Author Topic: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process  (Read 397764 times)


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12482
    • View Profile
not clear how CBO arrives at the numbers
« Reply #1202 on: March 10, 2021, 07:41:06 AM »
"proponents of raising the minimum wage to $15/hour often claim that any economic harm from this would be minimal compared to the law’s benefit of “lifting nearly a million people out of poverty.” That stylized statistic—which is derived from a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis—is grossly misleading because CBO has estimated that the law would raise the average total income of families below the poverty line by about $589 a year or merely 1%. This increase is about half of what they spend on sweetened drinks, desserts and candy"

how dose more than doubling a persons hourly wage from 7.25 go 15 $ per hr
only increase the yearly pay by $589 ?

yearly wage (assuming an 8 hr per day fo 260 days ) will  increase yearly wage from  $15,080 to 31,200
 .

how could doubling salary increase yearly pay by 589 bucks
   even if we are speaking one wage earner with spouse and 3 children (famiy) is 3224 per person, not 589.




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Re: not clear how CBO arrives at the numbers
« Reply #1203 on: March 10, 2021, 11:03:11 AM »
"proponents of raising the minimum wage to $15/hour often claim that any economic harm from this would be minimal compared to the law’s benefit of “lifting nearly a million people out of poverty.” That stylized statistic—which is derived from a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis—is grossly misleading because CBO has estimated that the law would raise the average total income of families below the poverty line by about $589 a year or merely 1%. This increase is about half of what they spend on sweetened drinks, desserts and candy"

how dose more than doubling a persons hourly wage from 7.25 go 15 $ per hr
only increase the yearly pay by $589 ?

yearly wage (assuming an 8 hr per day fo 260 days ) will  increase yearly wage from  $15,080 to 31,200
 .

how could doubling salary increase yearly pay by 589 bucks
   even if we are speaking one wage earner with spouse and 3 children (famiy) is 3224 per person, not 589.

They write of families below poverty line, not individuals working minimum wage. My understanding is that relatively few families below the poverty line have a primary income based on minimum wage. 

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12482
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1204 on: March 10, 2021, 01:59:52 PM »
Not sure what
they are measuring
poverty lines:

Persons in family/household   Poverty guideline
1   $12,880
2   $17,420
3   $21,960

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1205 on: March 10, 2021, 02:13:54 PM »
Not sure what
they are measuring
poverty lines:

Persons in family/household   Poverty guideline
1   $12,880
2   $17,420
3   $21,960

I'm not sure what they are measuring either.  They may not count transfer payments and they likely don't count non-cash payments such as housing programs, food stamps, free health care, transportation and Obama phone - and they count the money you make on the side, but otherwise is counts everything.   :wink:

Here's a government math question for you.  If a person made 2-4 million /yr, 9 of the last 10 years, has 20 million in the bank, but lost 200,000 last year, is he or she below the poverty line right now?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/03/more-than-half-of-bidens-infrastructure-bill-does-not-go-towards-infrastructure/

Excuse me, but building homes for people is not infrastructure.  More for 'transit' than for highways.

Electrifying local school buses is now a federal program?  500,000 EV chargers?  Ever heard of a private sector, let those coal powered vehicles compete with gas on a level playing field.

Promoting air travel, is THAT the government's business.  Where is that wind powered 747?

Building schools is federal?  R&D on climate change is infrastructure?  Not in my dictionary.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12482
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1208 on: April 06, 2021, 07:13:14 AM »
all this money just being laid out there

just begging to be spent

for what for whom for how much

questions without answers

what a gold rush for some

what a joke on the rest


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12482
    • View Profile
now it is for our seniors
« Reply #1209 on: April 09, 2021, 09:18:45 AM »
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/04/08/buttigieg-eldercare-is-infrastructure-that-makes-americans-thrive/

Dems are always promoting things as for the "children"

Their new heart tug pitch :

for our "elderly"

NEVER for taxpaying citizens 

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Wharton study rips "infrastructure" bill
« Reply #1210 on: April 12, 2021, 04:34:02 AM »
https://fee.org/articles/biden-infrastructure-plan-would-hurt-economy-in-3-ways-over-long-run-ivy-league-analysis-finds/
Analysts at the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania weighed the potential benefits the proposed spending would have against the costs incurred by higher government debt and higher business tax rates. They find that while sending piles of cash flying out the door might seem stimulative at first, the long-term effects would all be net negative.

By 2031, Wharton projects that the size of the economy’s total output will have shrunk by 0.9 percent as a result of the “jobs plan.” The analysts also predict a 3 percent decrease in the “capital stock,” a measure of the nation’s productive resources such as machinery, buildings, etc.

Why will the massive government spending reduce the capital stock? Because the proposal is financed by raising corporate taxes, which directly reduces private sector investment, and because it involves incurring massive amounts of government debt, which “crowds out” private sector investment.

Why the ‘Jobs Plan’ is Bad News for Workers
Here’s where things get ugly for workers under this “jobs plan.”

Reduced capital, aka productive tools, means lower worker productivity. Investments in improved machinery, for example, allow assembly-line workers to produce more in output per hour worked. And productivity is inextricably linked to worker wages.

“More investment of capital means: to give to the laborer more effi­cient tools,” Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises lucidly explained. “With the aid of better tools and machines, the quantity of the products increases and their quality improves. As the employer consequently will be in a position to obtain from the consumers more for what the em­ployee has produced in one hour of work, he is able—and, by the competition of other employers, forced—to pay a higher price for the man’s work.”

Of course, if capital—and hence productivity—is decreased, the opposite effect occurs and workers earn less over time. So, it’s not surprising that Wharton concluded the massive multi-trillion “jobs plan” will, by 2031, actually lead to a 0.7 percent decrease in average hourly wages. The analysts also note that there will be almost no increase in employment, as measured by total hours worked.

Long-Term Harms, Not Benefits
Similar negative effects play out over an even longer time frame, Wharton projects, with net negative results from the “jobs plan” in 2040 and 2050.


Image Credit: Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
The Takeaway: Rhetoric and Promises Don’t Guarantee Results
President Biden’s sweeping “infrastructure” proposal is just the latest example in a long history of ambitious political rhetoric masking mediocre results. Politicians often point to the proposed benefits of their policies, often tangible and easy to see, and make their case for big government spending based on the benefits alone.

But while rhetoric can be rosy, real-life involves trade-offs; the weighing of benefits and costs. And when we do this honestly for Biden’s infrastructure proposal, the results are grim indeed.3 G

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs - Infrastructure??
« Reply #1211 on: April 20, 2021, 10:24:58 AM »
There is more money in the bill for electric cars than there is for highways.   US Senator Marsha Blackburn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCiWxEM83s4

[Video is mostly about the Georgia vote integrity law.]

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12482
    • View Profile
Barney Frank the architect of the
« Reply #1212 on: May 07, 2021, 07:50:10 AM »
of the 2008 mortgage disaster (along with Dodd)

(he has never taken the blame or admited fault !)
No one should ever listen to this guy again :

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/barneyfrank-biden-infrastructure-plan/2021/05/06/id/1020435/
« Last Edit: May 07, 2021, 07:51:55 AM by ccp »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12482
    • View Profile
unemployment tax rebates now for 10 million people
« Reply #1214 on: May 14, 2021, 05:00:30 PM »
https://www.yahoo.com/money/taxpayers-could-get-an-additional-tax-refund-for-unemployment-203121855.html

Wasn't it Nero who from a high balcony threw coins down to the plebes early on so as  to win their favor?

Only to burn the place down, later with his extravagance ..........

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Government spending, Ben Carson
« Reply #1215 on: May 18, 2021, 07:41:57 AM »
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-inflation-crisis-spending-control-dr-ben-carson

One voice of reason.

Who knew that spending trillions beyond our means has a consequence.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12482
    • View Profile
Bezos requesting government bail out for space program
« Reply #1217 on: May 25, 2021, 04:44:04 PM »
wants 2 to 3 billion of our taxpayer money

the guy who is worth close to 200 billion


watch the crats give it to him:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/bezos-blue-origin-second-shot-nasa-dollars-bailout-amendment

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Govt programs, spending, deficit, budget, This is socialism, not stimulus
« Reply #1218 on: May 28, 2021, 10:49:27 AM »
https://issuesinsights.com/2021/05/28/bidens-wild-spending-binge-its-socialism-not-stimulus/

Deficits above $1.3 trillion every year for the next 10 years are the plan, the feature, not a bug.

Plan for such a bad economy that it always needs such a gigantic deficit? 

Deficits, it turns out, are not stimulative.  They shift resources from the productive private sector to the non-productive public sector.

Wrong as Keynes was, this is NOT what he had in mind.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19765
    • View Profile
Cloward-Piven, not Keynes.

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/05/28/bidens-wild-spending-binge-its-socialism-not-stimulus/

Deficits above $1.3 trillion every year for the next 10 years are the plan, the feature, not a bug.

Plan for such a bad economy that it always needs such a gigantic deficit? 

Deficits, it turns out, are not stimulative.  They shift resources from the productive private sector to the non-productive public sector.

Wrong as Keynes was, this is NOT what he had in mind.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12482
    • View Profile
possible 1/2 of government handouts stolen
« Reply #1220 on: June 10, 2021, 05:52:35 PM »
https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2021/06/10/report-half-pandemics-unemployment-money-could-stolen/

well probably half of people who claim disability are not truly disabled
so this does not surprise me

all so depressing how much money is wasted
     while debt soars

endless spending and payoffs for votes

and I can't get a tax break





« Last Edit: June 10, 2021, 05:54:34 PM by ccp »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Re: possible 1/2 of government handouts stolen
« Reply #1221 on: June 11, 2021, 06:09:16 AM »
quote author=ccp
"probably half of people who claim disability are not truly disabled"


To bring forward a prior conversation,  I see a subset of the people who use and mis-use the disability system as a landlord and ccp sees questionable cases as a doctor.  In both cases, we see a private financial aspect not visible to the public.  I see through rental applications who is on disability, then in some cases I see them move in heavy televisions and stereos.  They, in some cases, can't mow a small lawn or land their garbage in the can but are able to do a lot of other activities that take equal or more energy.  Withdrawing from the workforce and signing a contract with the federal government to stay poor and keep your income off the books in exchange for a SSI disability payment every month for life has immeasurable negative effects on their life when it occurs in a situation where it may not have been needed.

A friend with a real, partial disability had that program (SSI) overlap with buying and using a season ski pass and unlimited golf pass without violating any rules of the program.  It would be silly to stay he couldn't do any work, and they do let you do some work and earn some money on the program.

Republicans know a large part of it is a scam.  Democrats in power know that too.  cf. Barack Obama.  In the aftermath of financial collapse of 2008 in the slow growth, no growth years of the Obama administration we had an epidemic of new SSI disability program recipients.  For those to jump suddenly by millions, one might think something happened in the drinking water or maybe a virus from China was causing it.  A commission could have been formed to study be headed by the nation's Surgeon General - but EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS AN ECONOMIC PHENOMENON, not a medical or health issue.  The reaction of the far Left Democrat Obama administration was: Ho hum.  We wanted more people dependent on government programs and we got it.  They have secret internal polling data telling them lifetime recipients of government programs tend to vote Democrat in greater proportions than entrepreneurs and working tradesmen and women.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12482
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1222 on: June 11, 2021, 07:29:25 AM »
". The reaction of the far Left Democrat Obama administration was: Ho hum.  We wanted more people dependent on government programs and we got it.  They have secret internal polling data telling them lifetime recipients of government programs tend to vote Democrat in greater proportions than entrepreneurs and working tradesmen and women."

and raise out taxes to keep paying for this stuff

it ain't the military that is rising the debt it is by far all these government programs
including SSI and Medicare and the rest
   they should have put the money for these things under lock box and key but of course they steal it to spend buying other votes

and just jack up the taxes
SSI deductions keep going up every yr
  a stealth tax )

the great snake's approach to it all is  damaging to our country;
  yet like a great narcissist he thinks he is wise.

 :-(

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1223 on: June 11, 2021, 02:30:22 PM »
"and raise our taxes to keep paying for this stuff"

   - Yes and worse yet, they raise tax rates spitefully but don't even pretend to pay for their spending.

The economic phenomenon [with disability programs] for those who can work is:  free money offered; free money accepted, just have to jump through a couple of hoops.

Further:  Robbing Peter to Pay Paul and Mary in a democracy doesn't require consent of the robbed, but in a constitutional republic (like ours), that action on its face violates equal protection under the law.  They get around that with the con game of writing program requirements that target the robbed and the recipients.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
The Stupid Party at it yet again
« Reply #1226 on: June 16, 2021, 11:29:03 AM »
The GOP’s Infrastructure Gamble
Will a bipartisan deal slow the radical Biden agenda, or accelerate it?
By The Editorial Board
June 15, 2021 6:35 pm ET



Bipartisanship for the good of the country is sometimes necessary in a democracy. But bipartisanship for its own sake, or to assist progressives in their attempt to remake America, is destructive. Senate Republicans moving toward an infrastructure compromise have to calculate which kind of deal they’re embracing.

A group of 10 Senators—five Democrats and five Republicans—last week announced they’ve agreed on the “framework” for such a deal. Details are scant, but leaks suggest the proposal would cost $1.2 trillion over eight years and include $579 billion in new spending. The deal is geared toward core infrastructure such as roads, bridges and broadband, though it would also include some of President Biden’s green-energy demands.


The Senators said in a statement that the deal would be “fully paid for and not include tax increases.” They are still haggling over “pay-fors”—with ideas that include indexing the gasoline tax to inflation, imposing electric-vehicle user fees, or creating a new federal infrastructure bank.

The country could use some infrastructure investment, and a focused bill that repurposes unspent Covid funds is the best option. The problem is what comes next. Republicans are uneasy about the size of the package. But they might be convinced to go along if they knew this compromise was the end of the Democratic spending plans. The White House would get its big infrastructure win, and Republicans would stop more left-wing damage.


But Mr. Biden has proposed trillions of dollars in additional spending, and progressives are already vowing to stuff anything that doesn’t make the infrastructure cut into a separate bill that could pass with only 50 Senate votes (plus the Vice President’s tie-breaker). Politico reports that Senate Budget Chairman Bernie Sanders isn’t “sweating” the bipartisan talks, because he’s already rallying support for his follow-on bonanza.


If an infrastructure compromise serves primarily to grease the skids for this phase two blowout, it will do far more harm than good. Two of the Democratic negotiators, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema, continue to insist on bipartisan infrastructure talks, but they haven’t said what they’ll do on phase two.

The danger is that an infrastructure deal might make it easier to pass phase two. Democratic leaders face the prospect of selling a reconciliation bill that encompasses infrastructure, climate subsidies, and Mr. Biden’s “American Families Plan”—and could easily have a price tag north of $4 trillion. Carving off a trillion dollars or so with an initial infrastructure compromise would reduce that sticker shock, and arguably make it easier for swing-state Democrats to get on board.

This second bill would be the killer. Infrastructure spending may be wasteful or special-interest pork, but most of it will be a one-time event. Mr. Biden’s “families plan” is a cradle-to-grave expansion of entitlements that would rewrite the social contract: universal preschool, free community college, and new federal programs for child care and paid family leave. No work required. The entitlements would start small but become giant spending wedges in the future. The history of entitlements is that they are impossible to reform, much less kill.

GOP Senators have to decide if an infrastructure deal is worth the huge risk that it will pave the way for a phase two bill that expands the government by 4% as a share of GDP on a permanent basis. They also risk putting their fingerprints on a green-energy subsidy program that could become as politically embarrassing as Barack Obama’s 2009 stimulus and its Solyndra scandals. The examples of crony socialism will be exquisite.

Republicans might not have to make this fateful choice, given that progressives are mobilizing to tank the deal. Democrats would need every member of their Senate caucus to join with 10 Republicans to overcome the 60-vote filibuster rule, but a half-dozen Senate liberals this week derided the bipartisan infrastructure framework as inadequate.

Perhaps that ought to be the GOP’s warning that Democrats intend to see their infrastructure compromise, and raise them a reconciliation spending free-for-all for the ages.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
US Government Debt
« Reply #1227 on: June 17, 2021, 04:19:12 PM »
Robin Brooks
@RobinBrooksIIF
The US is a monetary sovereign, i.e. it can use Fed QE (blue) to anchor yields in the face of big fiscal deficits (black). What the US can't do is make foreigners buy its debt. In net terms, foreign buying stopped years ago (pink), very different from the post-2008 recovery

« Last Edit: June 17, 2021, 04:22:26 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
Sens Kerry & Danforth search for deficit solutions
« Reply #1228 on: June 21, 2021, 06:17:11 PM »
President Clinton asked us in 1994 to chair the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform to study the future of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and recommend measures to assure their long-term viability. Reforms of these popular programs were so politically fraught that finding consensus on solutions proved impossible during our tenure in the Senate.

But there was near unanimity within the commission on the scale of the problem. Entitlements were on an unsustainable trajectory. They consumed an ever-growing share of federal spending. In 1994 the budget deficit was $203 billion (2.8% of gross domestic product), and the national debt was $3.4 trillion (47.8% of GDP).


The crisis we identified 27 years ago seems negligible given where the debt stands today. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in January 2020 that annual budget deficits will exceed $1 trillion, and that the debt—then hovering at $17.2 trillion—would more than double as a share of the economy over the next 30 years. These numbers don’t take into account $65 trillion of unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare. The CBO now projects that, under current law, the deficit will reach $1.9 trillion in 10 years and the debt will skyrocket from 102% to 202% of GDP within 30 years.

The words “current law” are critical as the CBO forecasts only what will happen should government make no changes in spending and tax policies. But President Biden has already proposed $5 trillion in additional spending over the next 10 years, much of it for new or expanded entitlements, labeled “infrastructure” and “investment.”


Beyond the numbers, the biggest difference between then and now is that in 1994 both parties worried about deficits and debt. Today, neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to care. Under President Trump, the national debt grew from 76% of GDP to 100%. Under Mr. Biden’s first budget proposal, the debt is expected to reach 117% of GDP by 2031.


While politicians in both parties toss fiscal restraint to the winds, the good news is that a hefty proportion of voters are still concerned about the debt. An Ipsos poll conducted April 23-26 found that 75% of respondents believe too much debt can hurt the economy.

Current figures suggest that the federal government is digging America into a hole. According to CBO’s baseline projections—which don’t account for Mr. Biden’s proposals—interest costs will surpass spending for Social Security by 2045 and will consume nearly half of federal revenue in 2051.

Despite the urgency of the problem, nearly every elected official in Washington is an original co-sponsor of the “do nothing” plan. While today’s hyperpartisan political environment makes it unlikely that our fiscal crisis will be resolved anytime soon, elected officials would do well to take at least some action to address the issue.

One promising approach, the Trust Act, has been proposed by bipartisan co-sponsors in the House and Senate, including Reps. Mike Gallagher and Ed Case and Sens. Mitt Romney and Joe Manchin. The bill aims to create a process for avoiding insolvency of the major federal trust funds, including those covering Medicare hospital insurance, Social Security and highways.

The Trust Act would also establish a “rescue committee” for each fund with six members from each party. These committees would have bipartisan co-chairmen and would be charged with developing legislation to save the trust funds. At least two committee members of each party would have to agree to advance proposals by a majority vote. Once submitted, the proposals would receive expedited consideration in the House and Senate. This approach would be fair and practical and would focus on the most pressing issues that have identifiable deadlines rather than try to solve all the country’s fiscal challenges at once.

It’s become all too clear that America can’t build a sound economy on a foundation of unsustainable debt. The longer lawmakers wait to act, the more difficult the solutions will be—and the greater the risks for future generations. The Trust Act offers a sensible way to get started.

Mr. Kerrey, a Nebraska Democrat, and Mr. Danforth, a Missouri Republican, are former U.S. senators and co-chairmen of the Concord Coalition.