Deficit Hawks
By John Amato Thursday Sep 10, 2009 1:45pmI always ask teabaggers when I run into them, how any federal deficit has hurt them personally? They can't respond to that. They have no answer except to cry "socialism."
Sure, it's much better to have a surplus like Clinton did, but these same deficit hawks were quite happy when the Bush tax cuts came down and the rich got richer and the economy collapsed. But I ask again: How has deficit spending hurt you?
Long term debt is nothing to sneeze at, but when we're talking about reforming health care for America, who really cares if it's $700 billion for 10 years or $1 trillion or $1.5 trillion? (By the way, I love the way the press never tells America what it would cost per year because then the figure doesn't sound so bad. They make it appear that the cost is $700 or 900 billion a year.)
Go ask a teabagger about costs and see what they say. What will it matter in the long run? We can figure out how to pay for it. Even FDR was hampered by these deficit hawks when he brought the country out of the Great Depression, and now these deficit hawks almost put us back into a Depression because they were so deficit crazy.
The deficit hawk is code for keeping the rich---rich. And then finding ways to keep their money pouring in.
Digby has a great post up today about costs:
The Peterson Foundation is ready with the news. They released a report (pdf) on the Kennedy Bill today...
{}
The fact is that if all these benefits were actually realized, the country would be far, far better off, both financially and otherwise. Nobody expects that spending will go down, merely that the growth in spending will be less. Therefore, if the government finds itself having to pay out all that money in health care benefits, this healthier, more prosperous nation can surely afford to levy the necessary taxes to pay for it, right?
I don't give a damn what this is going to cost in 2029. And nobody else should either because these projections are based on bullshit. Nobody can see that far into the future. If we can pay for it now, then we should do it now. And if it costs more down the line, then we will find a way to pay for it. This nonsensical obsession with deficits decades into the future is nothing more than a scam designed to keep the gravy train going for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of everyone else.
If these numbers are correct, then the fiscal scolds are going to have to argue that people today have to die so that wealthy people in 2029 don't have to pay higher taxes. It's that simple.
The president is also talking about having a deficit neutral bill, but he's being attacked for it by the usual suspects.
Login or Register to post comments.
I'm no teabagger, but deficits hurt every taxpayer by dint of economic impact on our nation. Deficits make passage of proposals like the public option far more difficult to accomplish.
This can be a dearth of credit, or venture capital from banks. A large deficit hurts the value of the dollar. that hurts us all. A healthy government has revenues and obligations in balance.
or did you forget to notice the celebrations about Clinton's balanced budget? Did that not help us? Or was that just another illusion?
... and not a starter for a debate on why we are continuing the Bush tax cuts?
We are continuing the Bush tax cuts because the Oligarchs want it so.
That mystery is solved.
We have enormous deficits from the greatest heist in the history of the world, the Wall Street Mafia has been made whole and we will be poorer for generations because of it.
No mystery there.
The Military MIC and Medical MIC are ready for their ongoing handouts.
It is business as usual. Welfare for Billionaires.
Pennies for the peons.
people. Do they think that when they "get rich," the tax cuts will benefit them, too?
I say, "effin A!"
I'd like to plow into a few of them myself but I will resist temptation . . for now.
John,
the $1 trillion on healthcare is nothing over 10 years. That is only 4% of the expected total healthcare spending over the period. Leaves the other 96% of spending to find cost cuts to cover the 4%. Should be very doable.
Also, the U.S. military budget is expected to be about $650 billion in 2009. The U.S. military was only spending just below $400 billion in 2000, before 9-11. We could cut the military budget to $550 billion, to save $100 billion and use the money to provide for healthcare for all and the $550 billion of military spending that would be left would still buy a lot of defense and would still be well above the less than $400 billion spent in 2000.
The U.S. military budget is more than 50% of the entire $1.2 trillion the entire planet spends on the military. That is ridiculous. I know we have our enemies, but come on. Do we really need to be spending 50% of the worlds military spending with only 5% of the population. That is a lot of interests to protect I guess??? Complete BS? Can you say Military-Industrial Complex and Healthcare-Industrial Complex.
See:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiGXzTHZqQA&fe...
Speaking of economics, above is a link to a series of videos of Ron Paul answering questions from reddit users. In this link he talks about Mexico's recent move to make a competing currency to their peso. They now have silver Libertados(?), which is a break from FIAT currency.
You may disagree with a lot of his positions, but it is so rare for a politician to make himself available like this. just that alone is very cool.
Ron Paul believes in no government and anarchy. He is so far away from western civilization ideals.
If he wants to live in anarchy he should move to Mexico or Somalia!
...Ron Paul is actually pretty cool. and it looks like his "audit the fed bill" is gonna pass with flying colors!
The Fed was set-up to be free of political interference. It is suppose to be independent. To make decisions that are the best for the economy and not be influenced by the daily cycles of politics. Having politicians auditing the Fed creates the huge risk that the Fed will just be run by or held hostage by politicians. That will be a complete disaster. If the Fed has made some bad decisions then change out the people at the Fed, but do not audit them and put them under the control of politicians. I know that in this down economy it is easy to get mad at the Fed and to get all political on the Fed, but that is not in the long-term interest of the country.
Why is an audit of financial records political?
Why do you think they are doing it? What comes out of it? What do they do with the information?
if there is corruption in the allocation of billions of dollars, how else would you find out about it and correct it?
Why is this organization above the law? they are supposed to be politically nuetral but still abide by the law.
The FEDs moves during the financial crisis were suspect to say the least and there are specific transactions that may have been based on fraud.
What is your position at the FED Phillip?
There are already plenty of systems in place to stay on top of what the fed is doing. There are all kinds of reports that they put out both for public and non-public viewing. Bernake is constantly in front of congress to say what is going on.
And in fact underr Bernanke the Fed is being more transparent. Sure we can argue that there needs to be more transparency, but there has to be a limit to this, as it can impact financial markets.
The last thing we need is some idiot politician like Ron Paul, who does not believe in government and only anarchy, to be attempting to put his hands on the Fed.
"The Fed was set-up to be free of political interference. It is suppose to be independent. To make decisions that are the best for the economy and not be influenced by the daily cycles of politics."
I say,
The Fed has certainly not made decisions that are best...
The Fed is certainly not free from political interests...
...and that is precicesly why it needs to be audited...because they are not doing their jobs...they are blowing bubbles instead!
This fed under Bernanke has done a hell of a lot of good in pulling this country back from the brink of complete financial disaster...
The fed under Greenspan... not so clear.
And yes the Fed is mostly free from political interests. They do not take their daily marching orders from the WH. Sure the governor is initially appointed by the party in power, so they usually have a slant toward the economics of that party, but they are largely free to do what is needed for the economy and not to just try and get the incumbent party re-elected.
Bernanke has been reappointed.
Good, Bernanke is exactly who we need. He has done a very good job at pulling this economy out of a tail spin. He also is one of the best mines in the U.S. on financial distressed markets and economies.
Ron Paul describes himself as a Libertarian. The French and others would take that to mean he is an Anarchist, they use the terms somewhat interchangeably. But if they listened to his proposals I don't know what they would call him, I doubt very much it would an anarchist.
To my thinking he is right wing with a twist.
We have several Libertarians running around here.
I am very tolerant. When they say things that make sense, I am all ears. It doesn't happen a lot, but sometimes.
The anarchist are generally considered to be far left wing, following an interpretation of a form of communism that eschews the state.
I don't see that they envision chaos in their concept of social organization which I think could generally described as communal, though there many versions of anarchism.
Chomsky here, 'all systems of authority must be self justifying.' He also elsewhere uses the term Libertarian Socialism. There are other anarchists who use the terml libertarian in the European sense. I have not heard American Libertarians, self described, use the term anarchism about themselves.
Anarchism in America here
There is a difference between the anarchists and libertarians, it is interesting to hear them describe what it is.
You are only arguing on the margin. The fact is the Ron Paul like all good anarchists wants as little government as possible. Everyone has to completely look out for themselves. They see no value and power in government or when people come together for the better good. They do not see that 1+1 can often equal greater than 2. They only see 1+1 equaling something less than 2.
Humans have only ever thrived when they work together. Government by and large mostly works, despite what 30 years of Reagan government bashing has been drilling into the mines of the American people.
To eliminate entire and massive parts of government, as Ron Paul wants, would be a disaster. In fact, if you look at the countries like China and the EU, which have become more economically competitive over the years, they have very strong governments.
The libertarians will run for office in order to dismantle the state, the anarchists to my knowledge have never run a political campaign to dismantle the state. They have been known to throw bombs.
That is certainly true of the libertarians and the objectivists. The European anarchists were communal.
As for the libertarians, I don't disagree with what you say. As for the anarchists, I gave you a clip on Chomsky. Who are you, so that I might consider your intellectual bona fides.
Unnecessary reference.
As for opinion, I don't disagree on the would be disastrous nature of Ron Pauls policies in the slightest.
I am a socialist, using the term in a broad sense, I am for as much government as is needed to serve the commonweal, but no more than that.
ASK the libertarians if they are anarchists. As I indicated you would not be understood in the rest of the world conflating the two diametrically opposed ideologies.
I wouldn't put, as a matter of analysis, China and the EU in the same sentence.
China is totalitarian and state capitalist. They have powerful state owned banks. Their currency is convertible on current accounts but not capital accounts, therefore it is intentionally undervalued.
The EU is an economic union with a weak central bank and diverse members. The Euro is fully convertible. They tend towards social democracies even at their most conservative.
China and the EU are not comparable in any important way I can see.
China and our government, on the other hand, are more comparable. Despite the appearance of a democracy, we have an inverted totalitarianism.
It has been more than thirty years. Reagan was the consolidation of the previous sixty five years of the corporate war against democracy.
Consider these clips from the work of the late (d 1988) Australian sociologist Alex Carey
The first and so far only scientifically drawn study of the history of the corporate war on democracy.
CORPORATIONS AND PROPAGANDA
The Attack on Democracy
Part 1 - history through WWII
Part 2 - history after WWII
How about doing a projection of military spending over the same period?
SEE MY COMMENT ABOVE..... PUTS IT ALL IN PERSPECTIVE
...take their credit ratings very seriously. (gotta keep that credit score perfect)
...but not the congress or U.S. govt!
...and I think that probably "bothers" the average American who pays close attention to their credit rating.
I think the total amount America owes is close to twelve trillion. ...and the treasury has taken out loan on top of loan to pay interest on the loans they took out to pay interest on!!!
John,
You cannot really have a logical discussion with a teabagger. Believe me I have tried. They are like very religious people. They do not want to hear what ruins the big narrative that they build in their head. You can given them all the facts in the world and they will either not believe you or let them fly over their head. Everything is magic.
These working class people who vote for Republicans and often against their own economic interest live in a fantasy world. Part ignorance and part not wanting to believe.
during Clinton though buying all those Big Trucks and giant TV's and everything else they knew they couldn't afford to own without complaining.
eventually choose between "bankruptcy", raising taxes, or cutting payouts. Or all three at the same time at the rate things are going.
just print the money...?
how long are they going to be able to get away with that?
Our debt is projected to increase to nearly 100% of GDP by 2010.
You need to do a little more research on your debt numbers and thinking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pu...
When you say 100% of GDP I assume you are talking about "gross debt" and not "federal debt". There is a difference.
Not sure Gross Debt will get to 100% of GDP, it will entirely depend on GDP. This number is now historically high for the U.S., but should be manageable. Also, do no forget that the denominator or the GDP part of the equation. Part of the reason it is expected to go to 100% is because of the recession depressed GDP number. Obvious once the economy starts growing again the ratio will just natural go down.
Now if you want to look at "Public Debt" of "Federal debt" as a % of GDP, it is only expected to be about 40%. Which is much much lower than where it was in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.
"Public" debt or "federal" debt is only the amount of money owned to the federal government. It does not include intragovernmental debt or debt held by the Social Secruity Trust Fund.
By the way you can almost entirely blame the debt on Bush. His deficit spending and the Bush recession are the biggest cause of the current expected deficits. Obama agenda is estimated to only responsible for 3% of the increase in the deficit over the next three years and the stimulus plan another 7%, which never would have had to be done without the Bush recession. So at max Obama may be able to held account for 10% of the deficit that took many years to build. There is a good analysis at this link about where to put the blame on the current deficits:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/ec...
There was a $800 million surplus when Clinton left office. Through 2009 to 2012 the country is expected to run a $1.2 trillion deficit per year. Therefore there has been a $2 trillion swing in the deficit.
This is how the deficit happened.
37% of the $2 trillion swing in the deficit came from the recession. ie. reduced tax revenue
33% came from legislation signed by Bush, including tax cuts and prescription drug benefits that were not paid for
20% came from Obama extending the Bush policies like the wars and tax cuts; but also the TARP
7% came from the stimulus bill
3% comes from the Obama agenda on healthcare, education, energy and etc.
Net-net more than 80% of the deficit expected between 2009 and 2012 can be blamed either directly or indirectly on the Bush years. The Bush recession, the Bush wars, the Bush tax cuts, etc. In fact, you could argue that the 7% the stimulus bill will contribute is also Bush's fault because without the Bush recession there would be no need for the stimulus bill.
The kind of deficit spending these mental and moral midgets are 100% happy with is the kind that enables hundreds of thousands of swarthy people with funny names and strange clothes a chance to rest in pieces.
why they weren't this mad when BushCo "lost" $9 billion in Iraq, or when the Pentagon "lost" $2.3 trillion (yes, that's trillion).
Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) put out a report which found that many of the lawmakers who argue that the health care reform legislation is ‘too costly are the same lawmakers who supported the Bush tax cuts,” which cost almost $2.5 trillion over the decade after they were first enacted (2001-2010).
Comparably, the health care reform plan proposed by Democrats in the House costs from $1 trillion to 1.7 trillion over ten years. And while the Democratic plan goes toward reforming a broken health care system, “a staggering 52.5 percent of the benefits [of the Bush tax cuts] will go to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers.
You know reality and facts just confuse them. . .
Deficit spending is NOT GOOD. The only point of contention the opposition ever had was how do you pay for the health care plan? But I believe the president when he says it will pay for itself (unlike the Iraq war). This will be a fiscally sound plan, as it is in many countries that have universal coverage that does not contribute to the debt (see: Canada). I will be very very surprised if by the end of the 4th term for this president we don't see a balanced annual budget.
But its certainly not wise to go around saying that deficit spending is no problem. Thats just great fodder for the moderate right (the kind that actually can win over independents).
4th term?
i meant forth year. (end of 1st term)
Whats bad is being either a Spend Hawk or a Tax Hawk. If its necessary to spend then its necessary to Tax. Its just incredibly irresponsible to run annual deficits (non emergency deficit spending). We needed those Deficit Hawks in the Bush years.
Munis don't double every other year, and yet Americans invest in them by the trillions. The insurance industry also likes to pretend that it's a low return investment, citing a 2% profit rate:
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/sen-ro...
If you don't invest your money in health care, there's plenty of other places to invest. Toll roads, for example, exist in a world where 99% of roads are "socialized." And besides... health care munis, anyone? Why not? A few Wall St. firms can underwrite them and magically equal the profits they made from health care pre 2009.
My point: industries don't have to create huge profits to be attractive investments.
Naturally, deficit spending is to be avoided whenever possible. The key words there are whenever possible.
Desperate times call for desperate measures - especially when it's people's survival we're talking about.
Most of the people crapping on about "crippling debt" are either too young or too ignorant to remember when things were worse. Here's a little history for them:
My parents' generation paid off World War II!
They got by okay. I had a good upbringing.
So what are these idiots worried about? Would they rather we had saved all the money and just learnt Japanese?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnvbtAoucPU
Long term deficit spending can hurt sure. But we have already covered that fixing healthcare would cost less than the last two wars.
The larger the projections on long-term deficit spending if we don't reform, should be of greater concern to deficit-hawks. Except for the very, very few that really do say to kill Medicare (and SS), they are not being logical.
I count myself as a fiscal hawk. I really (honestly) don't get why single-payer isn't looked at as fiscally prudent. Go for smaller government at the same time, roll every government program (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Indian Affairs) except active duty DoD into it. YAY, smaller government. Yes, I do have this discussion with "teabaggers". Why is no one showing them the costs of no reform?
What I am trying to figure out, from a fiscal standpoint, without the stalking horse of a public option, is if the current bill offers any real fiscal benefit. Those subsidies won't be cheap. No price pressure from a public option and they could easily eat up the other gains.
How do you like living on the cheap when the rich in this country are getting richer? How do you like that the deficit is getting bigger while the rich pay less in taxes? How do you like getting laughed at because I guarantee the Republican rich are laughing at you...unless of course they're paying you and then they're laughing with you.
According to Dick Cheney, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter".
I had a conversation with my father in the 1980s and the topic of deficits came up.
At the time, it was the Reagan/Bush deficit spending out of control. I felt that the military buildup was wasteful and would cause eventual inflation. I had a million other various reasons and could rattle off statistics and current events. My dad replied that for as long as he has had been around, deficits never made a difference.
You see, my dad never bought a house or a car on credit, so he never worried about interest rates.
I'm not sure there could be a worse argument for health care than this one. Hyperbole, yes, but really - Unless this is just a `trickle of thoughts` post, saying things like, "What will it matter in the long run? We can figure out how to pay for it" does not add much to the debate.
Because an estimated 80% of disease treatment costs come from degenerative diseases that are ultimately caused by lifestyle choice we shpould tax the crap we CHOSE to put into our bodies that cause obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc. Tax the non-foods, (processed foods where nutrients are destroyed in their making), just a little is needed because there are so many of them. And split it up between the producers and the users; the companies that make the crap with additives that are unhealthy yet addictive need to have an incentive to make healthy foods, and a tax that cannot be passed on to the consumer is what is needed. Also the consumer has to be taxed for their poor food choices and their couch potato lifestyles. Why should I be taxed and pay for their choices.
That will hurt no one but the poor - the rich won't even notice it. So in fact it would be the rich in the country dictating to the poor. They will be controlling our behavior with no way for us to control theirs. For example I would love to find a way to control their greed.
I believe this is exactly why our forefathers came to this country. So they could be free to do what they want without the aristocracy dictating how they should live. They will certainly save money - so they can indulge their vice's more, Cocaine anyone. Sin taxes are not the answer.
I am just saying what next will the rich think they should tax us out of doing. Soda pop - fatty foods. etc. Not to have children -The list is endless when you start down that road.
Than where is the freedom and equality we all want. There are better ways to control vices. I believe President Obama is pushing for prevention care. Smoking and drinking have gradually been dropping in the last few years due to education - not by paying black mail as you suggest.
When you use money to control behavior who wins? The rich of course. They will be able control everyone poorer than them.
They keep trotting out people who will say "The Public Option is still on the table". They want to make us think it is. But in the end there will be the bait and switch -- which the Obama administration is going to call a compromise, or the best we could get, or some such nonsense. I'll be shocked if it is in there. The Democrats are divided, and the Republicans are united. The numbers aren't there.
Democrats who vote against the public option are people who are afraid of their constituents who have bought into all the lies about what's in the bill.
Food for thought;
http://www.newser.com/story/67821/cbo-is-usua...
The Congressional Budget Office is a much-respected institution, and its integrity is beyond question, but it’s got a really lousy record when it comes to estimating the effects of health care reform, writes researcher Jon Gabel in the New York Times.
It has drastically underestimated savings from each of the last three major Medicare reforms. It thought the '80s switch to flat-fee payments, for example, would save $10 billion over three years; it saved that much in 1986 alone. It underestimated the savings from 1997’s fraud prevention methods by 50%, and from 2003’s prescription drug reforms by 40%.
The problem is the CBO’s forecasting methodology, which operates on historical data. If something’s never been tried before, the savings are considered “unknown,” which often translates to “zero” no matter how illogical that is. Its discounted similar cost-cutting measures in the current debate, making reform harder to pass than it should be. —Kevin Spak
..
Login or Register to post comments.