Four more years of increasing deficits. Way to go America!

[Natebishop3]

I fully expect Obama to do this as well.

The problem is, I don't think this is the time to be cutting back our military. Times are too uncertain. By all means, get out of Afghanistan and/or pull back some of our forces, but don't shrink our military. Especially our Navy. I would prefer they just find a way to make things run smoother. Make it run more efficiently.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

It is an excuse though. The excuse is that Bush fucked up the economy before Obama even took office, and that he needs more time to finish what he's started. That's what I've heard multiple times, so I'm not just making it up. With that said, in your opinion, at what point can Obama and his supporters no longer bring up Bush as a reason for the economy sucking? Next year? Two years? Or will Obama ride the "Bush fucked us" train four his entire eight year reign?

he has shown no willingness to work with his side of the isle, so why would he work with those he views to be aginst him? The past four years are going to start catching up with him very soon. Things like the "trial" program that covers the costs on a temporary basis, of the things he has cut on medicare, that ends after the first of the year. The true costs of obama car will become evident before it kicks in, hell, I know of four businesses that were waiting to see who got the nod, and now with no hope of repeal, will close their doors. The guy that owns the business I work at is considering retierment rather than four more fucked up years..in short, I do not see oboma souldering any responsibility for his social engeneering experiment, he only takes credit when things are good, and I can not see any way he can spend his way to a good econemy

 

[RR7]

I would prefer they just find a way to make things run smoother. Make it run more efficiently.

They need to do this with just about all of government.

 

[Natebishop3]

They need to do this with just about all of government.

Well ya, but if the military is the target, I would rather see spending become more efficient, rather than just simply cutting spending and closing bases.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't think Clinton cut the military.

He used it plenty - in places like Somalia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia and East Timor.

GHW Bush did cut the military. Cheney was in charge of that. The base closing commission set up under Bush closed 350 bases in 4 rounds. 3 of those rounds during the Bush administration.

 

[Masbee]

People weren't fussing when Bush ran up deficits in a strong economy.

Baloney.

It was a BIG internal issue in the Republican party.

You may not have noticed, because, as usual, the mainstream media, mostly ignored this vital issue to waste time on trivialities and personalities.

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't think Clinton cut the military.

He used it plenty - in places like Somalia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia and East Timor.

GHW Bush did cut the military. Cheney was in charge of that. The base closing commission set up under Bush closed 350 bases in 4 rounds. 3 of those rounds during the Bush administration.

I know a number of guys who were in the service at the end of Bush Sr and into Clinton. They all hate Clinton. I remember reading once that 90% of the people who were in the Armed Forces during Desert Storm were out in a couple years.

 

[Denny Crane]

I know a number of guys who were in the service at the end of Bush Sr and into Clinton. They all hate Clinton. I remember reading once that 90% of the people who were in the Armed Forces during Desert Storm were out in a couple years.

Clinton was a draft dodger.

They even named a car after him, the Dodge Drafter.

That's why the armed forces didn't like him.

 

[Masbee]

Just did and it's good to see...I don't think it captured the prevailing attitude of the time, but I like it.

It was and is the "prevailing attitude" of serious people.

Get your drift about what is important in this world from the media and you get an onslaught of stuff that is far less important.

 

[RR7]

I don't think Clinton cut the military.

He used it plenty - in places like Somalia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia and East Timor.

GHW Bush did cut the military. Cheney was in charge of that. The base closing commission set up under Bush closed 350 bases in 4 rounds. 3 of those rounds during the Bush administration.

military spending went down during clinton's time in office

 

[Denny Crane]

military spending went down during clinton's time in office

It's going to go down when Bush just closed hundreds of bases.

 

[mook]

I think a lot of people who voted Democrat are like me. I don't believe now is the time for austerity. I thought the time for it was between 2002 and 2007, and assuming the economy continues to recover it'll be time to massively reduce the deficit starting in 2014. With interest rates as low as they are, I'm not that worried in the short-term. You may be, and you may think I'm an idiot, but the markets are saying that our current deficits are sustainable and I'm willing to listen to them.

If Democrats aren't leading a charge to reduce deficits by 2014, I'll forget about social issues, hold my nose, and vote Republican.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't think you appreciate how big the debt is, or the deficits.

"massively reduce" them? uh... LOL?

 

[mook]

I think a lot of people who voted Democrat are like me. I don't believe now is the time for austerity. I thought the time for it was between 2002 and 2007, and assuming the economy continues to recover it'll be time to massively reduce the deficit starting in 2014. With interest rates as low as they are, I'm not that worried in the short-term. You may be, and you may think I'm an idiot, but the markets are saying that our current deficits are sustainable and I'm willing to listen to them.

If Democrats aren't leading a charge to reduce deficits by 2014, I'll forget about social issues, hold my nose, and vote Republican.

I say this not trying to convince anybody that I (or standard Keynsian types) are right. You feel what you feel, and I won't change it just like you won't change me. But the archetype of the "liberal big spending Democrat" doesn't really take into account that a lot of us are also worried about debt, and we feel like there are times to beat it down and times you live with it.

 

[magnifier661]

I say this not trying to convince anybody that I (or standard Keynsian types) are right. You feel what you feel, and I won't change it just like you won't change me. But the archetype of the "liberal big spending Democrat" doesn't really take into account that a lot of us are also worried about debt, and we feel like there are times to beat it down and times you live with it.

I have a question then...

So since it's pretty obvious that Obama can't reduce the debt and his spending is actually increasing; how do you suppose this policy will generate growth in the economy? I'm still confused on how this will inject a better fiscal "State of the Union"

 

[mobes23]

Baloney.

It was a BIG internal issue in the Republican party.

You may not have noticed, because, as usual, the mainstream media, mostly ignored this vital issue to waste time on trivialities and personalities.

It's not like Bush could do it on his own. Somehow it passed. As far as it being an issue, I sure didn't hear outcry from the people. Blame Bush, blame the media, blaming doesn't get us anywhere.

 

[maxiep]

I think a lot of people who voted Democrat are like me. I don't believe now is the time for austerity. I thought the time for it was between 2002 and 2007, and assuming the economy continues to recover it'll be time to massively reduce the deficit starting in 2014. With interest rates as low as they are, I'm not that worried in the short-term. You may be, and you may think I'm an idiot, but the markets are saying that our current deficits are sustainable and I'm willing to listen to them.

If Democrats aren't leading a charge to reduce deficits by 2014, I'll forget about social issues, hold my nose, and vote Republican.

Hilarious. You think we have a choice whether or not we have austerity? We're broke. Other countries will not keep funding our debt.

 

[Masbee]

I think a lot of people who voted Democrat are like me. I don't believe now is the time for austerity. I thought the time for it was between 2002 and 2007, and assuming the economy continues to recover it'll be time to massively reduce the deficit starting in 2014. With interest rates as low as they are, I'm not that worried in the short-term. You may be, and you may think I'm an idiot, but the markets are saying that our current deficits are sustainable and I'm willing to listen to them.

If Democrats aren't leading a charge to reduce deficits by 2014, I'll forget about social issues, hold my nose, and vote Republican.

When deficits are primarily due to entitlements, which is the case with the U.S., it is essentially impossible to cut the budget.

So, tell me, how in your mind, will the budget be drastically cut back?

It is probably "too late" now. The longer things go on the more difficult a fix is politically. Then, the only possible fix is a crisis - like the one Europe is going through now.

 

[maxiep]

So, which year do we have our first $2T debt? I think it comes in 2014.

 

[magnifier661]

When deficits are primarily due to entitlements, which is the case with the U.S., it is essentially impossible to cut the budget.

So, tell me, how in your mind, will the budget be drastically cut back?

It is probably "too late" now. The longer things go on the more difficult a fix is politically. Then, the only possible fix is a crisis - like the one Europe is going through now.

Ironically Europe is majority "Socialists" and are paying the price fiscally.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

So, which year do we have our first $2T debt? I think it comes in 2014.

yeah, but then we'll deal with that with hyperinflation!

we're in for a 10-15 year monetary crisis once the shit hits the fan. :MARIS61:

 

[mobes23]

I would offer up, "cut the budget to $3T, then we'll talk about raising revenue to balance it from there."

I actually like that approach -- was that Romney lol? I don't think it would be very likely to happen in a two step dance, but I could imagine setting a budget limit of $XT and at the same time raising revenue.

Obviously, figuring what to cut to reach that goal would be the key to it all.

 

[Eastoff]

I actually like that approach -- was that Romney lol? I don't think it would be very likely to happen in a two step dance, but I could imagine setting a budget limit of $XT and at the same time raising revenue.

Obviously, figuring what to cut to reach that goal would be the key to it all.

And what to tie the numbers to so that it keeps going down, what level of inflation/GDP growth.

 

[mobes23]

And what to tie the numbers to so that it keeps going down, what level of inflation/GDP growth.

That's a tough one. I think there needs to be some flexibility in the budget -- sometimes it actually makes sense to have a decent sized deficit. In the short term, I could imagine setting a goal that is negotiated (no one loves the number whatever it is, but everyone can live with it.) Setting a hard stop total budget number with inflation/GDP increases that works over time would be a tough one. I'm sure conservatives would want it because any tax increases would likely be in for the long haul.

 

[mook]

It is probably "too late" now. The longer things go on the more difficult a fix is politically.

I disagree with this because there are lots of people like me. Obama squeaked out a win because people like me are willing to live with current spending levels for the near term. If in 4 years it hasn't drastically changed, like I said, they'll lose my vote. And the votes of a lot of people like me.

Assume that just 1 in 5 Democrats think like I do. (I estimate that there's a lot more than that, but whatever. And that's not even factoring in Independents.) That's more than enough to completely overhaul the legislative and executive. If that were to happen, a lot of things that are politically unfeasible right now suddenly become very feasible.

There are three camps, not two:
#1. Cut deficits now
#2. Forget about deficits
#3. Cut deficits soon, but not now

That #3 group that I belong to is critical. We've cast our lot with the #2's, but it's not a deal that goes on forever. No matter what the #1's or #2's might think.

 

[magnifier661]

I disagree with this because there are lots of people like me. Obama squeaked out a win because people like me are willing to live with current spending levels for the near term. If in 4 years it hasn't drastically changed, like I said, they'll lose my vote. And the votes of a lot of people like me.

Assume that just 1 in 5 Democrats think like I do. (I estimate that there's a lot more than that, but whatever. And that's not even factoring in Independents.) That's more than enough to completely overhaul the legislative and executive. If that were to happen, a lot of things that are politically unfeasible right now suddenly become very feasible.

There are three camps, not two:
#1. Cut deficits now
#2. Forget about deficits
#3. Cut deficits soon, but not now

That #3 group that I belong to is critical. We've cast our lot with the #2's, but it's not a deal that goes on forever. No matter what the #1's or #2's might think.

I asked you a question before. Maybe you overlooked it. I'm curious on how you believe this spending will generate fiscal growth in 4 years?

And I suspect after this next term; they will lose your vote.

 

[Denny Crane]

I actually like that approach -- was that Romney lol? I don't think it would be very likely to happen in a two step dance, but I could imagine setting a budget limit of $XT and at the same time raising revenue.

Obviously, figuring what to cut to reach that goal would be the key to it all.

That wasn't Romney, but it's pretty obvious. At $3T, we're still ~$500B in the red - and that's after a 1/6th across the board type cut.

You're not going to raise taxes to cover $500B, but you can raise them $50B (tax the rich!, Clinton era tax rate). If you hold spending at $3T, GDP will grow yearly to the point the deficit is $0. Likely by 2016, maybe even sooner.

Raise taxes $50B and spend at a deficit > $1T and all you've done is raise taxes for revenge and no better reason.

 

[maxiep]

Not to derail the thread, but I see people saying "Keynesian" economics all the time, but am I the only one on this board that has actually read The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money?

The poor guy is having only half of his theory used. Keynes HATED structural deficits. His idea was essentially "saving for a rainy day". You balance the budget or run a small surplus in good times so if a storm comes, you have the ability to deficit spend to jump start an economy that won't jump start itself.

Based on his writings, there's no way Keynes would support any of the policies enacted in his name.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not to derail the thread, but I see people saying "Keynesian" economics all the time, but am I the only one on this board that has actually read The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money?

The poor guy is having only half of his theory used. Keynes HATED structural deficits. His idea was essentially "saving for a rainy day". You balance the budget or run a small surplus in good times so if a storm comes, you have the ability to deficit spend to jump start an economy that won't jump start itself.

Based on his writings, there's no way Keynes would support any of the policies enacted in his name.

I read it years ago.

i have trouble with it because govt. tries it (Keynesian stimulus) and it never works as they promise. It's also massively expensive. And I don't buy that govt. spending has a multiplier >= 1.

 

[mobes23]

That wasn't Romney, but it's pretty obvious. At $3T, we're still ~$500B in the red - and that's after a 1/6th across the board type cut.

You're not going to raise taxes to cover $500B, but you can raise them $50B (tax the rich!, Clinton era tax rate). If you hold spending at $3T, GDP will grow yearly to the point the deficit is $0. Likely by 2016, maybe even sooner.

Raise taxes $50B and spend at a deficit > $1T and all you've done is raise taxes for revenge and no better reason.

The quotes you had on it made me think you were pulling from someone's budget plan. Regardless, I actually like it because I don't think either side will like it, but both sides could live with it and that's usually the sign everyone's negotiated well. It could be the budget number would be negotiated slightly north of $3T or that the tax increases are lower than what the liberals want, but it's at least an approach that could set things in the right direction. Again, the key would be figuring out what to cut to make the goal and that could be tough.