Alstein
4492
The military/social security, a lot of that bumps back into money to the populace at least. Medicare is necessary, of course (and should be expanded)
Debt service - I would not be surprised if a good chunk of that is internal transfer of wealth and one part of the government paying another.
Houngan
4493
I donât think youâre right about the debt service, we owe north of 20 Trillion dollars to various folks at very good interest rates, but even at good rates it adds up. The idea I was told was that as long as GDP growth can outstrip debt service then we can effectively come out to the good living on credit cards, as it were.
Papageno
4494
If you think of those 20 trillion dollars as the net worldwide savings in US dollars, itâs a lot less scary. The world economy needs a place to put dollars that will never (unless the Congress decides to shoot our country in the head by failing to pay interest on time as agreed) âbreak the buckâ â something that no other savings institution can absolutely guarantee.
Houngan
4495
Sure, agreed, but âabsolutelyâ only lasts until it doesnât. Weâre the best bet in town until we arenât. If the seemingly eternal idea of constant 2-3% GDP growth hits a decade or two of, well, not hitting it, then other things will happen. Either way thatâs not my main concern, I would be far happier seeing our government redirect some of those military expenditures into infrastructure and quality of life. When youâre on top, itâs best to spend on things that will keep you there, rather than shiny objects (the military) or short-term pleasures (irresponsible tax cuts.)
Enidigm
4496
Most economists think the ârealâ problem with entitlements is spending all your countryâs economic excess on the back end of life rather than the front end. Imagine taking all the social spending and using on education, training, facilities ect for young people. I mean thereâs the whole problem of pushing the old and infirm out into the ocean on an ice sheetâŚ
Houngan
4497
Yep, and thatâs where we can do the âPorque no los dos?â trick, just redirect a bit of that tasty military pork to forward-looking programs.
Youâre the third person to send me that, lolz!
Credit cards are the wrong metaphor here. You donât ever âpay backâ sovereign debt, and there isnât any credit limit. Usually the debt just slowly evaporates over time through inflation, as happened with the WW2 debt. Youâre right that debt service is the thing that matters â paying the interest â but debt service is one of the small things in that chart.
I would be surprised to learn that most economists think that. In any event, nearly half the health care spending is Medicaid, and that isnât old people.
Micheal Gearson gets it right.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/30/democratic-strategy-agenda-infrastructure-social-spending/
Though I understand that the GOP â having taken leave of its ideological senses â must be beaten and beaten regularly for its own good, I am not yet used to pulling for the other side in American politics. It still has a frisson of badness, like getting a tattoo and joining a biker gang, or rooting for Slytherin at quidditch. But Iâm doing my best to master the complex ploys and machinations of my new team.
The first Democratic stratagem: Devalue your own accomplishmentsâŚ
Senate passage of a $1.2 trillion infrastructure package, with the bipartisan support of 69 members, is an achievement that eluded President Bidenâs predecessor and a testament to Bidenâs negotiating skills. With steady, genial purpose, the president found agreement at a time of unprecedented rancor. The results include one of the largest investments in roads and bridges since Dwight D. Eisenhowerâs creation of the National Highway System, the expansion of broadband to millions of the bypassed, the modernization of public transport, the revamping of the electrical grid and the upgrade of water systems. There is enough prime, grade-A political pork â needed pork, justified pork, moral pork â in this package for members of Congress to claim credit from now till Doomsday, or Election Day (whichever comes first)âŚ
A second Democratic dictum: Muddy your messageâŚ
The third Democratic strategy: Take the slimmest possible win as a massive political mandateâŚ
JoshL
4501
Well he can fuck right off with that. The last two Republican presidents lost the popular vote, and still got how many Supreme Court seats? Started how many wars? Cut taxes for the rich by how much?
And thatâs not even to mention the Senate, where the Republican members probably havenât gotten more votes in total than the Democratic members in at least 50 years? But they rule everything.
And then we get to gerrymandering.
Former Republican Tim Miller said on MSNBC tonight that the proposed 1.5 trillion dollar package would include eliminating the notorious carried interest exemption finally, and that the Dems should be crowing about that too, among all the other things that bill + the BIP would include. He was of course ignoring that Kirsten (sp?) Sinema is not necessarily on board with it*, even if Manchin is, theoretically.
*Sheâs said sheâs not on board with tax increases.
Basically, up until Wednesday afternoon and Thursday, everything else has been kabuki theater.
The real sausage either gets made â or not â starting now and going forward at least a while. But now it at least kinda feels like the players are in the ring.
138
4504
I particularly liked this line:
Calling for one revolution can be clarifying. Calling for several simultaneous revolutions is the abdication of prioritization and the evidence of ideological gluttony.
My understanding is that this is the result of needing to cram every bit of Dem-desired legislative action into the Reconciliation bill, since Reconciliation is the one strange trick which allows Dems to avoid the filibuster.
I agree that this state of affairs is not good, but it is not good because our Legislative branch is broken, not because the Dems are incompetent. If the filibuster was dumped, we could go back to having single purpose bills, which could each receive their own up-or-down vote.
Gerson is paid to write about politics, so he should probably know this stuff. Why he does not is the topic of a different rant.
Let it be said, so let it be done.
Timex
4507
I mean, you say this, but the progressive caucus is suggesting that they wonât let you do that, as they are refusing to vote on the infrastructure bill unless itâs tied to another, different bill.
Alstein
4509
They have to in order to get anything they want. Itâs no different than Manchin doing his carveouts for coal, except that progressives actually want to do good things not just enrich themselves. The fact there was no vote last night and an extension was given is a sign the left remained firm, but is willing to negotiate at the table.
This is a coalition, everyone has to get something, progressives shouldnât be the ones getting scraps all the time.
Timex
4510
The infrastructure bill contains a trillion dollars of things they want. They literally just need to vote on it and they get all those things.
KevinC
4511
Pfff, a trillion dollars. They probably just pulled that from petty cash.
Of course you can ignore the different contexts in each case â like Gerson does â but it isnât going to make your analysis very good. Also like Gerson!
Sure, it will always be the case that making bills involves some horse trading, but whatâs happening right now is happening largely because Democrats in the House know they canât rely on the future actions of Dems in the Senate, because of one or two Dems in the Senate. If Manchin and Sinema were replaced by doppelgangers of any two other Democratic Senators, the House could make a deal with them to pass the reconciliation bill at some date in the future in some particular agreed-upon form with confidence that they would do that. As it is, they canât.
