@Milt:"Hey wrz -- go look up the SPENDING INCREASES of Obama VS GW
BUSH...Who cares about that? What we care about is the net result
that Obama put us further in debt than Bush or any of his predecessors put
together. Obama certainly could have cut spending to avoid the mess we now
have. If revenues are down, the sane thing to do is to cut spending. But not
Obama. His object seems to be to ruin our economy and bankrupt the
government."...it's STILL Bush/Cheney policies..."Of course it is. Every bad thing is Bush and Cheney's fault."...unfunded wars, tax cuts, medicare ptD..."Well,
Obamacare will make those things look like chicken feed where health insurance
premiums are expected to go to $20,000, per IRS.
To "Milt" and what is Obama doing that is any different than Bush?Do we still have troops engaged in combat? Didn't Obama extend the
Bush tax cuts 2 times now? Didn't Obama add to medicare part D with Obama
care?If Bush was bad because of $400 billion deficits, why is it
that Obama is good for $1.2 Trillion deficits?A better question to
ask yourself is this. If Bush was able to go through a recession in 2001 and
have its effects gone in less than 2 years, why is it that Obama's policies
have done nothing to reduce unemployment or raise tax revenues in 5 years?Also, if you look at dollar figures, Bush's final year had the
total federal spending at $2.5 Trillion. Obama's smallest budget ran $3.5
Trillion. How can you say that the disparity is due to tax revenues, when the
spending jumped by $1 trillion in less than 2 years? The evidence indicates
that Obama has a spending problem.
"wrzPheonix, AZ@Milt:"By the way, Obama has been
a VERY conservative spender !! especially relative to GWBush..."Are you kidding us?! Obama increased the national debt by almost more than all
the presidents put together... including GWBush... Over six trillion
dollars."Hey wrz -- go look up the SPENDING INCREASES of Obama
VS GW BUSH -- Obama has been the LEAST of the spenders of the all the presidents
in the last 30 years! Read closely what I wrote -- Tax collections fell due to
the bad economy while the low rates of Bush tax cuts are holding in effect -
leading to a gap in federal revenue collection. Bush's spending increases
were at 20% annually at times!! So again I am talking about SPENDING growth you
you are talking about debt growth. The debt grew MUCH more because of collecting
less in tax revenue than because of Obama's spending !! research it --
really go read up, debt vs spending growth... while you're at it research
cost of policies implemented/ in effect now to see where the costs are coming
from - it's not Obama, it's STILL Bush/Cheney policies (unfunded wars,
tax cuts, medicare ptD... it is.
The time to cut was last Novemeber; Thug politics won - logic lost
Copy Cat said: "I disagree. We have been spending like crazy, temporarily,
for 5 years. We are still knee deep in unemployed and now our grandchildren will
have to pay for our spending that didn't work.Save the
great-grandchildren!!! Stop the deficit spending."We should have
spent MORE in these last five years to make it more effective, that has been the
problem. Sounds crazy but that's how macroeconomics works - it is NOT like
your family budget!Here's how macroeconomics work spending
more->more employment->more optimism->more investment->assets
rising->more optimism->more consumer spending-> GROWTH -- the ONLY way to fix the deficit is to grow our way out of it! -- and since
2/3 of our whole economy is consumption -- we MUST grow the consumption of
things in our society.The big failure of our recent past was NOT
paying down our debt more when the economy was going gangbusters. We were
selfish and gave ourselves big tax cuts instead! (Bush/Cheney tax cuts, etc etc)
then we were REALLY foolish and passed Medicaid part D totally unfunded
(republican support-only vote there) and started two wars without raising any
taxes to pay for them.
@Milt:"By the way, Obama has been a VERY conservative spender !!
especially relative to GWBush..."Are you kidding us?! Obama
increased the national debt by almost more than all the presidents put
together... including GWBush... Over six trillion dollars."...so
his problem has been more about UNDERCOLLECTING of taxes then over
spending..."If you want more taxes collected you will put the
economy in a continuous tailspin for perhaps the next decade.@Eric
Samuelsen:"We have two problems: unemployment and the deficit."Yes, and our unemployment will be exacerbated with Obama as president...
He wants open borders and amnesty for an estimated 11 million illegal
immigrants. This will balloon the number of unemployed since there are just so
many jobs available.@RedShirt""If the government just
eliminated the redundancies that would save more money than the sequester will
cut."Excellent post, RedShirt. The US General Accountability
Office (GAO) recently issued a report (to Congress, since the GAO is an arm of
the Congress) outlining billions in savings. If Congress would just read and
implement the findings in the report the sequestration problem would disappear.
Why don't they do it, is a strange mystery.
To "CHS 85" we could begin with Head Start. The DN ran an article
earlier this week where they quoted government studies that showed it was
ineffective.Getting rid of Ethanol subsidies will save $6
billion/year, and push farmers to produce more food.According to the
WSJ article "Billions in Bloat Uncovered in Beltway" just getting rid of
redundant programs will save $100 to $200 billion.Reducing
unemployment benefits back to 6 months will save us $30 billion.Making Obama pay more of his own expenses would save at least another billion.
See "President's family costs US 20 times what royal family costs
UK" at MSN.Getting rid of green energy subsidies will save
another $16 billion.If the government just eliminated the
redundancies that would save more money than the sequester will cut.
Re: ". . . this country has no real people. At least not any
Re: ". . . we can close the deficit, but only with significant tax
increases, which, by the way, the wealthy can easily afford . . . ."In other words, we are in hereditary thrall to deranged, vote-buying
government spending, and the only way our Nation can survive is by robbing the
successful to buy off the indolent.Hmmmmmmm.If that
liberal concept of America were actually true, we would truly be finished.Fortunately, for America and the world, real people are neither as evil,
nor as stupid as liberals assume.
"Sequester makes no sense..."Sequestration wouldn't be
needed if Congress had the guts to do the work that members were sent to
Washington (and being paid) to do. They just can't seem to muster the
courage to cut anything for fear of losing constituency votes. That's what
we call 'politicians.' what we lack are 'statesmen' in our
government... and that include the present occupant in the White House."... but it is time to cut"Yes, we need cuts else we will
not only be bankrupt but will have a major economic melt-down... And soon.
"Every economist will tell you that austerity doesn't work and that you
don't cut government spending when coming out of a recession," offers
Wildcat.What we are going through is not 1930, but we are insisting
on using the same solutions used in 1930. In 1930, the unemployed did not have
the social net we have today. Now, we not only have a social net, but the social
net is part of the reason we have such a huge national deficit. Today, we are
faced with the charge of curbing a deficit while at the same time not teetering
the economy. Today, we are not just learning the principle of force-feeding the
economy with government spending, we are dealing with the reality that
government spending must be curbed. We have been on the force-feed for so long,
it has become our addiction.Anyway, we do need to consider that it
is time to cut. If we cannot achieve so much as the small curbing of growth that
the Sequester will bring, what hope do we have of ever beginning the process of
controlling the national deficit?
Milt's right. We have two problems: unemployment and the deficit. They
cannot both be solved together--they require different solutions, and so must be
solved sequentially. The right sequence is unemployment, then deficit. And
it's entirely possible that solving unemployment will make solving the
deficit much much easier, by expanding the tax base. The sequester accomplishes
MiltSouth Jordan, UT"No, it is NOT time ot cut... it is time to
spend ...TEMPORARILY..."I disagree. We have been spending like
crazy, temporarily, for 5 years. We are still knee deep in unemployed and now
our grandchildren will have to pay for our spending that didn't work.Save the great-grandchildren!!! Stop the deficit spending.
Milt: The problem isif we wait to cut there will never be cuts. Reagan was
promised cuts and Bush was promised cuts. Show me those cuts and I will happily
go along with closing loop holes.
@KentD - if you were right, Zimbabwe would have the best economy in the world.
No, it is NOT time ot cut... it is time to spend ...TEMPORARILY ... the time to
cut is when we are doing well !! Instead, what we did was we cut taxes and lost
government revenue that would have paid down the debt. When a pump needs to be
primed, it takes water and lots of it sometimes. The fed. government should
prime the economic pump and then when the water is flowing take some off the
flow to pay it off. The hedge fund managers, bankers, milliionaire and
billionaire classes have been fully juiced up to be the 'job creators'
but to no avail.. By the way, Obama ahs been a VERY conservative
spender !! especially relative to GWBush --- so his problem has been more about
UNDERCOLLECTING of taxes then over spending.... go look it up - Bush spending
increases VS Obama spending increases!
Bravo Kent C. DeForrest for pointing out what is the true nature of the problem.
Essentially what is happening here is that cuts that will result in putting us
back into a recession and the loss hundreds of thousands of jobs are being made
so that billionaires can have their tax loopholes.Every economist
will tell you that austerity doesn't work and that you don't cut
government spending when coming out of a recession. You get people back to work
and you get the economy growing before you cut WASTEFUL spending (like subsidies
to Oil Companies). I don't want to hear a party that had two
wars and Medicare Part D off budget lecture us on debt. With Wall Street doing
as well as they have--thanks to the taxpayer bailout, it is time they pay their
fair share of taxes before we make cuts to social programs that affect everyday
people. The rich are not job creators as obviously shown this last
decade--they are doing great, but are holding onto money and not spending. It
is consumers that are job creators. If consumers don't have money to
spend--no jobs are created!
Okay, RedShirtLet's see an actual plan that shows actual dollar
amounts and programs. Your side was decrying cuts to the military saying the
military will be decimated, then all the sudden, they say it isn't that
bad. Well, which is it? Which "ineffective programs" do
you want to do away with? Let's see something specific with some dollar
figures to back it up and the effect it will have on the nation. I
wonder how long I'll wait. The last time I posed this question to a story
about cutting was done two months ago and the challenge went unanswered.
@Redshirt"The US typically collects between 17% and 20% GDP in taxes,
while spending 25% GDP. "Currently it's taking in 14-15%
and spending 24-25% which is why I insist that we have both revenue and spending
Red:FYI, if government hadn't picked up the spending slack, we
would be hip-deep in a major depression right now. After 2007, demand hit rock
bottom. You really think austerity is the answer? Do you understand what causes
recessions to turn into depressions? Yes, we need to get things back into
balance, but doing it by slashing spending will send us directly into
depression. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Yes, we can close the deficit,
but only with significant tax increases, which, by the way, the wealthy can
easily afford and still invest plenty in new production (if there were only
corresponding demand to justify it).
To "Kent C. DeForrest" Washington has a severe spending problem. Since
Obama took office we have been spending more and more money using a credit card.
The US typically collects between 17% and 20% GDP in taxes, while spending 25%
GDP. In other words, they spend more than they take in, and have done so for 60
years.Why is it that we have to continue to spend more money on
ineffective government programs?
"To real people, it's a problem. One that needs fixing."Then this country has no real people. At least not any politicians.John Boehner? Is he a "real person". How about Eric Cantor. Paul
Ryan perhaps? What about Mitch McConnell.These guys all voted for
unfunded wars, no child left behind, medicare part D (the largest entitlement
expansion in my lifetime) all while cutting taxes.Nope, the Dems
are no better, but this GOP leadership is large part of the problem ( as is the
Republican party in general)
Re: "Actually, we don't have a debt crisis . . . yet."Yeah -- the fact that my family's [and your family's, and every
other family's] portion of the national debt now exceeds our mortgages is
not a problem.To liberals.To real people, it's a
problem. One that needs fixing.And one that will never be fixed by
Time to cut? Says who? Foxnews and AM radio?What
credible economist believes that a cut in spending won't have detrimental
effects on the economy?Do we really want our economy to go back into
Actually, we don't have a debt crisis . . . yet. What we have is an economy
that unevenly distributes its wealth. If the consumer classes keep getting
squeezed, then, yes, we will eventually have a debt crisis. As long as there is
too much money available for investment and too little for consumption,
government will need to keep spending to try to keep the economy from
collapsing.If corporate executives could see past the end of their
noses, they would understand that their economic philosophy is a dead-end
street. If they would change their goal from maximizing shareholder and
executive wealth to maximizing employment (while still turning a profit), most
of our problems would eventually vanish, including the purported debt crisis.
With the middle and lower classes getting more income, tax revenue would
increase. But the greed sector can't seem to understand this, and unless
they do, they will continue to hammer nails into their own coffin.So, let's keep laying people off and shipping jobs to Third World
countries and see how much demand that generates in America. Stupidity
doesn't have to be a requirement for either CEOs or politicians, but it
certainly seems so.
The notion currently being advanced by republicans of selective pain is nothing
new as the writer points out. And it’s not necessarily a republican only
game. The real government divisions in America would be better labeled as
Business versus people. The strategy of politics is to punish the people rather
that the offending government opposition. The people who are
touting small, restricted and ineffective government are those who don’t
want to be interfered with as they oppress the weaker people. And since the
only way to legally oppress and enslave people in America is with the economic
system, these people are generally know as business.The apparent
willingness to destroy America and it’s government in the name of higher
profits, indicates to me that the business operations in America may no longer
be owned by Americans.
"Another example was Amtrak's response when it was threatened with a
cut in the federal subsidies it operates on. Rather than pare back a few of the
numerous routes in the Northeast where it would not be noticed as much, the
train service announced it would eliminate a cross country line stretching from
Chicago to Seattle. Since that was the only train service in that part of the
country, and it passed through several states and many Congressional districts,
many members of Congress complained that Amtrak's budget simply could not
be cut."So, you are advocating that Amtrak cut a profitable
train to keep one that is highly unprofitable? If Amtrak was told that they had
to operate completely without Federal Funds, only a few lines would operate.
The Northeast section would either stay the same or even see more trains, Trains
in Southern California would also stay as would some trains to Chicago. The
rest of the country would see a significant drop in service if not an end to
service.Why advocate for cutting revenue lines and keeping highly
subsidized lines. This type of thinking doesn't work anymore.
Your tax dollars at work, always some place that will annoy the most people.