The Political Denial of Science

[tacoman25]

I am not arguing. They said it, not me. Ok, have it your way then. They are not ignorant, they are liars. Which do you prefer?

Then why did Inhofe admit the world has been warming in that statement you quoted?

[BethesdaWX]

I am not arguing. They said it, not me. Ok, have it your way then. They are not ignorant, they are liars. Which do you prefer?

They didn't say it, you said it

[wokeupthisam]

Nobody is suggesting that we take all the rich folk money to pay the ENTIRE budget .. which is why the entire video is just stupid. What has been suggested is that rich people pay a slightly higher tax rate (IE what they were paying BEFORE Bush gave the rich a tax break. This would help close the budget DEFICIT which is much smaller than the ENTIRE BUDGET which is what the stupid movie is about.

Some statistics:

-The top 1% have 34.6% of the total net worth

-The top 1% have 42.7% of the total financial wealth

-The top 5% have 62% of the total net worth (the richest 5% own the large majority of America's wealth)

-The top 5% have 72% of the total financial wealth

-The top 1% have 23% of the income

ALL of these numbers are dramatically higher than they have been for the last century in the United States, and are dramatically higher than in any other western nation.

http://sociology.ucs...wer/wealth.html

Actually skier, the point of the video is to illuminate a 'pay as we go' approach to the budget. In other words, how are we supposed to pay the daily bill? And since there is a perception that the 'rich' are skating by, not paying their fair share, the video illustrates that if we took ALL the profit from the top 500 corporations on the Fortune 500; the combined salaries of every player from every major sport; all funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; liquidate/confiscate the homes of everyone in Beverly Hills; liquidate/confiscate the entire wealth of every US billionaire and those close to $1B; and then, rather than make the 'rich' pay a slightly higher tax rate, take EVERY PENNY OF THEIR EARNINGS OVER $250K - we would still not have enough to pay for gov't spending in the present budget. Those are just simple facts. Marginally higher tax rates are going to have no significant impact at this rate of spending. Not arguing your statistics regarding concentration of wealth, but pointing out the obvious insanity of spending TRILLIONS of future dollars, today. We have given our elected representatives a credit card with no limit, and they are racking up the debt until the interest payments will consume all output of the economy. Of course, long before that happens the foreign interests that extended this credit will call the loan. What do you think will happen next?

This has a direct bearing on environmental concerns: as others have rightly pointed out, for whatever reason the public at large tends to place environment lower in priority than their immediate economic circumstances. If that's the case now, what kind of priority do you imagine the environment will have in the face of a collapsing US dollar and economy?

The 'rich' are not the problem with the US debt. The problem is spending TRILLIONS beyond revenues, when there aren't TRILLIONAIRES to tax and make up the difference.

[skierinvermont]

Actually skier, the point of the video is to illuminate a 'pay as we go' approach to the budget. In other words, how are we supposed to pay the daily bill? And since there is a perception that the 'rich' are skating by, not paying their fair share, the video illustrates that if we took ALL the profit from the top 500 corporations on the Fortune 500; the combined salaries of every player from every major sport; all funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; liquidate/confiscate the homes of everyone in Beverly Hills; liquidate/confiscate the entire wealth of every US billionaire and those close to $1B; and then, rather than make the 'rich' pay a slightly higher tax rate, take EVERY PENNY OF THEIR EARNINGS OVER $250K - we would still not have enough to pay for gov't spending in the present budget. Those are just simple facts. Marginally higher tax rates are going to have no significant impact at this rate of spending. Not arguing your statistics regarding concentration of wealth, but pointing out the obvious insanity of spending TRILLIONS of future dollars, today. We have given our elected representatives a credit card with no limit, and they are racking up the debt until the interest payments will consume all output of the economy. Of course, long before that happens the foreign interests that extended this credit will call the loan. What do you think will happen next?

This has a direct bearing on environmental concerns: as others have rightly pointed out, for whatever reason the public at large tends to place environment lower in priority than their immediate economic circumstances. If that's the case now, what kind of priority do you imagine the environment will have in the face of a collapsing US dollar and economy?

The 'rich' are not the problem with the US debt. The problem is spending TRILLIONS beyond revenues, when there aren't TRILLIONAIRES to tax and make up the difference.

It creates a strawman. It pretends as if anybody wants to take all of the wealth of only the wealthiest 1% to pay the ENTIRE budget. Nobody has proposed anything remotely similar to that.

What has been suggested, quite reasonably, is that we turn back the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which would significantly help close the budget DEFICIT, along with some spending cuts.

[skierinvermont]

Then why did Inhofe admit the world has been warming in that statement you quoted?

I've quoted him specifically saying the earth hasn't warmed a few times before in this thread. I guess Inhofe is confused.

[skierinvermont]

Inhofe quotes

I don't need to put words in their heads. Their statements and actions speak clear as day.

"satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, show that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century"

"global warming is the second biggest hoax perpetrated on the American people, after the seperation of church and state." (lol)

he said this in 2003 when both satellite data and noaa balloon measurements showed warming

[tacoman25]

Inhofe quotes

he said this in 2003 when both satellite data and noaa balloon measurements showed warming

2003? The other quote was much more recent, so perhaps he's adjusted his views a bit...either way, he said no "meaningful warming" at that time.

His other statement was about the threat posed by global warming, which he believes is a hoax. In neither of those quotes does he outright deny warming has occurred. And Inhofe is about the most extreme figure you will find on that side of the issue.

[tacoman25]

I've quoted him specifically saying the earth hasn't warmed a few times before in this thread. I guess Inhofe is confused.

Or maybe he was clarifying his views.

I think what's clear is that he doesn't think global warming is anything to be worried about, and he doesn't think humans are responsible for it. I certainly don't agree, but once again he represents one extreme (well, I guess those few who honestly believe no global warming at all has occurred are the most extreme).

[skierinvermont]

2003? The other quote was much more recent, so perhaps he's adjusted his views a bit...either way, he said no "meaningful warming" at that time.

His other statement was about the threat posed by global warming, which he believes is a hoax. In neither of those quotes does he outright deny warming has occurred. And Inhofe is about the most extreme figure you will find on that side of the issue.

possibly.. although it could certainly mean either and he was probably mincing his words on purpose

[WeatherRusty]

Actually skier, the point of the video is to illuminate a 'pay as we go' approach to the budget. In other words, how are we supposed to pay the daily bill? And since there is a perception that the 'rich' are skating by, not paying their fair share, the video illustrates that if we took ALL the profit from the top 500 corporations on the Fortune 500; the combined salaries of every player from every major sport; all funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; liquidate/confiscate the homes of everyone in Beverly Hills; liquidate/confiscate the entire wealth of every US billionaire and those close to $1B; and then, rather than make the 'rich' pay a slightly higher tax rate, take EVERY PENNY OF THEIR EARNINGS OVER $250K - we would still not have enough to pay for gov't spending in the present budget. Those are just simple facts. Marginally higher tax rates are going to have no significant impact at this rate of spending. Not arguing your statistics regarding concentration of wealth, but pointing out the obvious insanity of spending TRILLIONS of future dollars, today. We have given our elected representatives a credit card with no limit, and they are racking up the debt until the interest payments will consume all output of the economy. Of course, long before that happens the foreign interests that extended this credit will call the loan. What do you think will happen next?

This has a direct bearing on environmental concerns: as others have rightly pointed out, for whatever reason the public at large tends to place environment lower in priority than their immediate economic circumstances. If that's the case now, what kind of priority do you imagine the environment will have in the face of a collapsing US dollar and economy?

The 'rich' are not the problem with the US debt. The problem is spending TRILLIONS beyond revenues, when there aren't TRILLIONAIRES to tax and make up the difference.

No one is suggesting that the national debt is a good thing. My question to you is what could we have done differently to avoid being in this mess, while continuing to grow the economy, fight expensive wars and deal with failed lending institutions?

[WeatherRusty]

Then why did Inhofe admit the world has been warming in that statement you quoted?

Maybe HE understood the world has been warming. He doesn't think human activity has any impact on it. If he had voted on the amendment he also would have voted against it as part of Republican unanimity. You don't agree that the interests which stand to be negatively impacted by action on climate change are fighting to protect their turf. Fine, just you wait and see what's about to happen, because apparently the people of this country are fine with it or more than likely are just to confused to know what to think. These folks have innocent people believing pollution is good for them and that climate scientists represent a corruption of science and what they say can't be trusted. You win, we loose.

[wokeupthisam]

It creates a strawman. It pretends as if anybody wants to take all of the wealth of only the wealthiest 1% to pay the ENTIRE budget. Nobody has proposed anything remotely similar to that.

What has been suggested, quite reasonably, is that we turn back the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which would significantly help close the budget DEFICIT, along with some spending cuts.

Having read plenty of your posts in other threads, I respect your reasoning ability. I didn't post a strawman; consider that for 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that if current laws remain unchanged, the federal budget will show a deficit of close to $1.5 trillion, or 9.8 percent of GDP. http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12039

A: Number of US households: 116,000,000

B: Average US household income: $68,000 (median = $52,000)

C: Total US household income (A * : $7.89 trillion

D: Percent of households above $250k income: 1.93%

E: Number of households above $250k income (A*D): 2,238,800

F: Percent of national income earned by households making $250k or more = 25%

G: Total income of households making $250k or more (C*F): $1.97 trillion

H: Total income of households in excess of $250k (G - E*$250,000) = $1.412 trillion

(iowahawk.typepad.com)

Again skier, if we took ALL the income of the 'rich' (I'm defining as household income > $250K/yr) that would amount to $1.412 trillion. This is not quite enough to cover the deficit created in 2011 of $1.5 trillion. The math from here is easy: taxing them 10% more (WAY more than the Bush tax cuts) would leave 90% of the $1.5 trillion deficit INTACT. In fact, the Bush tax cuts rollback cuts only $72 Billion from that $1.5 trillion deficit, or less than 5%. That is not a significant help. (I won't ask why the present administration, when it had total control of both houses of congress, chose NOT to follow-thru on its campaign promise to roll back the Bush tax cuts...http://articles.nydailynews.com/2008-11-08/news/17910293_1_tax-cuts-middle-class-tax-obama-senior-adviser)

Clearly, the problem is much too big for 'the rich' to make a meaningful dent in.

[wokeupthisam]

No one is suggesting that the national debt is a good thing. My question to you is what could we have done differently to avoid being in this mess, while continuing to grow the economy, fight expensive wars and deal with failed lending institutions?

Rusty, I wish I knew the correct answer to that one. I know what we could have done to avoid the mess in the first place, but once the gov't lending guarantors (FNMA, FHLMC) blessed subprime lending (under the guise of making home ownership 'affordable' for nearly everyone), and the regulators allowed Wall Street to dream up derivative products (think of standard mathematical derivatives, only sinister), and our gov't endorsed ratings agencies turned a blind eye to Goldman Sachs 'shorting' the growing real estate bubble, a collapse was inevitable. Some say the correct answer to your question would have been to let the system fail - that propping it up artificially only delayed the day of reckoning and made it much worse - sort of like the intense pain of cutting out an infection, but improving overall prospects for a healthier recovery - but all that isn't really tied to the current spending and deficits. I do think that whatever side of the political isle we find ourselves, its imperative to face up to the facts of where we are now, and the harsh reality of bitter pills to swallow in order to avoid real catastrophe down the road. Politics is the art of compromise of course, but what we see (even in the global warming debate) is increasing polarization that prevents both sides from objectively viewing other viewpoints worthy of second thought.

[WeatherRusty]

Rusty, I wish I knew the correct answer to that one. I know what we could have done to avoid the mess in the first place, but once the gov't lending guarantors (FNMA, FHLMC) blessed subprime lending (under the guise of making home ownership 'affordable' for nearly everyone), and the regulators allowed Wall Street to dream up derivative products (think of standard mathematical derivatives, only sinister), and our gov't endorsed ratings agencies turned a blind eye to Goldman Sachs 'shorting' the growing real estate bubble, a collapse was inevitable. Some say the correct answer to your question would have been to let the system fail - that propping it up artificially only delayed the day of reckoning and made it much worse - sort of like the intense pain of cutting out an infection, but improving overall prospects for a healthier recovery - but all that isn't really tied to the current spending and deficits. I do think that whatever side of the political isle we find ourselves, its imperative to face up to the facts of where we are now, and the harsh reality of bitter pills to swallow in order to avoid real catastrophe down the road. Politics is the art of compromise of course, but what we see (even in the global warming debate) is increasing polarization that prevents both sides from objectively viewing other viewpoints worthy of second thought.

Agreed, and thanks for the well thought out response to my question.

As to the bolded, how can we have an objective discussion regarding what to do about global warming when so many folks deny we even have a problem? Science informs us we have a problem on our hands, yet so many remain either unconvinced or are in denial. Many go so far as to claim AGW science is a scam or hoax or at the very least a poorly developed and conducted enterprise (discipline). There can be no room for compromise in this situation when so many view the issue in binary terms, ie. true / untrue.

[skierinvermont]

Having read plenty of your posts in other threads, I respect your reasoning ability. I didn't post a strawman; consider that for 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that if current laws remain unchanged, the federal budget will show a deficit of close to $1.5 trillion, or 9.8 percent of GDP. http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12039

A: Number of US households: 116,000,000

B: Average US household income: $68,000 (median = $52,000)

C: Total US household income (A * : $7.89 trillion

D: Percent of households above $250k income: 1.93%

E: Number of households above $250k income (A*D): 2,238,800

F: Percent of national income earned by households making $250k or more = 25%

G: Total income of households making $250k or more (C*F): $1.97 trillion

H: Total income of households in excess of $250k (G - E*$250,000) = $1.412 trillion

(iowahawk.typepad.com)

Again skier, if we took ALL the income of the 'rich' (I'm defining as household income > $250K/yr) that would amount to $1.412 trillion. This is not quite enough to cover the deficit created in 2011 of $1.5 trillion. The math from here is easy: taxing them 10% more (WAY more than the Bush tax cuts) would leave 90% of the $1.5 trillion deficit INTACT. In fact, the Bush tax cuts rollback cuts only $72 Billion from that $1.5 trillion deficit, or less than 5%. That is not a significant help. (I won't ask why the present administration, when it had total control of both houses of congress, chose NOT to follow-thru on its campaign promise to roll back the Bush tax cuts...http://articles.nydailynews.com/2008-11-08/news/17910293_1_tax-cuts-middle-class-tax-obama-senior-adviser)

Clearly, the problem is much too big for 'the rich' to make a meaningful dent in.

Well at least we are measuring the effect on the deficit now, rather than trying to pay for the entire budget. But I still object to the use of the 1.5 trillion figure.. that is not representative of the long-term structural deficit.

The long -term structural deficit is not 1.5 trillion.. that is the deficit at the end of a recession and includes a number of temporary spending measures and a 1-yr SS tax cut break which are all set to expire. Let's just look at the projected 2015 deficit if the Bush tax cuts expire, and if they are extended. This is more representative of the long-term structural deficit and the effect the Bush tax cuts will have upon it.

The baseline estimate (all the temporary tax cut provisions expire) for 2015 is:

-551 billion.

If the Bush income and estate tax cuts are extended for everybody:

-827 billion

Now assuming that your number for the Bush tax cuts on income over 250k is correct, and we notch this number up 10% due to inflation and real income growth, and throw on 30 billion in estate tax the 2015 deficit with the Bush tax cuts extended except on income over 250k, and except for the estate tax

-717 billion

So simply by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on income over 250k, and by allowing the estate tax cut to expire, we reduce the 2015 budget deficit from 827 billion to 717 billion. Expiring the tax cuts on income >250k and the estate tax cut gets us from 827 billion to 717 billion.. or about a third of the way to the goal of 500 billion.

I would consider 110 billion dollars significant, especially considering the long term goal should be about -500 billion (3% of GDP).

[skierinvermont]

Also I just went back through, and realized there is a problem somewhere in your math.

Total u.s. personal income is 12 trillion, not 7.5 trillion as you calculated.

Based on this I would estimate that allowing the estate tax cuts and income tax cuts on income over 250k to expire, would reduce the 2015 deficit from 827 billion to something like 650 billion number.. which is a major improvement and much closer to the 3% of GDP goal which is required for maintaining a stable debt-GDP ratio.

[wokeupthisam]

Agreed, and thanks for the well thought out response to my question.

As to the bolded, how can we have an objective discussion regarding what to do about global warming when so many folks deny we even have a problem? Science informs us we have a problem on our hands, yet so many remain either unconvinced or are in denial. Many go so far as to claim AGW science is a scam or hoax or at the very least a poorly developed and conducted enterprise (discipline). There can be no room for compromise in this situation when so many view the issue in binary terms, ie. true / untrue.

True. It's tough to maintain an even keel in the face of uncompromising partisan diatribe. I regret that elected representatives , on both sides, rely on hyperbole and vitriole as if the only way to advance an argument. The loss of civility and respect is disturbing. Dispute and disagreement are at the core of good science, but ad hominem attacks create strawmen that distract everyone. I'm guilty as anyone. Again, so tough to keep an even keel. Compromise is the answer, and compromise is difficult. In this view, an objective discussion on global warming would demand politicians/representatives who can agree on common goals (prosperity/opportunity for all) and then give/take the best ideas on how to get there. So rather than introduce an amendment that 'the earth is warming', maybe they are so polarized they need to start at something more basic. Sad.

[wokeupthisam]

Also I just went back through, and realized there is a problem somewhere in your math.

Total u.s. personal income is 12 trillion, not 7.5 trillion as you calculated.

Based on this I would estimate that allowing the estate tax cuts and income tax cuts on income over 250k to expire, would reduce the 2015 deficit from 827 billion to something like 650 billion number.. which is a major improvement and much closer to the 3% of GDP goal which is required for maintaining a stable debt-GDP ratio.

Your research is appreciated and points to the ambiguous nature of terms - I could have been more clear, but be advised that the number you cited for 'personal income' includes transfer payments (gov't entitlements) which are non-taxable and thus, not relevant to the income tax cut discussion. The number I used excluded transfer payments to arrive at the real effect of tax cuts on what would be taxable income.

[skierinvermont]

Your research is appreciated and points to the ambiguous nature of terms - I could have been more clear, but be advised that the number you cited for 'personal income' includes transfer payments (gov't entitlements) which are non-taxable and thus, not relevant to the income tax cut discussion. The number I used excluded transfer payments to arrive at the real effect of tax cuts on what would be taxable income.

Yes.. you're probably right, other sources I am finding say that the Bush tax cuts for income above 250k cost about 70 billion a year, which is the same number you calculated. You do probably need to throw on about 30 billion I'm guessing for the estate tax as well. So 100 billion total. Would you agree?

My point still stands about your use of the 2011 budget instead of the structural budget deficit. It would be better to use the 2015 budget deficit after certain other temporary spending and tax cut measures have expired (besides the Bush tax cuts). Given a projected deficit of 817 billion if all the bush-era tax cuts remain in place, allowing them to expire for incomes above 250k, as well as expiring the estate tax cuts, will reduce the deficit from 817 billion to ~717 billion. Which brings us much closer to a reasonable goal of ~500 billion.

We need about $300 billion in savings to get us to a reasonable goal of a ~500 billion deficit. Allowing the Bush income tax cuts on income over 250k and estate tax cuts gets us 1/3 of the way there.

The remaining $200 billion can come from either allowing the rest of the Bush tax cuts to expire (IE on income below 250k), new taxes on the rich, spending cuts, or some combination of the three.

[wokeupthisam]

Well at least we are measuring the effect on the deficit now, rather than trying to pay for the entire budget. But I still object to the use of the 1.5 trillion figure.. that is not representative of the long-term structural deficit.

The long -term structural deficit is not 1.5 trillion.. that is the deficit at the end of a recession and includes a number of temporary spending measures and a 1-yr SS tax cut break which are all set to expire. Let's just look at the projected 2015 deficit if the Bush tax cuts expire, and if they are extended. This is more representative of the long-term structural deficit and the effect the Bush tax cuts will have upon it.

The baseline estimate (all the temporary tax cut provisions expire) for 2015 is:

-551 billion.

If the Bush income and estate tax cuts are extended for everybody:

-827 billion

Now assuming that your number for the Bush tax cuts on income over 250k is correct, and we notch this number up 10% due to inflation and real income growth, and throw on 30 billion in estate tax the 2015 deficit with the Bush tax cuts extended except on income over 250k, and except for the estate tax

-717 billion

So simply by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on income over 250k, and by allowing the estate tax cut to expire, we reduce the 2015 budget deficit from 827 billion to 717 billion. Expiring the tax cuts on income >250k and the estate tax cut gets us from 827 billion to 717 billion.. or about a third of the way to the goal of 500 billion.

I would consider 110 billion dollars significant, especially considering the long term goal should be about -500 billion (3% of GDP).

The 'structural deficit' in the CBO's own terms is not a reflection of reality, but rather a theoretical baseline useful for evaluating possible budgetary alternatives. It assumes, for instance, 'natural employment' ie full employment during the term under consideration. No economist is forecasting full employment from 2012 to 2015. It also assumes, 'Funding for discretionary spending increases with inflation rather than at the considerably faster pace seen over the dozen years leading up to the recent recession.' Rather than project the past dozen years' discretionary spending forward, they chose to cut it back to a low rate of assumed inflation - This means huge spending cuts!

The CBO said Obama's budget would reduce the deficit in 2012 and reduce it further until 2015, but that after that the deficit would increase again. The CBO predicted the national debt under Obama's proposals would double by 2021. White House budget chief Jack Lew said the CBO analysis failed to account for Obama's promises to find funding for some major investment programs, and to cancel the programs if funding is not available. Lew acknowledged that the deficit is "unacceptably high" and that without making changes, the fiscal situation hampers future growth. "Promises to find funding...????"

The total outstanding US national debt is now $14.2 trillion. The 'rich' don't have enough money to make a dent in it; and as it grows, the interest payments accelerate making all the GDP of the US impotent to pay it down. There is only one outcome: default. I'm not optimistic that those in washington can come to agreement on enough spending cuts, timely, to avoid default. And default will mean your income; your savings; your retirement nest egg; in fact, any monetary asset you are holding in US dollars, will be devalued by whatever percentage is necessary for the US to 'guarantee' its debt.

How will this affect climate debate? Funding for scientific study...for subsidized 'green' business...and concern for environmental issues... evaporates.

Bernanke's fed cannot simply keep printing money to fuel the spending - confidence in the dollar's value will be (is being) undermined. (check: PIMCO recently divested of ALL investment in US Treasuries. "Better value in other currencies" was the reason given).

The theoretical structural deficit isn't relevant to the reality of $14 Trillion in current debt, and an additional real $1.5 trillion added this year and the year after, etc.

[skierinvermont]

The 'structural deficit' in the CBO's own terms is not a reflection of reality, but rather a theoretical baseline useful for evaluating possible budgetary alternatives. It assumes, for instance, 'natural employment' ie full employment during the term under consideration. No economist is forecasting full employment from 2012 to 2015. It also assumes, 'Funding for discretionary spending increases with inflation rather than at the considerably faster pace seen over the dozen years leading up to the recent recession.' Rather than project the past dozen years' discretionary spending forward, they chose to cut it back to a low rate of assumed inflation - This means huge spending cuts!

The CBO said Obama's budget would reduce the deficit in 2012 and reduce it further until 2015, but that after that the deficit would increase again. The CBO predicted the national debt under Obama's proposals would double by 2021. White House budget chief Jack Lew said the CBO analysis failed to account for Obama's promises to find funding for some major investment programs, and to cancel the programs if funding is not available. Lew acknowledged that the deficit is "unacceptably high" and that without making changes, the fiscal situation hampers future growth. "Promises to find funding...????"

The total outstanding US national debt is now $14.2 trillion. The 'rich' don't have enough money to make a dent in it; and as it grows, the interest payments accelerate making all the GDP of the US impotent to pay it down. There is only one outcome: default. I'm not optimistic that those in washington can come to agreement on enough spending cuts, timely, to avoid default. And default will mean your income; your savings; your retirement nest egg; in fact, any monetary asset you are holding in US dollars, will be devalued by whatever percentage is necessary for the US to 'guarantee' its debt.

How will this affect climate debate? Funding for scientific study...for subsidized 'green' business...and concern for environmental issues... evaporates.

Bernanke's fed cannot simply keep printing money to fuel the spending - confidence in the dollar's value will be (is being) undermined. (check: PIMCO recently divested of ALL investment in US Treasuries. "Better value in other currencies" was the reason given).

The theoretical structural deficit isn't relevant to the reality of $14 Trillion in current debt, and an additional real $1.5 trillion added this year and the year after, etc.

Actually it doesn't base it off full employment 2012-2015. The CBO budget estimates are based off the following unemployment forecast:

Q4 2011: 9.2%

Q4 2012: 8.2%

Q4 2013: 7.4%

Q4 2014: 6.5%

This is actually an overly pessimistic forecast, as unemployment has already fallen to 8.8% and will likely be in the low 8s by year end. This is well below the CBO forecast of 9.2%.

It's also not overly optimistic to assume that discretionary spending will only grow at the rate of inflation. Yes over the last decade it grew much faster than the rate of inflation, but much of that was defense spending. Defense spending is at all time high levels relative to GDP over the last 20 years. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan end, there is reason to believe that discretionary defense spending (which forms half of all discretionary spending) will fall (instead of growing nearly 10% annually as it did under Bush). Discretionary spending has not always grown so quickly. During the 90s it grew at the rate of inflation. Given the extreme levels of defense spending currently, the atmosphere of fiscal restraint, the assumptions are not unreasonable.

So again, I find the 100 billion / year saved by expiring the income tax breaks on income over 250k and expiring the estate tax breaks brings us substantially closer to running a balanced budget this decade. It reduces the 2015 budget deficit from 817 billion to 717 billion, much closer to the 500 billion level that is deemed safe for maintaining constant debt to gdp ratios.

[BethesdaWX]

Maybe this would be better suited for the political debate forum?

[WeatherRusty]

I wish to revisit this post. Do you have a viable alternative? Would you have allowed the financial system to collapse such as what occurred during the great depression? Do you believe free market enterprise could have avoided a collapse of the economy if the government had not stepped in? You think what we have just gone through has been bad, the unemployment rate during the great depression was about 25%. Is that what you think would have been a better alternative to bailing out institutions to big to fail, or an attempt to stimulate growth and free up cash.

Has anyone ever considered that the economic system we live under may be fundamentally flawed and doomed to failure? We have a system which is dependent on never ending continuous growth. This is fundamentally an unsustainable system which is doomed to fail in that nothing can grow indefinably. We have lived under this "religious" belief that we can continue to prosper, while growing our population exponentially, depleting natural resources at increasing rates, over burdening our ability to provide food and water all the while doing sever damage to the natural environment.

You can reduce discretionary spending all you want, taking away environmental protections, entitlement programs, needed health coverage etc. and you will still be left with a stunning federal deficit and people more in need than ever. We are going down the crapper faster than most realize. I don't care whether Dems or Repubs are in charge. They can blame each other all they want and nothing can or will be fixed, because the laws of nature are beginning to catch up with our reality,,,,or should I say fantasy.

How close might we be to the end regardless of what we do from here on:

Dr. David Suzuki:

Anything growing steadily over time is called exponential growth and whatever is growing exponentially has a predictable doubling time, whether it is the amount of garbage you make, the number of taxis on the road, the amount of water you use, or the human population.

I am going to show you why it is suicidal to think we can keep growing forever. Let me give you a test tube full of food for bacteria, that represents our world. I am going to put one bacterial cell into that test tube (representing us), and it is going to divide every minute; that is exponential growth. So at time zero you have one cell; one minute you have two; two minutes you have four; three minutes you have eight; four minutes you have 16. At 60 minutes the test tube is completely full of bacteria and there is no food left.

When is the test tube only half full? Well the answer of course is at 59 minutes; but a minute later it is filled. So at 58 minutes it is 25% full; 57 minutes 12½ % full. At 55 minutes of the 60 minute cycle it is only 3% full. So, if at 55 minutes one of the bacteria said to its companions that they had a population problem, the other bacteria would be incredulous because 97% of the test tube would be empty and they had been around for 55 minutes. Yet they would have only 5 minutes left. So bacteria are no smarter than humans and at 59 minutes they realize they only have a minute left. So they give massive amounts of money to scientists, and in less than a minute those bacterial scientists invent three test tubes full of food. That would be like adding three more planets for our use. So it would seem that they (and we) would be saved.

What actually happens is this: at 60 minutes the first tube is full; at 61 minutes the second is full; and at 62 minutes all four are full. By quadrupling the amount of food and space, you buy two extra minutes! How do we add even a fraction of 1% more of air, water, soil or biodiversity? We cannot. The biosphere is fixed and finite and every biologist I have talked to agrees with me, we are past the 59th minute. So all those leaders saying that we have to keep the economy growing are saying we have to accelerate down what is a suicidal path.

[skierinvermont]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7338/full/471265b.html

Nature had a good editorial on the committee's activities.

[tacoman25]

http://www.nature.co...ll/471265b.html

Nature had a good editorial on the committee's activities.

From that piece:

At a hearing last week, even Ed Whitfield (Republican, Kentucky), who chairs the subcommittee, seemed to distance himself from the rhetoric by focusing not on the science but on the economic effects of greenhouse-gas regulation. “One need not be a sceptic of global warming to be a sceptic of the EPA's regulatory agenda,” said Whitfield.

Probably the most overlooked part of this whole hoopla. Of course, it's much more fun just to paint the whole thing simply as "Republicans hate science".

[skierinvermont]

From that piece:

At a hearing last week, even Ed Whitfield (Republican, Kentucky), who chairs the subcommittee, seemed to distance himself from the rhetoric by focusing not on the science but on the economic effects of greenhouse-gas regulation. “One need not be a sceptic of global warming to be a sceptic of the EPA's regulatory agenda,” said Whitfield.

Probably the most overlooked part of this whole hoopla. Of course, it's much more fun just to paint the whole thing simply as "Republicans hate science".

That was one of the benefits if McCain had been elected. He could have turned AGW (and actually doing something about it) into less of a political issue and more about the science. As a Republican, he had the opportunity to ostracize the anti-science element in the GOP, whereas the election of a Democrat has brought these elements front and center. Of course, McCain ended up being pulled to the right and backtracking on things like AGW in order to rally the right-wing base, which gets him voter turnout and money.

The day we finally elect a moderate Republican will be the day we can finally put the Bush-era neo-conservatism, evangelism, and anti-science elements to bed.

[tacoman25]

That was one of the benefits if McCain had been elected. He could have turned AGW (and actually doing something about it) into less of a political issue and more about the science. As a Republican, he had the opportunity to ostracize the anti-science element in the GOP, whereas the election of a Democrat has brought these elements front and center. Of course, McCain ended up being pulled to the right and backtracking on things like AGW in order to rally the right-wing base, which gets him voter turnout and money.

The day we finally elect a moderate Republican will be the day we can finally put the Bush-era neo-conservatism, evangelism, and anti-science elements to bed.

Well, like it or not, those elements are all part of what makes America a free nation...and separate or together, they aren't going away.

A moderate Republican definitely would have had a chance in 2008 if he had been younger and more charismatic than McCain...and if there wasn't such a strong public backlash to Bush/Republicans at the time. Ironically, Obama has moved more towards the middle since he ran...which has upset his more liberal supporters.

Anyhow, that's all politics, and this is the climate change forum. Where SCIENCE should be the main focus.