Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
Wed May 23, 2012, 01:46 PM May 2012

If the government does not do X, Y, Z we will re-enter recession

Last edited Wed May 23, 2012, 03:59 PM - Edit history (1)

The CBO report on the economic effects of current fiscal law is one of the most perplexingly non-story stories I've ever seen.

Under current law the US will re-enter recession in 2013. Triggered spending cuts and expiration of tax cuts mandate this result. 2013 will start with a huge anti-stimulus... unless congress does something.

Not 2023 or 2033, Q1 2013... mere months from now.

Shrug. I guess they'll work something out.

One would think politicians would be all about their plan for avoiding this outcome, but it's after the elections so it might as well be a century away.

By the way, anybody who thought the Bush tax cuts would expire... no. They're like Rasputin. No telling what it would take to kill them, but it won't be anytime soon.

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If the government does not do X, Y, Z we will re-enter recession (Original Post) cthulu2016 May 2012 OP
won't spending cuts negate the revenue increase? grok May 2012 #1
They are additive cthulu2016 May 2012 #2
so the reverse is best grok May 2012 #3
"sooner or later we run out of money" cthulu2016 May 2012 #4
Tax churches, windfall profits, close corporate tax loopholes, tax the 1%. Budget balanced. Initech May 2012 #5
What would the benefit of balancing the budget be? cthulu2016 May 2012 #6
If we enact Wall Street controls Aerows May 2012 #7
Never forget: Banks stole and were given trillions upon trillions of our dollars. Fire Walk With Me May 2012 #8
 

grok

(550 posts)
1. won't spending cuts negate the revenue increase?
Wed May 23, 2012, 02:12 PM
May 2012

I don't have the numbers(so somebody enlighten us)

The problem with government policy(any) is that it often assumes the one you want to control will stay static and wait for you to make your move.

Look at Greece. while the government is diddling back and forth, solid assets are going OUT. Gold, euros, equipment. The smart BIG money will not wait. It's gone already. But if you try to control it, it leaves faster.


In the long run it looks like stability/statism is here to stay. one decision negates the other.

It's like telling a blue whale where to go and yet warning the krill it's going to change direction at the same time

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
2. They are additive
Wed May 23, 2012, 02:22 PM
May 2012

Increasing taxes is (all things being equal) contractionary.

Cutting spending is (all things being equal) contractionary.

Mandated spending cuts and expiration of tax cuts are both contractionary, hence the CBO's gloomy analysis of the overall effect.

 

grok

(550 posts)
3. so the reverse is best
Wed May 23, 2012, 03:45 PM
May 2012

keep taxes low(Bush tax cuts and go cut deeper)

And expand spending( more shovel ready projects(too few were ready before))

Very Keynesian no?

Should work but sooner or later we run out of money.

Sounds like Greece.

taxes are high but but many didn't bother paying. corruption and such.

lot of infrastructure built but now no money to pay salaries. And the money has left the country.


cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
4. "sooner or later we run out of money"
Wed May 23, 2012, 03:52 PM
May 2012

As a matter of math, yes. There has to be a point where any debt is unsustainable without devaluing the issuing currency.

But we are far from that point. Japan has a much larger debt and her bonds still sell with almost exactly the same yield as ours, so we are far from any point of disaster.

What our policy should have been from the start was to triple or quadruple or whatever the word is for five-fold the deficit in the first year and use monetary policy to reign in any runaway growth/inflation if it developed. (It is easy to reign in growth with monetary policy) That would have offered the possibility of jarring the economy back into a self-sustaining growth mode.

What we do instead offers no such hope... increase the deficit to soften the effects of the down economy, but not enough to have any chance of really changing the economy and then limp along like that for ages.

The total addition to the national debt from such "caution" is likely to be greater than the cost of "irresponsibility" would have been.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
7. If we enact Wall Street controls
Wed May 23, 2012, 03:56 PM
May 2012

we will enter recession, depression, and a zombie apocalypse. The zombie apocalypse happens the second we regulate anyone on Wall Street's ability to steal wholesale from taxpayers, investors and the American public.

Oh: And if we don't privatize Social Security and let them steal that, too, you know what happens - zombie apocalypse.

 

Fire Walk With Me

(38,893 posts)
8. Never forget: Banks stole and were given trillions upon trillions of our dollars.
Wed May 23, 2012, 03:57 PM
May 2012

Take it back and many problems are solved before they even begin.

Then again, crashing the economy is a power-grab tactic, so we haven't seen the last of them.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If the government does no...