71% Say Obama’s Policies Have Driven Up Deficit

[targus]

I will agree that it is disappointing how long it has taken for the money to get out into the economy.

It isn't that the money is taking so long to get into the economy - it's that it was designed to be years before much of the money is put into the economy.

The economy was merely an excuse to fund a bunch of pet projects - now and in the future.

 

[Revmitchell]

It isn't that the money is taking so long to get into the economy - it's that it was designed to be years before much of the money is put into the economy.

The economy was merely an excuse to fund a bunch of pet projects - now and in the future.

Bam! The nail landed squarely on the head.

 

[Paul Brand]

Here's the problem: When the government, at the macro level, overspends, then people at the micro level get pinched.

(see: Taxation, inflation)

The short term concern is deflation, not inflation. Though, I do not deny that moderately high inflation is a plausible possibility 2-5 years in the future. Deflationary spirals are much scarier than moderately high inflation.

I don't think long-term spending needs to increase, and I think in the long-term, counter-cylical stimulus/saving will result in lower taxation. That being said, taxes will need to be increased at some point. The prior administration went too far with tax cuts. When the economy gets rolling again, tax increases would be an effective counter-cyclical course of action (preferably more emphasis on sales taxes than income taxes) to increase revenues, and dampen excess inflation.

 

[Paul Brand]

It isn't that the money is taking so long to get into the economy - it's that it was designed to be years before much of the money is put into the economy.

The economy was merely an excuse to fund a bunch of pet projects - now and in the future.

That's the first time I've heard that it was designed to take years to implement. Why do you think so?

 

[webdog]

Yes, but his policies had to be put in place to try to prevent the further disaster that Bush had already inflicted upon the country.

Garbage. You don't throw a drowning man an anchor or a man stuck in a pit a shovel. I'll use this logic the next time I go to the bank "Hey, I know I'm upside down in my home, but if you just let me borrow 4 times the amount I owe on the home, the situation will rectify itself".

 

[rbell]

Garbage. You don't throw a drowning man an anchor or a man stuck in a pit a shovel. I'll use this logic the next time I go to the bank "Hey, I know I'm upside down in my home, but if you just let me borrow 4 times the amount I owe on the home, the situation will rectify itself".

Come, now, Webby...you know that macroeconomics is a complicated subject, and that your simpleton conservative ideals don't work here...

(that was sarcasm, in case it wasn't clear)...

 

[Revmitchell]

The short term concern is deflation, not inflation. Though, I do not deny that moderately high inflation is a plausible possibility 2-5 years in the future. Deflationary spirals are much scarier than moderately high inflation.

I don't think long-term spending needs to increase, and I think in the long-term, counter-cylical stimulus/saving will result in lower taxation. That being said, taxes will need to be increased at some point. The prior administration went too far with tax cuts. When the economy gets rolling again, tax increases would be an effective counter-cyclical course of action (preferably more emphasis on sales taxes than income taxes) to increase revenues, and dampen excess inflation.

sorry but taxes weaken an economy as it prohibits personal spending and that is the basis for a strong economy.

 

[Paul Brand]

sorry but taxes weaken an economy

How do you propose that the debt be paid off? If you don't service the debt, hyperinflation will result (due to having to print money to pay off debt holders), and that results in a very weak economy. You can cut every government program, but without a revenue base, the debt will only grow.

as it prohibits personal spending and that is the basis for a strong economy.

Personal spending is not the sole basis of a strong economy. Energy resources, innovation, productivity, are also quite necessary. And as you likely know, spending money you don't have may stimulate the economy in the short run, but hurts it in the long run. The prior Republican administration decreased taxes and increased spending. The result was an overheated economy that lead toward an unsustainable housing bubble, which led to a banking and financial crisis. The housing bubble wouldn't have been as severe if not for the second round of tax cuts. Cutting taxes in a heated economy hurts it.

You can cut every single government program. But, you still need a tax base to service the debt. To not service the debt would result in the annihilation of the US economy.

 

[rbell]

How do you propose that the debt be paid off? If you don't service the debt, hyperinflation will result (due to having to print money to pay off debt holders), and that results in a very weak economy. You can cut every government program, but without a revenue base, the debt will only grow.

You've stumbled upon one of the problems: the idea of "well, the debt is huge, and we must do ________ or else it will go out of control."

How 'bout this revolutionary idea: quit spending my money to buy the votes of other people? Quit spending my money so that (what ought to be) self-sufficient Americans can get new cars, a new cell phone, new housing, free lunch, etc.?

I know that's terribly insensitive of me...but I have this quaint, obsolete, and mean-spirited concept: perhaps we should take care of ourselves, and not expect other people to do it. Perhaps we should not expect the public to take care of children we crank out, simply because we're too irresponsible to not have sex whenever the mood hits, with whomever the mood hits; perhaps we should understand the basic concept of, "I am responsible for me...no one else is." Perhaps, just being blunt and mean, if folks did what I did--become self-sufficient--this country would quit spending money it doesn't have, to buy votes it doesn't need, from people we do not honor.

 

[Revmitchell]

Personal spending is not the sole basis of a strong economy. Energy resources, innovation, productivity, are also quite necessary.

You can produce all you want but if there are no buyers there is not economy.

And as you likely know, spending money you don't have may stimulate the economy in the short run,

No I do not know that it is false.

but hurts it in the long run.

And in the short run as well.

The prior Republican administration decreased taxes and increased spending.

The mistake was the increase in entitlment programs. Quite liberal and as usual the liberal is always wrong.

The result was an overheated economy that lead toward an unsustainable housing bubble,

The bubble was a result of filling the housing market with people who otherwise would not have been able to be in that market. Those who could not make payments were given loans. When those loans could not be met the banks became troubled. That was a result of the socialist failure of Fannie and Freddie.

which led to a banking and financial crisis. The housing bubble wouldn't have been as severe if not for the second round of tax cuts. Cutting taxes in a heated economy hurts it.

There is no connection between the two. It was from flooding the market with people who could not afford or did not have the responsibility to repay the loans.

You can cut every single government program. But, you still need a tax base to service the debt. To not service the debt would result in the annihilation of the US economy.

Cut spending and cut taxes. Cutting the spending reduces the debt and is the only repsonsible thing to do. And tax revenues are increased when taxes are decreased because the consumer, that which moves the economy, has more of their own money to spend. It gives the market more confidence and freedom.

 

[Paul Brand]

You can produce all you want but if there are no buyers there is not economy.

You said it was the basis of a strong economy. I'm saying there are numerous more things that form the basis.

No I do not know that it is [true].

And in the short run as well.

You said personal spending was the basis of a strong economy. Now you say spending what you don't have hurts the economy. In an economic climate where people are over-leveraged on personal debt, it is a strange thing to say that personal spending is the basis of a strong economy. You need more nuance, and that is why I made the point I did.

Tax cuts put the government in a position where they spend money they don't have. It's not sustainable, and if it's not sustainable the economy will hurt for it.

The mistake was the increase in entitlment programs. Quite liberal and as usual the liberal is always wrong.

The Liberals in Canada balanced their budget for 12 consecutive years when they were in power and cut their debt/gdp ratio by more than half. Deficits in the States have been larger with Republicans in power than Democrats, and over the same period, US debt/gdp went up. What's the difference? Republicans cut taxes to unsustainable levels.

The bubble was a result of filling the housing market with people who otherwise would not have been able to be in that market. Those who could not make payments were given loans. When those loans could not be met the banks became troubled. That was a result of the socialist failure of Fannie and Freddie.

Fannie and Freddie were unregulated. Canada' more socialist leaning than the US, and in Canada there were no government bailouts. There were no financial collapses. Why not? Canada has tighter regulatory policies on its financial companies. It has tigher regulatory policies on loaning standards. Canada was hurt by the recession, but that was mainly due to a drop in exports because of the US recession. The argument that liberals are to blame isn't rooted in reality. Liberals have done a much better job of balancing budgets.

There is no connection between the two. It was from flooding the market with people who could not afford or did not have the responsibility to repay the loans.

That was a result of de-regulation, which is primarily a conservative initiative. Canada doesn't have sub-prime loans, or adjustable rate mortgages. It's a different regulatory environment. The city I live in has seen housing prices increase since the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. Why do you think that is, given a socialist provincial government? And what impact to you think lower taxes has on housing prices? They go up of course. Do you think rapid asset inflation is a good thing? If it's unsustainable, then it is a bad thing. Tax cuts offered economic stimulus, when the economy was overheated at unsustainble levels.

Cut spending and cut taxes. Cutting the spending reduces the debt and is the only responsible thing to do.

Cutting spending is an economic depressant, which reduces income, which reduces the tax base. Cutting spending in a deflationary environment is extremely dangerous. Deflation spirals. Spending stimulus needs to be withdrawn in a heated economy. You don't get any bang for the buck during those times.

And tax revenues are increased when taxes are decreased because the consumer,

lol

that which moves the economy, has more of their own money to spend. It gives the market more confidence and freedom.

What is the optimal tax rate to maximize tax revenue? Hint: it's not 0%. If it's not 0%, how do you know whether it is higher or lower than existing levels. Personally, I think it would be ~70% (not that that would be a good idea). Can you find any economists that say that lowering the tax rates below current levels will increase tax revenues? I'm surprised supply-side economics is still accepted by so many lay people. Bush is a supply-side economics supporter, and he nearly sent the economy into a depression as a result.

 

[Revmitchell]

You said it was the basis of a strong economy.

And it was correct

You said personal spending was the basis of a strong economy. Now you say spending what you don't have hurts the economy.

Don't conflate government spending with individual spending.

In an economic climate where people are over-leveraged on personal debt, it is a strange thing to say that personal spending is the basis of a strong economy.

Don't conflate credit with cash

Tax cuts put the government in a position where they spend money they don't have.It's not sustainable, and if it's not sustainable the economy will hurt for it.

No it brings in more revenue because the people have more of their own money to spend. Companies have more money to hire. More money gets circulated. Taxes inhibit this. People spend less companies hire less.

The Liberals in Canada balanced their budget for 12 consecutive years when they were in power and cut their debt/gdp ratio by more than half. Deficits in the States have been larger with Republicans in power than Democrats, and over the same period, US debt/gdp went up. What's the difference? Republicans cut taxes to unsustainable levels.

You need to get your facts straight. I suggest you do more research and get back to me on that.

Fannie and Freddie were unregulated.

Because the liberals wanted it that way. Conservatives called for more regulation to reign in the terrible loans being given out that lead to the current economic situation. Liberals wanted unfettered loans available for people who could not repay them.

Canada' more socialist leaning than the US, and in Canada there were no government bailouts. There were no financial collapses. Why not? Canada has tighter regulatory policies on its financial companies. It has tigher regulatory policies on loaning standards. Canada was hurt by the recession, but that was mainly due to a drop in exports because of the US recession. The argument that liberals are to blame isn't rooted in reality. Liberals have done a much better job of balancing budgets.

Not in the States they haven't. Conservatives balanced the budget in the 90's and we had estimated surpluses. And in all of this we do not want to forget 911, Afghanistan and Iraq which are all part of our current spending.

That was a result of de-regulation, which is primarily a conservative initiative.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Canada doesn't have sub-prime loans, or adjustable rate mortgages.

Which became needed when lenders were forced to give loans to people not credit worthy.

Cutting spending is an economic depressant, which reduces income, which reduces the tax base. Cutting spending in a deflationary environment is extremely dangerous. Deflation spirals. Spending stimulus needs to be withdrawn in a heated economy. You don't get any bang for the buck during those times.

Government spending does not stimulate the economy. It suppressed it. as do taxes which is why you have to be careful what it is you tax.

lol What is the optimal tax rate to maximize tax revenue? Hint: it's not 0%. If it's not 0%, how do you know whether it is higher or lower than existing levels. Personally, I think it would be ~70% (not that that would be a good idea). Can you find any economists that say that lowering the tax rates below current levels will increase tax revenues? I'm surprised supply-side economics is still accepted by so many lay people. Bush is a supply-side economics supporter, and he nearly sent the economy into a depression as a result.[/QUOTE]

Bush did not live up to conservative economic principles. It would serve you better to not try to use him as an example of conservatism. What he said was not what he did.

 

[Paul Brand]

And it was correct

Except you used the word "the" instead of "a", and that you missed several other important bases for a strong economy.

Don't conflate government spending with individual spending.

Please explain.

Don't conflate credit with cash

Please explain. I used neither term.

No it brings in more revenue because the people have more of their own money to spend. Companies have more money to hire. More money gets circulated. Taxes inhibit this. People spend less companies hire less.

You didn't answer my question. What is the optimal tax rate to maximize revenues? Do you think it is 0%, or even negative?

You need to get your facts straight. I suggest you do more research and get back to me on that.

I'll adjust somewhat. De-regulation is promoted by laissez-faire libertarians like Ron Paul. Some de-regulation happened with Bill Clinton. For example, repealing the Glass-Steagall Act was bi-partisan, with most of the opposition coming from Democrats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Vote_1999.png. Of course there is way more to it than that, and much of the growth in subprime mortgages happened under Republican watch. Generally speaking, conservatives are more laissez-faire than liberals with regard to the financial regulators.

Because the liberals wanted it that way. Conservatives called for more regulation to reign in the terrible loans being given out that lead to the current economic situation. Liberals wanted unfettered loans available for people who could not repay them.

When did Conservatives call for more regulation? Source? Only 2% of Republicans resisted Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

Not in the States they haven't. Conservatives balanced the budget in the 90's and we had estimated surpluses. And in all of this we do not want to forget 911, Afghanistan and Iraq which are all part of our current spending.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/hist07z1.xls

Democrats were in power for the last 8 years of the 1990s in the States. Between 2000 and 2008, the Debt/GDP ratio went up from 58.0% to 72.0% (2000-2008). Under the Democrats it went down from 64.1% to 58.0%. (1992-2000).

And yes I understand that wars cost a lot of money. Iraq was not a good war to be involved with. I'm uncertain about the effectiveness of Afghanistan, but I choose to be hopeful. Canada was also involved in Afghanistan and took more than its share of casualties in Kandahar. Canada was also affected by 9/11. Perhaps the US reacted too strongly.

Also note that the debt/GDP started to grow after the first round of Bush tax cuts. And continued to grow after the second round. It was probably more the .com bubble burst than 9/11 which hurt the economy early in Bush's term. I think Canada had less exposure to the .com bubble, but we too were affected.

Anyway, I'll throw you a bone and suggest it wasn't all Bush's fault. Clinton had some responsibility too for some of the problems. But, the tax cuts were very ineffective, and the military/anti-terrorism spending was excessive, imo.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Which became needed when lenders were forced to give loans to people not credit worthy.

You would be mistaken if you think conservatives didn't support de-regulation. But, I would agree that Democrats made an error in de-regulation.

Government spending does not stimulate the economy. It suppressed it. as do taxes which is why you have to be careful what it is you tax.

How does government spending supress the economy?

Bush did not live up to conservative economic principles. It would serve you better to not try to use him as an example of conservatism. What he said was not what he did.

He cut taxes, did he not? He cut taxes for the very reasons you provided. He thought tax revenues would go up. Supply-side economists are unconcerned about an over-heated economy. Unfortunately, it was an over-heated economy that lead to the housing price bubble. (Part of the problem was also excessive monetary stimulus, where Greenspan ignored housing price inflation and focused solely on core inflation, and the other part of the problem was the regulatory environment, which we appear to be on the same page on, except for certain partisan issues).

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Posters like Aaron and other extreme right-wing posters here are governed by a different set of rules than the more progressive posters. If you said half the things posters like Aaron says you would be banned. For some reason people like him and Curtis get away with much more than the average poster.

Do you know how many times I have been called a racist ? Please stop calling me out on threads I am not involved in. You have puh-lenty of chances to debate me point to point. If you refuse to do that, at least have the decency to leave me out of yer whining.

 

[Revmitchell]

Except you used the word "the" instead of "a", and that you missed several other important bases for a strong economy.

It doesnt matter what else happens. No buyer no economy

Please explain.

Self explanatory

Please explain. I used neither term.

But that is what you said even without specific terms.

You didn't answer my question. What is the optimal tax rate to maximize revenues? Do you think it is 0%, or even negative?

It is not about tax rate is is about what you tax. Taxing production is bad business.

I'll adjust somewhat. De-regulation is promoted by laissez-faire libertarians like Ron Paul. Some de-regulation happened with Bill Clinton. For example, repealing the Glass-Steagall Act was bi-partisan, with most of the opposition coming from Democrats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Vote_1999.png. Of course there is way more to it than that, and much of the growth in subprime mortgages happened under Republican watch. Generally speaking, conservatives are more laissez-faire than liberals with regard to the financial regulators.

Don't bother quoting wiki for me it has about as much credibility as WND. And claiming bipartisanship is useless. Rinos get involved in all sorts of things not related to conservatism.

When did Conservatives call for more regulation? Source? Only 2% of Republicans resisted Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN31-nKndg8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63siCHvuGFg



http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/hist07z1.xls

Democrats were in power for the last 8 years of the 1990s in the States. Between 2000 and 2008, the Debt/GDP ratio went up from 58.0% to 72.0% (2000-2008). Under the Democrats it went down from 64.1% to 58.0%. (1992-2000).

No they were not

You would be mistaken if you think conservatives didn't support de-regulation. But, I would agree that Democrats made an error in de-regulation.

No I would not

How does government spending supress the economy?

You have to take more money away from the tax payers . That should be obvious.

He cut taxes, did he not? He cut taxes for the very reasons you provided. He thought tax revenues would go up. Supply-side economists are unconcerned about an over-heated economy. Unfortunately, it was an over-heated economy that lead to the housing price bubble. (Part of the problem was also excessive monetary stimulus, where Greenspan ignored housing price inflation and focused solely on core inflation, and the other part of the problem was the regulatory environment, which we appear to be on the same page on, except for certain partisan issues).

You liberals like to dishonestly point to tax cutting while conveniently ignoring all the spending he did. Which by the way actual conservatives like myself strongly opposed.

 

[alatide]

Since when did we let people from other countries determine the direction of ours?

Last time I checked, we are what is known in quaint terms as a sovereign nation.

I know, how out of date and behind the times is that?

Well, frankly, JustChristian...I like it.

BTW...you rang in with off-topic Bush-bash #3,937.

BTW, Bush was brought into the discussion in post #2 of this thread but not by me. I suppose you "missed" that. We are a sovereign nation but the world is much different now than it used to be. Have you noticed that our economic decisions impact the rest of the world and vice versa? I guess you missed that as well.

 

[rbell]

BTW, Bush was brought into the discussion in post #2 of this thread but not by me. I suppose you "missed" that. We are a sovereign nation but the world is much different now than it used to be. Have you noticed that our economic decisions impact the rest of the world and vice versa? I guess you missed that as well.

So what do we do now...take a vote, and see how North Korea, Angola, and Indonesia feel about us before we take action?

Well I'll be....Jimmy Carter!!! I was wondering what had happened to you...

 

[LeBuick]

Seventy-one percent (71%) of U.S. voters say President Obama’s policies have increased the size of the federal deficit, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

I don't get th3e point of the thread. Yes, Obama raised the deficit but he said he would during the campaign and we elected him President. So he fulfilled his promise.

Also, Regan quadrupled the deficit also. Every modern day president we've had raised the deficit. What's the news?