The Fiscal Cliff talks

[3rdnlng]

The CBO uses expected wages and profits generated each year to estimate revenues, but they also provide the projected u-rate. They project a 5.6% u-rate in 2017 with a deficit of $220 bil (which assumes all changes in the FC take effect). The primary deficit is projected to be in surplus, so it's the growing interest expense that generates the deficit in the later years.

 

So, how is this consistent with your prior statements? You multiply every rosy picture by every rosy picture and come up with something less than rosy. Doesn't that make you wonder if that investment in Rainbow Farting Unicorns might be worse than an investment in Solyndra? Tell me Mr. Economist, what's going to happen when the chickens come home to roost with the recent policy of printing mega money? Do you think that super inflation might hurt the people less able to afford it?

[CosmicBills]

So, when the bottom falls out and we go careening over this cliff, exactly how many hammers do I need to survive in the new world order? 'Cause I got three now (one's my neighbor's and the hell if he's getting it back until he returns my juicer) and was thinking about going to stock up on more tomorrow.

 

Any tips would be appreciated. Cheers.

[Nanker]

Fuggetabouddit. We goes ovah da physical clit and it won't be purdy. America da bee-oo-tee-full? Hah! It won't even be America da purty. Hell, it's gonna be America the butterface. Youse nose - like the won where George Bailey was nevah born.

[/dev/null]

So, when the bottom falls out and we go careening over this cliff, exactly how many hammers do I need to survive in the new world order? 'Cause I got three now (one's my neighbor's and the hell if he's getting it back until he returns my juicer) and was thinking about going to stock up on more tomorrow.

 

Any tips would be appreciated. Cheers.

 

What do you mean New World Order?

 

Wasn't the world ending in 2 and a half weeks?

[TPS]

So, how is this consistent with your prior statements? You multiply every rosy picture by every rosy picture and come up with something less than rosy. Doesn't that make you wonder if that investment in Rainbow Farting Unicorns might be worse than an investment in Solyndra? Tell me Mr. Economist, what's going to happen when the chickens come home to roost with the recent policy of printing mega money? Do you think that super inflation might hurt the people less able to afford it?

The "recent policy" of printing mega money? The Fed has been pumping billions of liquidity into the system for 5 years now, where's the super inflation? So many people here have been squawking about money printing and super inflation over the past 4-5 years, so where is it? The best you get is some conspiracy about fudged numbers.

I'm not giving anyone a rosy picture, I'm simply telling you the fact that current deficits will come down as the economy recovers--that's the way the budget works.

 

Regarding the FC, since you conservatives are so worried about the deficits, why are you concerned about the FC which will cut spending and raise taxes and lower the deficit? You guys should be supporting it. The problem with the current argument is that people are using the FC to solve future deficit issues caused mainly by the Medicare gap. Gee thanks for telling us the sky will fall 20 years from now....

[TakeYouToTasker]

http://business.time...with-the-401k/

 

Fiscal Cliff: Why Congress Might Have to Mess with the 401(k)[/b]

By: Dan Kadlec

 

One of the earliest fears about tax-favored savings accounts like IRAs and 401(k) plans was that when this pool of savings grew large enough

Congress would not be able to resist tapping it to help solve the nation’s debt problems. We’re about to find out if those fears—persistent for decades—have been justified.

Everything including the sacred mortgage deduction is on the table as lawmakers wrestle with the fiscal cliff, a year-end avalanche of scheduled spending cuts and tax increases. With a combined $10 trillion sitting in IRAs and 401(k) plans, retirement accounts make a juicy target. Some of this money has never been taxed, and under current law never will be.

To maintain this savings incentive the government “spends” $100 billion a year in the form of tax breaks to those who stash money in these kinds of accounts. Now, a new study suggests this tax incentive does little to change saving behavior. Some lawmakers, no doubt, are wondering: Why keep an expensive tax incentive that does not incent?

(MORE: Why the Fiscal Cliff Is the Wrong Thing to Worry About)

The study,

reported in The New York Times, comes from Raj Chetty and John N. Friedman of Harvard, Soren Leth-Petersen and Tore Olsen of the University of Copenhagen, and Torben Heien Nielsen of the Danish National Center for Social Research. It looked at data from Denmark, where the pension system is similar to that in the U.S., and found that every dollar that government spent on tax breaks increased total savings by about one penny.

That’s not much of a payoff. Meanwhile, the Tax Policy Center in Washington has found that about 80% of retirement savings benefits flow to the top 20% of earners. Eliminating the deduction for retirement savings would hit the well-off disproportionately, a condition with a lot of appeal in the current political climate.

Trying to head off this line of thinking, the American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries recently launched a save-my-401(k) campaign, encouraging workers to email their representatives in congress. The group notes that having a 401(k) plan is the single most important factor in determining if a worker is saving for retirement and that families with a retirement savings account, on average, have two-thirds of their assets in that account.

Yet the Danish study suggests that little would change if the tax incentives were removed. Only 15% of savers actively respond to tax incentives, the study found. Far more important are features like automatic enrollment and contribution rates that automatically increase with pay raises

.

(MORE: Wall Street’s Bet on the Fiscal Cliff)

So hold on to your wallet. Congress has many options when it comes to tapping this vast reservoir. It could eliminate the deduction altogether or just for top earners, further restrict the amount that is deductible (currently $17,500; for those over 50, $23,000), start taxing retirement savings growth, or take back the part that has grown tax-free.

In the throes of a retirement savings crisis, none of these options is appealing. But that last one is most troublesome. At stake is any savings that has accrued tax-free in a Roth IRA. Tax-deferred growth could be a target too if you find yourself in a lower tax bracket in retirement. There is no discernible momentum behind such measures. But a retroactive tax on this sheltered income has been a worry from the start. And now these accounts have a meaningful total—and everything is on the table.

Edited December 4, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[3rdnlng]

The "recent policy" of printing mega money? The Fed has been pumping billions of liquidity into the system for 5 years now, where's the super inflation? So many people here have been squawking about money printing and super inflation over the past 4-5 years, so where is it? The best you get is some conspiracy about fudged numbers.

I'm not giving anyone a rosy picture, I'm simply telling you the fact that current deficits will come down as the economy recovers--that's the way the budget works.

 

Regarding the FC, since you conservatives are so worried about the deficits, why are you concerned about the FC which will cut spending and raise taxes and lower the deficit? You guys should be supporting it. The problem with the current argument is that people are using the FC to solve future deficit issues caused mainly by the Medicare gap. Gee thanks for telling us the sky will fall 20 years from now....

 

So, printing massive amounts of money won't lead to high inflation if the economy ever gets rolling again? I should be for going over the fiscal cliff and cuts across the board and increases in taxes for everybody just because I'm conservative? How much of the Medicare gap was created by Obamacare?

[TPS]

So, printing massive amounts of money won't lead to high inflation if the economy ever gets rolling again? I should be for going over the fiscal cliff and cuts across the board and increases in taxes for everybody just because I'm conservative? How much of the Medicare gap was created by Obamacare?

As I said, if you believe in scary deficits, then why wouldn't you support going back to the tax rates (along with new spending cuts) that generated the last surpluses?

Seriously, can someone explain why the long term funding gaps need to be solved by January 1?

 

I've seen estimates that claim both--some say OCare saves money, and some say it doesn't. Regardless, there was a huge gap projected before it took effect.

[3rdnlng]

As I said, if you believe in scary deficits, then why wouldn't you support going back to the tax rates (along with new spending cuts) that generated the last surpluses?

Seriously, can someone explain why the long term funding gaps need to be solved by January 1?

 

I've seen estimates that claim both--some say OCare saves money, and some say it doesn't. Regardless, there was a huge gap projected before it took effect.

 

Clinton's tax rates are what generated the last surpluses? Do you know what happens Jan 1? I ask you how much of the Medicare gap is caused by Obamacare and you respond with gibberish? No wonder other people get so frustrated when having a discussion with you.

[B-Man]

Stumping THE WHITE HOUSE?

 

“Well, it is not at all clear the White House is going to bother making any counteroffer, making it sticky for all those indignant lefty pundits who hollered that the president deserved a response to his offer. Now that he got one, what is the excuse for him declining to respond?”

 

 

Also: GOP Regains High Ground With Cliff Counteroffer.

 

 

 

One More....new polling shows : Nation that re-elected Obama wants more spending cuts than tax hikes, still hates Obamacare.

 

Perhaps voters should have chosen differently, then . . . . . . lol

 

.

[Keukasmallies]

My holdings are long term; I recovered nicely from 2008, so I'll just ride along as is over the cliff. POTUS is just stylin' right now, and he will not blink right away. He has no regard for those outside his immediate circle of advisors.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Clinton's tax rates are what generated the last surpluses? Do you know what happens Jan 1? I ask you how much of the Medicare gap is caused by Obamacare and you respond with gibberish? No wonder other people get so frustrated when having a discussion with you.

He doesn't measure inflation against commodity prices, he instead uses a meaningless CPI metric.

[CosmicBills]

What do you mean New World Order?

 

Wasn't the world ending in 2 and a half weeks?

Our world as we know it ends. Then the new one rises from the ashes like a phoenix. I'm really looking forward to it, the way I see it with a few billion less people on the planet I might actually make it on Survivor.

[B-Man]

I might actually make it on Survivor.

 

Wouldn't that be redundant at that point?

 

 

.

[TPS]

He doesn't measure inflation against commodity prices, he instead uses a meaningless CPI metric.

Just like 99% of all analysts do.

 

Do you know what commodity prices have done since January 2011?

 

Clinton's tax rates are what generated the last surpluses? Do you know what happens Jan 1? I ask you how much of the Medicare gap is caused by Obamacare and you respond with gibberish? No wonder other people get so frustrated when having a discussion with you.

Zzzzz....

Bushes tax cuts are what generated the deficits.

Do you know what happens Jan 1?

As for OCare, as I said, I've seen reports that contradict each other regarding the impact, so I can't say I know what the impact will be. Hope that's clear. Would you like me to do your homework too?

[3rdnlng]

Just like 99% of all analysts do.

 

Do you know what commodity prices have done since January 2011?

 

Zzzzz....

Bushes tax cuts are what generated the deficits.

Do you know what happens Jan 1?

As for OCare, as I said, I've seen reports that contradict each other regarding the impact, so I can't say I know what the impact will be. Hope that's clear. Would you like me to do your homework too?

 

Please don't do my homework for me, I want to pass. Bush tax cuts generated trillion dollar + deficits? Yes, I do know what happens Jan 1.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just like 99% of all analysts do.

 

Do you know what commodity prices have done since January 2011?

It's been relatively flat, as QE2 and 3 monies are sitting on bank ledgers, and haven't moved into the real economy yet because of tighter lending standards. What is more telling, however, is that since the implementation of QE 1 commodities inflation has been 37.35% (Commodity Price Index,both Fuel and Non-Fuel Price Indices: International Monetary Fund)

[TPS]

It's been relatively flat, as QE2 and 3 monies are sitting on bank ledgers, and haven't moved into the real economy yet because of tighter lending standards. What is more telling, however, is that since the implementation of QE 1 commodities inflation has been 37.35% (Commodity Price Index,both Fuel and Non-Fuel Price Indices: International Monetary Fund)

Do you want to give me a cherry-picked date for the start of QE1 which gives you that result? Wouldn't you agree that QE1 starts with the bankruptcy of Lehman? Or are you going to pick a date closer to the bottoming out of commodity prices due to the recession?

 

At least you understand that the other QEs have no impact on demand-side inflation as long as banks aren't lending.

 

As anyone who has been around here awhile knows, my take is that QE2, which began in 20104Q, is that it caused a speculative run-up in commodities as investors believed it would lead to inflation. Instead, the artificial commodity bubble was pricked by the lack of underlying demad at the end of April 2011.

 

Please don't do my homework for me, I want to pass. Bush tax cuts generated trillion dollar + deficits? Yes, I do know what happens Jan 1.

No. Bush tax cuts caused the budget to go from suplus to deficit once enacted, and this was in an expanding economy. Go check the numbers; I'm not going to do your work. Though here's a bit....Outstanding debt was $5.6 trillion when he came in and $10 trillion when he left.

 

You can't be that daft to not understand the recessions impact on deficits?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Do you want to give me a cherry-picked date for the start of QE1 which gives you that result? Wouldn't you agree that QE1 starts with the bankruptcy of Lehman? Or are you going to pick a date closer to the bottoming out of commodity prices due to the recession?

 

At least you understand that the other QEs have no impact on demand-side inflation as long as banks aren't lending.

 

As anyone who has been around here awhile knows, my take is that QE2, which began in 20104Q, is that it caused a speculative run-up in commodities as investors believed it would lead to inflation. Instead, the artificial commodity bubble was pricked by the lack of underlying demad at the end of April 2011.

 

No. Bush tax cuts caused the budget to go from suplus to deficit once enacted, and this was in an expanding economy. Go check the numbers; I'm not going to do your work. Though here's a bit....Outstanding debt was $5.6 trillion when he came in and $10 trillion when he left.

 

You can't be that daft to not understand the recessions impact on deficits?

The data was for November, when the QE1 timeline began. Beyond the fact that it's the pinnicle of absurdity to begin anywhere but the beginning, the data wasn't "cherry picked" from the market floor. Had I done that, I would have used the data from February 09' instead, and reported commodities inflation of 53.55%.

 

As to your theory, I'm underwhelmed. Theories that attempt to insulate themselves from negative causal effects by writing off real supply and demand market trends (an increase in the money supply will always lead to a lower demand for currency relative to commodities) are a fool's venture.

Edited December 4, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[Duck_dodgers007]

http://news.yahoo.com/two-conservative-republicans-booted-house-budget-panel-154212850--business.html

 

 

Booted! Taking out the tea party trash