a totally ignorant moron would not understand that the Founding Fathers meant all these issues were meant to be settled by the STATES individually
their NIGHTMARE was a powerful federal government- which is what we have now.
In essence, you appear to be saying congress shall make no laws about anything ever. I need to know if that's what you actually mean.
I'm trying to understand this. Are you saying that "congress shall make no law" has a full stop after it? As in congress shall actually make no laws, rather than not making laws in reference to the context of the first amendment?
CLEARLY the original intent of the Founding Fathers was thata) there would be no state religion as was status quo everywhere else at that time
b) no ones religion would be controlled or bothered or interfered with in any way
c) now human sacrifice and such were clearly against OTHER laws and would not be considered religion connected
d) when you consider how many of them constantly made some reference to god in just about everything they did it is also clear that there was no intent to remove the 10 commandments from courtrooms, prohibit mangers and so on in public squares, etc.
sadly the COURTS have proceeded to do what the Founding Fathers made sure the CONGRESS could not do.
That is why I would word it this way
"Congress shall make no laws; and the Courts shall make no rulings"
Anything else would be left up to the STATES.
NOT THE FEDERAL COURTS
Only a totally ignorant moron would not understand that the Founding Fathers meant all these issues were meant to be settled by the STATES individually
their NIGHTMARE was a powerful federal government- which is what we have now.
I'm trying to understand this. Are you saying that "congress shall make no law" has a full stop after it? As in congress shall actually make no laws, rather than not making laws in reference to the context of the first amendment?
I used to think you were more intelligent than this, but you're obviously a troll. Can you offer proof of this 'record' pace? Try this: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
Oh, and remember the 'Grand Bargain'? The GOP refused to raise taxes as part of the compromise.
Govt debt has increased 99.8% since Obama took office.Oh, and remember the 'Grand Bargain'? The GOP refused to raise taxes as part of the compromise.
Are you trying to tell me he's responsible for everything good that's happened since his election, but Bush is responsible for everything bad?
Krugman's editorial
http://online.barrons.com/news/artic...43323337920154
How Krugman Fudged the Truth on U.S. Debt
By mentioning only the baseline projection from the Congressional Budget Office, he downplayed the potentially dangerous growth of U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP.
Last week, I reported that the Congressional Budget Office's recently released "2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook" warned "the fiscal ship of state is in danger of hitting an iceberg" ("New Warning on U.S.'s Gathering Debt Storm," July 21). Readers asked me how New York Times columnist Paul Krugman could cite the same study and conclude that the agency's projections are "distinctly non-alarming" ("The Fiscal Fizzle," the New York Times, July 20).
The key difference is that Krugman reported only one of the estimates from the CBO for the possible trajectory of the debt-to-gross-domestic-product ratio between now and the late-2030s. He cited only the agency's "extended baseline" scenario, which put the ratio above 100% by the late 2030s from the current 74%. He did not mention that the CBO study also presented its "extended alternative fiscal scenario," which projected that by the late-2030s, the debt-to-GDP ratio would climb above 180%.
EVEN THE BASELINE SCENARIO, which assumes that "current laws governing taxes and spending will remain generally unchanged," can hardly be characterized as "distinctly non-alarming." It shows, for example, that if current laws aren't changed, the debt-to-GDP ratio will continue to climb, from 106% in 2039, to 126% by 2050, to 147% by 2060. By neglecting to mention this, Krugman manages to dismiss the scary number by pointing out that by 2039, the debt would be "no higher, as a percentage of GDP, than the debt America had at the end of World War II."
The CBO itself makes this comparison, but then points out that, unlike at the end of World War II, the debt would still be on an "upward path," a "trajectory [that] ultimately would be unsustainable."
But as mentioned, Krugman's main omission in his column was to leave out the far scarier extended alternative fiscal scenario, which puts the debt-to-GDP ratio at more than 180% by 2039. The omission gives readers the impression that the baseline was the CBO's only projected figure.
As I pointed out in my write-up, the extended alternative is more realistic than the baseline scenario. The CBO is obligated to release baseline projections, but the problem with assuming that current laws will remain unchanged is that it's not the way the budget process works in the real world of Washington, where laws are altered routinely.
It's part of the budgetary game to arrange matters so as to minimize the long-term effects of tax and spending provisions. To choose the most glaring example: the perennial plan, codified in law, to cut doctor's fees paid by Medicare. The baseline scenario assumes the cuts will take place, while the alternative scenario knows otherwise; the cuts have always been rescinded in a maneuver now dubbed the "doc fix."
There are also about 70 "expiring tax provisions" that grant tax favors to lobbying groups. Again, to minimize the long-term effects on the budget, they are routinely set up to expire, but they are almost always extended. The baseline must assume these provisions will expire, but the extended-alternative scenario more realistically assumes they indeed will continue.
Also, as the CBO study explains, "In the extended baseline, total federal spending for everything other than the major health-care programs, Social Security, and net interest declines to a smaller percentage of GDP than has been the case for more than 70 years." In contrast, in the extended alternative, the agency assumes that this spending would "rise by 2024 to its average as a percentage of GDP over the past two decades." That's more plausible than the extended baseline -- and we may even wonder if it would be still more plausible to assume the same rise in this spending even before 2024.
IN A FOLLOW-UP BLOG POST, Krugman responded to readers by acknowledging a Wall Street Journal op-ed that presents the extended-alternative scenario. He made a brief, dismissive reference to the numbers (pointing out, irrelevantly, that "well over half of the projected spending…has nothing to do with entitlements"), and ironically faulted the writer of the op-ed for omitting to mention that he is not reporting the baseline numbers.
But there is no coverup; the op-ed makes the distinction clear. It was Krugman who engaged in a glaring omission by reporting the CBO results while ignoring the extended-alternative projections.
http://online.barrons.com/news/artic...43323337920154
How Krugman Fudged the Truth on U.S. Debt
By mentioning only the baseline projection from the Congressional Budget Office, he downplayed the potentially dangerous growth of U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP.
Last week, I reported that the Congressional Budget Office's recently released "2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook" warned "the fiscal ship of state is in danger of hitting an iceberg" ("New Warning on U.S.'s Gathering Debt Storm," July 21). Readers asked me how New York Times columnist Paul Krugman could cite the same study and conclude that the agency's projections are "distinctly non-alarming" ("The Fiscal Fizzle," the New York Times, July 20).
The key difference is that Krugman reported only one of the estimates from the CBO for the possible trajectory of the debt-to-gross-domestic-product ratio between now and the late-2030s. He cited only the agency's "extended baseline" scenario, which put the ratio above 100% by the late 2030s from the current 74%. He did not mention that the CBO study also presented its "extended alternative fiscal scenario," which projected that by the late-2030s, the debt-to-GDP ratio would climb above 180%.
EVEN THE BASELINE SCENARIO, which assumes that "current laws governing taxes and spending will remain generally unchanged," can hardly be characterized as "distinctly non-alarming." It shows, for example, that if current laws aren't changed, the debt-to-GDP ratio will continue to climb, from 106% in 2039, to 126% by 2050, to 147% by 2060. By neglecting to mention this, Krugman manages to dismiss the scary number by pointing out that by 2039, the debt would be "no higher, as a percentage of GDP, than the debt America had at the end of World War II."
The CBO itself makes this comparison, but then points out that, unlike at the end of World War II, the debt would still be on an "upward path," a "trajectory [that] ultimately would be unsustainable."
But as mentioned, Krugman's main omission in his column was to leave out the far scarier extended alternative fiscal scenario, which puts the debt-to-GDP ratio at more than 180% by 2039. The omission gives readers the impression that the baseline was the CBO's only projected figure.
As I pointed out in my write-up, the extended alternative is more realistic than the baseline scenario. The CBO is obligated to release baseline projections, but the problem with assuming that current laws will remain unchanged is that it's not the way the budget process works in the real world of Washington, where laws are altered routinely.
It's part of the budgetary game to arrange matters so as to minimize the long-term effects of tax and spending provisions. To choose the most glaring example: the perennial plan, codified in law, to cut doctor's fees paid by Medicare. The baseline scenario assumes the cuts will take place, while the alternative scenario knows otherwise; the cuts have always been rescinded in a maneuver now dubbed the "doc fix."
There are also about 70 "expiring tax provisions" that grant tax favors to lobbying groups. Again, to minimize the long-term effects on the budget, they are routinely set up to expire, but they are almost always extended. The baseline must assume these provisions will expire, but the extended-alternative scenario more realistically assumes they indeed will continue.
Also, as the CBO study explains, "In the extended baseline, total federal spending for everything other than the major health-care programs, Social Security, and net interest declines to a smaller percentage of GDP than has been the case for more than 70 years." In contrast, in the extended alternative, the agency assumes that this spending would "rise by 2024 to its average as a percentage of GDP over the past two decades." That's more plausible than the extended baseline -- and we may even wonder if it would be still more plausible to assume the same rise in this spending even before 2024.
IN A FOLLOW-UP BLOG POST, Krugman responded to readers by acknowledging a Wall Street Journal op-ed that presents the extended-alternative scenario. He made a brief, dismissive reference to the numbers (pointing out, irrelevantly, that "well over half of the projected spending…has nothing to do with entitlements"), and ironically faulted the writer of the op-ed for omitting to mention that he is not reporting the baseline numbers.
But there is no coverup; the op-ed makes the distinction clear. It was Krugman who engaged in a glaring omission by reporting the CBO results while ignoring the extended-alternative projections.
I used to think you were more intelligent than this, but you're obviously a troll. Can you offer proof of this 'record' pace? Try this: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
Oh, and remember the 'Grand Bargain'? The GOP refused to raise taxes as part of the compromise.
The liberals didn't want to simply raise taxes, they wanted to raise taxes on the successful only while expanding social programs. They were really not proposing anything that would actually cut the deficit Oh, and remember the 'Grand Bargain'? The GOP refused to raise taxes as part of the compromise.
Jump to: