Opposing Obama on Stimulus, Republicans Party Like It's 1993
As predicted, House and Senate Republicans on Friday maintained their unified front in turning their backs on President Obama's economic recovery package. As it turns out, Obama wasn't the first Democrat to learn the hard way that bipartisanship is a one-way street for the GOP when it comes to the economy. In 1993, Bill Clinton's $496 billion stimulus and deficit-cutting program passed without a single Republican vote. But in 1981 and again in 2001, substantial numbers of Democrats acquiesced in backing regressive Reagan and Bush tax cuts which, also as predicted, drained the federal treasury.
The table above tells the tale. (Note that figures are not in real dollars adjusted for inflation.) While some turncoat Democrats helped Reagan and Bush sell their supply-side snake oil, Republicans then as now were determined to torpedo new Democratic presidents.
Obama's margins in the passage of the final $787 billion conference bill were almost unchanged from the earlier versions produced by the House and Senate. Despite the claim by Minority Whip and Newt Gingrich Mini-Me Eric Cantor four weeks ago that Obama's bipartisan outreach was a "very efficient process," the President was shut out again by Republicans in the House. In the Senate, the stimulus actually lost ground, as Ted Kennedy's absence and the no-vote of aborted Commerce Secretary Judd Gregg made the final tally 60-38. So much for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's January statement that the Obama stimulus proposal "could well have broad Republican appeal." Still, their opposition to the bill didn't prevent Republicans like John Mica (FL) and Don Young (AK) from claiming credit for projects it will fund in their districts.
If Barack Obama's experience with Republican obstructionism has been painful, Bill Clinton's was unprecedented. When Clinton's 1993 economic program scraped by without capturing the support of even one GOP lawmaker, the New York Times remarked:
Historians believe that no other important legislation, at least since World War II, has been enacted without at least one vote in either house from each major party.
Inheriting massive budget deficits and unemployment topping 7% from Bush the Elder, Clinton's $496 billion program was nonetheless opposed by every single member of the GOP, as well as defectors from his own party. As the Times recounted, it took a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Al Gore to earn victory:
An identical version of the $496 billion deficit-cutting measure was approved Thursday night by the House, 218 to 216. The Senate was divided 50 to 50 before Mr. Gore voted. Since tie votes in the House mean defeat, the bill would have failed if even one representative or one senator who voted with the President had switched sides.
But while Bill Clinton met with total opposition from Republicans, neither Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush was similarly subjected to scorched-earth politics from Democrats.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan swept to power promising to cut taxes, increase defense spending and balance the budget. And in 1981, he delivered on the first part of that promise. With substantial support from Democrats in the House and Senate, Reagan easily won the battle to enact the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, lauded by the hagiographers of the right as the largest tax cut in American history:
The House then completed the formality of giving final passage to the Administration bill by a vote of 323 to 107. Shortly before the House voted, the Reagan forces rolled to an 89-to-11 victory in the Senate. There, 37 Democrats voted with 52 Republicans for the bill.
Of course, Democratic acquiescence to Republican fiscal irresponsibility was repeated two decades later with President Bush.
Unlike the 7.6% unemployment rate and $1.2 trillion deficit Barack Obama inherited, George W. Bush arrived at the White House with a federal budget surplus and joblessness at 4.2% - and no mandate. And yet that spring, some Democrats supported it just the same. With only minor changes (the tax cuts were not permanent, the estate tax was lowered and not eliminated, the total size reduced from $1.6 trillion to $1.35 trillion), the 2001 Bush tax cuts passed both houses of Congress with substantial numbers of Democrats voting in favor:
The bill passed the House by a vote of 240 to 154, with 28 Democrats and an independent joining all Republicans in voting yes. The Senate then passed it by a vote of 58 to 33. Twelve Democrats joined 46 Republicans in support of the bill in the Senate.
Ultimately, of course, history was not kind to the Republican obstructionists who put politics before public policy. Reagan's massive 1981 tax cuts led to even more massive budget deficits, forcing the Gipper to later raise taxes twice. George W. Bush, too, saw the federal government hemorrhage red ink and presided over the worst eight-year economic record of any modern American president. Meanwhile, Democrat Bill Clinton's tenure in the 1990's witnessed rapid economic growth, low unemployment, balanced budgets and projected surpluses.
As for Barack Obama, it's clear that he's in for more of the same treatment as Bill Clinton. No doubt with a twinkle in his eye, Karl Rove said Thursday of the Republicans' stimulus stonewalling, "they are playing their hand extraordinarily well." Through their onstructionism, he said, "House Republicans have used the stimulus bill to redefine their party." And Bill Kristol, who almost single-handedly rallied the GOP to block the Clinton health care plan in 1994, last week called on Republicans to give Barack Obama a repeat on the stimulus - and just about everything else:
"But the loss of credibility, even if they jam it through, really hurts them on the next, on the next piece of legislation. Clinton got through his tax increases in '93, it was such a labor and he had to twist so many arms to do it and he became so unpopular...
...That it made, that it made it so much easier to then defeat his health care initiative. So, it's very important for Republicans who think they're going to have to fight later on on health care, fight later on maybe on some of the bank bailout legislation, fight later on on all kinds of issues."
And so it goes. Even in defeat, the Republicans want to party like it's 1993.
(This piece also appears at Perrspectives.)
this is true but a conversation can take many branches.
http://openletterstobushfromamerica.blogspot....
S
In defense of the Republicans:
They didn't vote for the Stimulus Package because they have deep ideological differences on the economy
PROBLEM: Republican economic ideology DOESN'T WORK!!
mess
The definition of insane is to do the same thing over and over again, but expect different results.
:. The American People recognized the Rephuclicans' folly and voted their asses out of office. If they want to now try to undermine the American People during a time of crisis, they will self-destruct and remove themselves off the political map.
..going to abstain from voting on the Stim Plan?
You know, when he was in position to become Commerce Secretary, he said he wouldn't vote (or abstain?). Now that he's just another GOP obstructionist, I guess he can vote however he likes or needs to in order to keep the handlers happy.
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
When has a modern day Republican ever kept their word to the public?
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.phoenixjustice.com
Please note that in 1993 it took 51 votes in the Senate.
Let's see how far to the right they go before they fall off of the edge of this flat world.
Back then, a mere threat of a filibuster didn't turn the Democratic leadership into whiny little babies. If Senator Reid was not the Majority Leader, we would get a lot more done in the Senate and the Republicans would have to come to the table on Democratic terms.
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.phoenixjustice.com
It still only takes 51 votes in the Senate. Things are no different today than they were in 1993. Back in 1993, it also required 60 votes for cloture. Those things haven't changed.
The difference is, today, we have a spineless Senate Majority Leader.
blog commenters need to have Senate rules explained to them?
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Actually my post was a slam on the ineffective gutlessness Reid exhibits.
Let's see how far to the right they go before they fall off of the edge of this flat world.
Like right NOW. What is it with these p*ssies?
Seriously.
I am getting sick of this (this being the entire Republican party that lives in a fantasy land). I saw them this weekend calling for Obama to change strategy. Are they delusional or what- "Yes you beat us in 2006, and again 2008 for the presidency, senate, and house, but c'mon listen to us or you will fail"
Wouldn't the ultimate justice of the Bush years be to label all Congressional Republicans enemy combatants for wishing further financial hardship upon the American public? They seem to enjoy defending Gitmo so much, how about they do it from the other side of the fence.
Cigars, martinis and Tony Bennett?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
i guess we can look the gop to try and impeach
pres obama within the next two years like they
did pres. clinton.
don't think they won't...you can never underestimate
how low the gop will go to preserve their control
and destruction of American and our economy.
They do have a solid 30% approval rating. Unfortunately for me, it's more like 60% in this neck of the woods.
Speaking of which:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ2ObnoXLpY
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Party like it's 1993 while some folks in this country are still trying to live on 1968 wages while having to work harder and longer to get them, if some folks are still lucky enough to have job.
The Republicans...the Party of obstructionism and oppression. Their motto is 'when a guy is down, kick em' harder'.
Government + the Federal Reserve = organized crime
recalling Clinton giving thugs virtually everything they asked for in '96 while they drained (our) tax dollars on useless inappropriate use of the impeachment provision.
Ask the poor! Clinton really kicked ass. You'd think they'd show some gratitude. Fucking subhumans are eating on our dime.
Clinton committed a felony when he committed perjury. If you or I did that we would be in jail but its ok for the president to do it?? ask yourself this, is the president above the law. I for do not think so. there is clear prove that Clinton committed perjury, hell they talk bout it all the time on lie to me. And for all the good clinton did he his going to be remembered for that.
One week before Drudge broke the Lewinsky story, a different story broke: A bunch of senators and congressmen allegedly received large contributions to their campaigns from China, among other countries.
I'm not saying the Lewinsky story never happened, but the ramafications of the soon forgotten story would have hurt the Democratic party far worse.
You know, the one in which connects the Bush family directly.
Wanna talk about that one?
He lied about an extramarital relationship in deposition to a civil sexual harassment lawsuit that ended up being dismissed, because Paula Jones could not prove any damages.
That is the first time a sitting president had to defend himself in a civil lawsuit, something that the "vast rightwing conspiracy" made sure that he had to do--fighting it all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Ask yourself if a lowly state level admin asst. could actually sue all the way up to the SCOTUS without having the deep pockets of some really pissed off conservatives who wanted to throw Clinton off his game.
The impeachment over this perjury (and do you know any man who would be honest about an affair, knowing it would be splashed all over the news worldwide 20 seconds later?) was a serious case of mission creep on the part of Kent Starr who spent millions of dollars and two years trying to find something--anything--to hang Bill Clinton with. He was supposed to investigate Whitewater, not whether Clinton was engaged in extramarital (and consensual) sex.
Hey I agree with you that Kent Starr is a bottom feeding lowlife. but Clinton did commit a crime which he got away with. And it was that crime he got impeached for not his affair. BTW impeachment just means to bring the President before the Senate for a trial. So even if Clinton was impeached he might not have been kicked out. And also wasn't there sexual misconduct in the whitewater case?? but it is neither here nor there. kent starr is a lowlife, clinton lied. their aint nothing we can do bout it so why argue??
Clinton got away with nothing. He lied about an extramarital affair in a deposition. He got caught with that lie and they impeached him over it.
I know what an impeachment is...it is meant to indict an executive for abuse of office. If you think lying about an affair is impeachment worthy, I'm sure you agree with me that lying about a cassus belli (reason for war) to Congress is a treasonous act. And guess who got away with that scot-free?
And no, there was no sexual misconduct in Whitewater. Kent Starr went through that with a fine tooth comb and found nothing. Not one little piddly thing.
It's not really a crime to "lie" in a deposition. They consider the possibility that the parties were working from different definitions. One is allowed to amend the deposition later with no penalty, which he did.
In his grand jury testimony that was televised, he admitted to an inappropriate relationship, but I guess didn't want to be a competitor against Luke and Lura in the afternoons.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I can honestly see someone being asked if they had sex with [Blank] saying No and meaning it if they only were engaged in oral.
Hell today half the kids seem to believe if you take it up the butt your still a pure virgin.
And yes it was nothing more then A hit job on clinton they had tried half a dozen or so times before to get clinton as well, and they tryed after the impeachment trial as well.
Old news, and a tiresome topic…but…
That’s not exactly what happened.
It was the framing of the question that trapped Clinton, and that framing was very intentional. The question was “IS there a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky?”
As both Clinton and the prosecutors knew, that BJ took place years before. Monica no longer worked as an intern at the WH at that point. The “NO” answer was only perjury when you discount the time-frame (IS there now, or WAS there ever), and define “sexual relationship” as something other than intercourse.
It was a trap.
well i dont like her anyways. she was looking for her five minutes of fame when she didnt dry clean the dress. like i said before i think it unfortunate that his presidency is marred by that bc he did do some good things.
Than why isn't Scooter Libby in jail.
Because every body knows that a blowjob is a far worse offense than trashing the constitution, invading a country under false pretenses, and basically melt down the whole US economy *combined.*
Conservatives, due to their level of repression, must be the world's worst lays...
Besides, what the f*ck? Why are we even discussing Clinton now?
the lay comment was funny. but if you look at the facts. Bush technically did not trash the constitution, in spirit eh debatable but i wouldn't take that argument. as far as Iraq,i think the underlings told him what he wanted to hear. read some of the comments below. the economy wasn't all bush's fault.
we started talking bout clinton cuz someone said it was a gross misuse of the senates impeachment power
Look now. Your "thinking" caused the present gelding of the Thug party. 71% of the country has done nothing but throw up and hide under their beds for the last 8 years.
[deleted--stay civil]
but I consider the systematic destruction of the bill of rights by the Bush administration. As an attack in effect on the constitution.
Aberrations like the patriot act, the FISA bill, and the creation of a department of "homeland" security with totally undefined powers... were all passed during the Bush administration's watch.
If all you have to run by is blaming things on Clinton. You guys are more pathetically than I had originally assumed...
they were all passed in the days immediately following 9-11 when all politicians wanted to ease the fear of their constituents.
the DHS is bloated, all it really needs to be is a conference table.
Patriot Act of 2001 was voted yea by 98 senators and then passed again in 2006 with 89 yeas. now that my friend hardly seems like the republicans and bush ramming it down our throats. the dems are just as guilty.
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact2001...
FISA bill (1978 under President Carter)--> yeas 69 yeas and 28 nays
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27439
so the two bills you hate were helped pass by democrats. heck one was signed by democratic president. your argument is falling apart there. sorry
People forget that he was actually absolved from the impeachment. In fact the original charges where no where near "felony" territory.
If extra-marital affairs were a felony, half of the Republican party would be in jail.
and lob smokebombs before the countless SEX CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN the republicans repeatedly get popped for. They absolutely swoon in fascination and lip-curling disgust over heterosexual sex between consenting adults!
But they can't stop thinking about sex. Other people having sex. NORMAL sex.
Frivolous impeachment proceedings over sex in blatant disregard for the grave and rare purpose for which it is there to be used.
While a murdering rogue imposter-theif sat without challenge for 8 long years as a nightmare to the entire world.
and quite a few dems too. they all think they are gods:)
Sex is more important than Murder only in the twisted grotesquery of that which is the mind of a Thug. Subhuman darkness.
than today's.
The average American worker has had their purchasing power decimated in the past 30 years or so.
Politics,Partisanship and Party before the people........the majority of people. No surprise there by the
(R)/NEOCONs. they want their version of apartheid small group of the Have's and a large group of the Have NOTs.
It should be noted that the Clinton legislation that received ZERO Republican votes was the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Look it up. That is widely regarded as THE legislation that set the foundation for the unprecedented economic expansion during the remainder of the 1990s (it had NOTHING to do with Newt Gingrich's "Republican Revolution").
That landmark legislation REQUIRED Congress to CUT SPENDING to offset any tax they raised. It was a requirement that the Republican Congress would later eliminate the moment George W. Bush was appointed president in 2001, with the results there for all to see.
It was legislation that CUT SPENDING and not one Republican in Congress voted for it.
Why didn't Republicans vote for it? Because it also provided for an increase in the top marginal tax rate from 35% to 39.6%. It effected only 1.7% of the population and only on their income over $250,000. Welcome to surpluses instead of deficits. And, as I recall, that top 1.7% did pretty well during the 1990s, even with that piddling increase in the top marginal rate (Which was returned to 35% under Bush. Welcome to deficits instead of surpluses).
BTW, the Republicans used the fact that the legislation raised the top marginal rate on no more than 1.7% of the population and only on their income over $250,000 to run another one of their favorite "They raised YOUR taxes!" campaigns to a Congressional majority victory in 1994. So be prepared for them to use the stimulus bill in the same manner next year.
during the 1990s, even with that piddling increase in the top marginal rate (Which was returned to 35% under Bush. ...
maybe... those that paid it anyway...
Are there not rich Democrats? The biggest reason I dislike the Democratic Party (on the national level) is because someone that married into Heinz family says he is for the poor man, or Howard Dean (who grew up in one of the richest neighborhoods in America) says the same. Or the multitude of actors and actresses in Hollywood that are outspoken Democrats but grew up in Beverley Hills Mansions. What do they know of being poor. Now on a more local level, yes there are many Democrats that are either poor or started off poor (Obama is one of them. At least he can say I may be rich now but when I was working the streets of Chicago I was kinda poor) So I guess what I am saying is don't assume all rich people are republicans and that the only people that benefited from the return to 35% were republicans cuz if you did your homework, more than a few liberals and democrats benefited as well.
that top 1.7%
i don't see where i designated either political party...
not explicitly.
Katy didn't implicitly either. You read into it what you wanted to see.
and dont you do the same with current events and probably with some of what I say. I say implicitly cuz I know the general undertone of this blog (which is why I enjoy posting here so much). The undertone I see is blatant hatred of everything and anything republican or conservative. hey i might be wrong but i was once told to go set myself on fire for giving the logical reason behind the bailout that bush proposed. the funny thing bout it was obama said the same thing nearly verbatim during the second debate.
No, you see a blatant hatred of lies, misrepresentations, weasels, hypocrisy, hegemony, hubris and imperialism.
We weren't kind to Blago. We're certainly not kind to Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid in their roles. I have yet to read one nice thing about Rahm Emanuel.
But it's not our fault that most of the time, these infractions are committed by Republicans or conservatives.
again you bring it back to a republican fault. i could have told you when pelosi issued her goals for her first hundred days that there were three things the gop would work with her on and three they wouldnt. so when she sets herself up for failure. when she dares to try to force the gop to back on core beliefs how is that the gop's fault.
thats like me saying ok i am going to raise minimum wage, balance the budget and get out of iraq but i am also going to repeal the civil rights act and repeal the 13 and 19 ammendments. you would work with me on the first three but not on the second three. now who should get the blame a)me who set the goal or b)you who stood by your guns.
interesting sidenote. the 13th ammendment allows slavery as a punishment to a crime. hey if we try bush and find him guilty he can be a slave. personally that would be hilarious (think of the SNL skits)
I said we aren't kind to Nancy Pelosi, or other Democrats we believe are guilty of the sins I mentioned above.
If we're going to get into going back on core beliefs, I gotta believe you've spent the time since 1993 and Newt's Contract on America completely oblivious to what's been happening in Congress.
Or a liberal?
Ooops...I better go tell my family now that I'm in the wrong job.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I grew up very privileged. My father made sure to imbue in his children a sense of responsibility for society. I grew up with foster children. I worked regularly at food banks and hospices.
My children are similarly being taught that they must be grateful for the luck of the circumstances of their birth and must give back to those less fortunate.
Never said liberals all had to be poor, but, do you know what its like to have to choose which bills pay or do I buy food or don't I buy food, do I try to stretch my gas to the next payday or do I fill up. Do or do I not take a job below my education level because it is steady money so I can get out of the red. Now I grew up middle class but I have experienced those things first hand. And to clarify a misunderstanding, I do not dislike all liberals and democrats. Clinton did do a lot of good for the country. JFK got the civil rights movement going in the political arena. LBJ signed it into law. Carter I think was the right kinda president at the wrong time. FDR was one of the strongest presidents we have ever had. Obama has a lot of potential and I hope he meets it.
Just because I can pay my bills, you think I can't empathize?
Respectfully, I'd suggest to you that your lack of imagination and empathy makes you unable to recognize that in another.
Being a Democrat means understanding that living in the mind set of "I got mine, so you can fuck off" hurts everyone. Our society is better when we treat everyone equally. Our society is better when we take care of our weakest.
There's no maximum portfolio number for compassion.
And there's always been occassions of the wealthy (comparatively speaking), having a sense of noblesse oblige.
Besides which, you judge a politicians by their actions, and the results to those actions. The repugs favor the wealthy, and bring about the downfall of the economy, as they did in 1929, and now.
But at least they got theirs.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
ysbaddaden, no offense have you done any research on the causes of this current economic crisis or are you just taking cues from the posters here? the cause of this crisis, politically, goes back farther than bush. i am not going to say anymore in hopes that you do do some research.
No, but empathy and imagination only take you so far. if you are trying to write a book its great. And Nicole, I never said or intended to imply that the way you were brought up or the way you are raising your kids is in anyway wrong or anything like that. If that is your interpetation, I do apologize.
Empathy for your fellow man is the reasoning behind every great advancement in society.
Again, your statement rather proves my point that your lack of empathy blinds you to it in others.
I fail to see how the atomic bomb was created out of empathy. in the end you might say johnson used it empathetic means. better kill a few hundred thousand japanese than a million americans. but however you look at it was a great advancement of society.
I would NEVER call an atomic bomb a great advance in civilization. Destruction of a people would be a step back, IMO.
But hey, that goes back to your lack of empathy issue, doesn't it?
Geeze louise, where do you get your history from. Johnson never dropped a nuclear bomb on a community, that was Truman.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
gorram internet
of whatever the hell it is you are trying to define, rich people are are unable to empathise with the poor, because they're rich? And because they're inherently wealthy, they can't chose the Democratic Party? Kind of classist, don't you think? And it denies people the right to choose, based on income.
By that logic, how could any member of a cancer care team be on the team if they haven't had cancer? They'd have no idea how the cancer patient feels, so how could they possibly help?
And all of those Hollywood types that shined a spotlight on AIDS? Do you think they all had AIDS? Because by your reasoning, one needs an experiential qualifier to champion a cause.
One of the ways things get done, the world over, throughout history, is when the people with the money and the power want it changed and speak up about it. You can't possibly think someone who has been rich all their life has no concept of reaching back to help out someone less fortunate. How do you explain FDR? And Johnson and civil rights? White southern guy.
You may want to rethink your position through a bit more carefully. This rough draft is full of holes...
me-oww!
Not really, if you look at the rhetoric of some of the people I mentioned and the paraphrased quotes I used. They said they were for the poor, like some kind of Robin Hood, not that they wanted to bring about change that might help the poor. And lets be honest, one of the biggest boosts to AIDs awareness was when Magic Johnson got it because then it was no longer a gay mans disease (no offense intended but that was the thought process for a long time). BTW do you know why LBJ was selected?
Actually traditionally Robin Hood was a wealthy man too, so obviously he couldn't care for the poor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rwKj7S-ysA
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Wasn't LBJ selected so Kennedy could win Texas specifically and the South in general?
If a drone kills a child in Kandahar, do the crying parents make a sound?
also, LBJ was an enemy of the Kennedys so what better place to put him than the useless spot of Veep. What's that old saying: "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer".
If a drone kills a child in Kandahar, do the crying parents make a sound?
There are plenty of us who are liberals and make good money. The main distinction is not about money, when it comes to ideology. The main distinction comes to whether or not you give a damn about your fellow man.
I have no issue paying my taxes if they are going to help my fellow human being, as I am of the opinion that everybody does better when everybody does better.
Republicans/conservatives are for the most part not defined by earning bracket. But by the fact that they would rather have a white hot iron rod shoveled up their asses... than even contemplate any of their precious tax dollars being used to help somebody else.
Remember how we did not hear as much as a *peep* by the conservative establishment when it came to the biggest increase in government spending *ever* during the past half decade. Due, most likely, to the fact that all those dollars were used to drop bombs on poor people. Now they are throwing a collective hissy fit because we may have the government helping our people. Remember the US government, according to conservative ideology, should get out of the way... unless it is going to make them richer, or it is going to bomb the shit out of a 3rd world country.
Heck, for the most part... republican policies do in fact go against the interests of a majority of their party members. That is how selfish and dumb they are... IMHO.
On Democratic Tax policy I do not think that the rich should be punished for being rich. They should pay the same percentage as you or I.
that I am at the top earning bracket, I probably pay a significantly higher tax rate than you.
The issue is that if you want to be egalitarian when it comes to taxation rates. Then you should have no problem about being egalitarian with respect to other matters.
Paying 20% tax rate on a $1K monthly income has a significantly different impact (regarding burden) than the same tax rate on a $10K monthly income.
As much as it is funny to see people using the talking points trying to portrait wealthy people as the actual victims. There is no doubt that wealthy people tend to be wealthy because they get to reap more benefits from the society they live in. And as such they should have no problem to contribute to the society that made them wealthy to begin with.
Besides, people who have actually worked for their wealth they actually understand that it is in their best interest to have a stable, productive, and advanced society. That is why I have no issue paying my taxes...
Then again, I actually work for my money.
Flat percentage taxes have been shown not to work. Because too many emergency can crop up that weren't considered as part of the budget, a Katrina, major forest firest etc. Flat taxes would wreak havoc with federal emergency aid.
Additionally it's regressive. On a lower pay scale the 90% remaining (if the flat tax was set at 10%), might not be sufficient to cover the cost of food or clothes. A family might have to do without, even if there were exemptions put into place those earning under a certain amount. Then it would shift as an additional burden to the dwindling middle class, if it's not allowed to shift to the wealthiest, who don't have to stretch their budgets so much.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I'm getting the distinct feeling Republicans would rather see this country in economic ruin and in flames, if that what it would take to destroy obama-
Do the Republicans care about America and/or Americans in any way????
I have heard some right wing radio blowhards voicing delight at the prospects of a collapsed economy and millions being unemployed simply because it would hurt Obama, and position Republicans to reclaim the mantle of power.
Have Republicans demonstrated any care or concern for America?????
and those that do say things like that should be run off the air. I may be conservative but I do not wish ruin to Obama's administration. I may disagree vehemently with the bailout (bush) and the stimulus (obama) but I hope what they do works and I am proved wrong. If the economy improves because of this measure I will recant my position and cheer with the rest of you. but please don't assume that all republicans and conservatives want america destroyed to bring down a party or a president. because I for one do not.
That can't be accurate. I'm pretty sure the McCain/Palin signs during the election all read, "Country First".
/sarcasm off
And who really knows how McCain and that phsycho from alaska would have handled things (see we do have some stuff in common). Personally, given McCain's service record and the ordeals he has been through i think he really does put country first.
While I am no economist and don't really remember much of the Regan and HW Bush administration and wasn't much interested in politics until later in Clinton's tenure I would like to comment on the situation as I see having done some research.
A.
This economic mess is not entirely Bush's fault. It can in no way
be tied to the war in Iraq or Afghanistan nor can it be tied to
his tax cuts. This economic crisis was born partly due to lending
practices that were unwise going back to the Carter administration
and either increased or unimpeded by every president since then, Democrats and Republicans. So to place the blame completely at Bush's feet is not logical and is in fact partisan which is exactly which this article is accusing the Republicans of being.
B.
The biggest blame Bush can take in this economic crisis is the way that he responded to it. The Bailout was an entirely unsound and unwise course of action to pursue. In our economy, which is a strong and resilient one despite what you left wing naysayers may claim, maintains a balance by forcing those companies that cannot make sound financial decisions or are dishonest out of business. In essence, Bush abandoned his GOP economic theology and adopted a socialist, Democratic stand point. The ironic part about this is that by keeping the status quo what the bailout is doing is creating a stagnant market and in fact doing more harm than good in the long run. No doubt Bush was trying to garner a few last second poll points. Furthermore, it runs the risk of setting a precedent. What happens the next time a company is poorly managed and is faced with going out of business. They are going to walk up to Capitol Hill and say we need a handout, you gave everyone and their mother a handout in 2008. Quick sidenote, the Bush administration should have urged for a more complete oversight process. I mean you don't give a kid a Christmas tree and then don't watch what they do with it, do you?
C.
This economic stimulus package is nothing more than a huge government spending program. Precisely at the time the government needs to be spending less money. Why does the government need to be spending less money? So they don't have to tax companies and more importantly citizens as heavily which will drive our consumer economy back up. What stimulus is this bill going to give when the income from the "jobs" they create are going to be so heavily taxed that it really wasn't worth spending the time effort and money to write the bill. And when this bill does not work, which I personally don't think it will, what's the government aka Democratic Party going to do. write another one and increase the percentage of government spending coming out of the gdp until they spend all of it (I heard somewhere that this bill has in essence doubled government spending from 20% to almost 40%). Where is the sense in that?
D.
If I were to have any say in the process, which I don't but am going to give my opinion anyways, this is what I would do. First, I would disengage from Iraq as quickly as it is feasible, Afghanistan is a much smaller scale conflict and needs to be fought. Second, I would create a balanced budget as quickly as I could. I would get an apporoxamation of what the government is going to spend and then I would collect enough taxes to cover that and a buffer of 7-10%. Thirdly, I would decrease the Capital Gains Tax so that companies have more to invest in their companies (which would also help the people of the country). Contrary to popular democratic party belief, not all companies are corrupt. Most companies are honorable business practices that keep accurate bookkeeping and employ the majority of this countries citizens. If you get rid of the bad apples and let the good ones flourish the economy is going to get better but by keeping the bad apples the government is completely ruining the economy. Fourthly, I would try to find a way to get our debt out of China's hands. Fifth, I would divert some money into unemployment programs. Lastly, I would seriously look at revamping the tax code. I personally favor the fair tax, where everyone pays a 25% (purely arbitrary number open to debate and research) on consumable goods. This would increase the tax base from one party (working persons) to three bases (working persons, retired persons with a discount and tourists), it would also decrease the size of the federal government by the virtual elimination of the IRS which would free up money to balance the budget and it would increase the amount of money the average joe has in their pocket.
Now, I understand that my opinion tends to be more conservative than most of yours. However, if my plan were to take effect there would be a generous percentage given to unemployment agencies because in the short term this course of action is going to be painful but it is better than completely ruining the economy and more than likely the entire social landscape for our children. It is our responsibility to resolve today's problems today and not push them off onto our children and our children's children.
You should be doing it at some other places beside Fox News
he's not entirely wrong, both parties have lead us down this path. The debate is dishonest between the Dem's a Rep's, they both have plenty to answer for. I have posted a multitude on this.
Inflation means expansion, in the same sense that a balloon expands when you blow air into it. That is exactly what the FED is doing, that is exactly what this stimulus bill does. Governments love inflation. It’s a way for them to take money from the people without the people realizing they took it.
From Peter Schiff's - Crash Proof
Now look at what the FED is doing with both parties blessing, yes both parties. Remember both partied voted for the bail-out and the Republicans wanted a stimulus package too, just one they could call their own.
This is our dollar since 1919, we left gold in 1970, look what happened.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/fredgraph?s[1][id]=AMBNS
We are being robbed blind while getting sold on the idea it's help
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
I actually dislike Fox News because it is blatantly right winged. I particularly don't like O'Reilly cuz he blatantly lies when he says its the no spin zone. so please do not assume.
this comment was meant to go elsewhere
no worries
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
And your point is? ALL government programs are spending programs. Including the ones that pich up your trash, pay for your police and army, send you to public school, etc. You say that like it's a bad thing.
Definitely party line here. One hundred and eighty percent wrong. Heading into a depression is precisely when the government SHOULD be spening like crazy. You think that your following points prove what you said but as I demolish them all shall see that they do not.
What? Firstly the spending is not from taxes, it is from either borrowing or the Fed printing money (conceding that both of which have severe downsides). Thus your assumption that not increasing taxes "will drive our consumer economy back up" (a flawed assumption for other reasons) is moot as taxes have nothing to do with it. Additionally the so called stimulus is almost half tax cuts, which should maske YOU very happy.
Huh? Taxes are being cut by the bill. At least have some consistency in your so called arguements.
Where did ya hear that? 20 or 40 per cent of what? GDP? While the Federal Budget IS almost 20 per cent of GDP, GDP is about 15 trillion. The bill just passed is 5 per cent of that. Do a little research before you go shootin off your mouth.
you "hate" FOX news so much that you basically use their talking points for each one of your posts.
I mean, still on and on and on about Clinton. LOL.
and you still say i hate bush i hate bush. we know shut up already. my comments bout clinton had relevence to the conversation they were in. i bet you say grace starting off with I hate bush, thank lord.....
I actually dislike Fox News becuase they give everything a right spin. I particularly hate O'Reilly who lies everytime he says the words "NO SPIN ZONE"
That's funny...spending money IS stimulus. Did they not teach you this? In order to stimulate the economy, you need to put money into the system and get things moving again. You create consumer confidence, you give people disposable income and you create jobs that help companies who need the orders. This is Econ 101.
You haven't been paying attention these last eight years, have you? Tax cuts don't stimulate the economy. If they did, we'd be in a boom now.
Try more like last 30, Reaganomics is decimating the middle class.
To a Republican, it doesn't matter what the question is, it doesn't matter if we're in deficits or surplus, it doesn't matter if were in a boom or a recession ... the answer is always Tax Cuts and Privatization.
as apposed to socialization? Personally, I do not think any good can come from socialization of our economy or government. Europe did it and now they are worse off than we are.
You have clearly never traveled outside of this country and are relying on GOP talking points.
I have lived in socialist democracies like Sweden and Denmark.
You WISH we were as worse off as they are.
Iceland went bankrupt trying to privatize like the US.
Italy collapsed their pension systems by tieing it to their stock market.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I don't have the time, inclination (nor the math skills, if truth be known), but it would be interesting to do a study to see what an individual's Social Security account would look like right now had GWB been successful in privatizing Social Security.
generally pretty crappy, hell i know people that lost 100,000 bucks from their 401k. damn glad the dems stood up against that one.
Social Security would be Soc Sec
just like my 401k is a 201k.
your 401k should be a 200.5K :-)
My math is almost as bad as yoder's ;>)
actually, I have. I have lived overseas. Better yet I have family in England. So how are you going to tell me that Europe or at least England is better off than we are? There interest rate is in the crapper and the job market is completely gone. not even part time jobs on the weekend.
so lets go back to the old adage that says "assuming only makes an ass of you but not me"
ps i get the majority of my information from cnn, iht, supplament that with research and then formulate ideas incorporating what i have found with my personal opinion. I do not listen to gop talking points nor do i think they are always right. read my comment and you will find that there are a few liberal ideas there as well.
I have family in Europe too.
Denmark's population scores the highest in the happiness index in the world.
Sweden comes second.
Yes, unemployment is high, (ours is higher than we admit to as well, did you know that?) but a lot of that is because all our economies are so interdependent. However, their unemployment benefits are greater, they need not worry about health care or child care or any of the other economic forces that drag us in the US down further. Plus they can go back to school for free and retrain for new careers.
The macro economic issues are so intertwined with ours that I can't see it getting better for anyone until we make some major changes out of a petro-dollar economy and make it less enticing for larger multi-national corporations to outsource their industry to third world nations.
I live in the country that is the #1 on this index. Denmark is part of the EU financial clusterf%&#. Norway is it. Norway has more money per capita than any European country. Oil and natural gas is the reason. ;-)
http://www.happiness.org/Resources/Happiness_...
I think we are arguing apples and buicks.
I'm thinking on a human scale and Chris is thinking strictly economically.
A lot of the EU financial problems stem from taking cues from the US and trying to privatize bits and pieces and finding that it really doesn't work.
We agree there. I'm not a socialist, but a lot of things that have to do with keeping a country running smoothly should be owned, or at least strictly regulated by the gov't. Electric power, for one.
The one biggest difference is that it would bankrupt america to have the social programs that Denmark has. i mean come on denmark has a population of 5.5 million. i live in a city with a population a fifth that size. heck i am pretty sure if you took san antonio, dallas, austin and houston you would have the same population. it is just not feasible, though it would be nice.
There's a middle-ground between socialism on the left and fascism on the right, and that's Keynesian regulatory regimes.
Corporations by law are considered citizens under what's termed a "legal fiction," but why should these citizens have to obey no laws (regulations), and the rest of us do?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
But I may have gotten the silly notion that there was an undertone attempting to equate the socialist parties in Europe, as being any sort of intellectual liberal equivalent to conservative fascism.
Or I am a bit off on that one?
That was only for a clearer paradigm since the furthest left would be communism.
In fact, couldn't one argue that the Lockian Social Contract is the same as Socialism, and is the quinta essentia of our whole Democratic experiment?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
sorry I just wanted to clarify a bit better what I had read from your previous post.
I agree wholeheartedly with your previous point. And that is why in a nutshell I tend to be very dismissive of libertarian and other crackpot ideals. Which I tend to view as incredibly anti-democratic, as it tends to give precedence to economic gain over social justice. Which tends to fuel processes that generate completely anti-democratic outcomes...
but the roots are in Athens and its initially restricted (to male land owners and merchants) birth pains but, nevertheless, founded on the principle of the self-determination and an understanding that individualism's primary focus was on the establishment, maintenance and nurturing of the public good. The rest is footnotes, albeit significant ones.
"Secular humanism -- a fearless, realistic world view replete with doubt and scepticism that attempts to attain an unachievable state of equilibrium between and among the human qualities of reason, intuition, imagination, memory, ethics and common sense.
i do think that the bailout money should have been better monitored. but the point i was trying to make is that most corporations are responsible.
and yes there is a middle ground but it is not between socialism and facism, it is between socialism and absolute free market. I like to call it limited interference free market. the government should monitor companies and corporations to ensure that there is no abuse of workers and quality controls are met. everything else they need to stay out of. for example, if a company has a history of sexual harrasment the government should step in or if a company puts dangerous chemicals in paint the government should step in. the government should not decide which company stays in business and which company goes belly up.
ps. socialism is an economic/social idiom not a political on so if you want to say socialism v fascism you should really say communism v facism. though communism grows out of socialism it is not necesarrily the same thing
ignore the whole history lesson. was typing when the posts were put up. sorry.
Do you really want the government to run your life?
The federal government was created to be a protector against foreign threats. Very limited functionality. Now the Fed has become what Microsoft Windows is, a VERY VERY bloated and close to be useless. I think its great that so many states has filed to reinstate the 9th and 10th constitutional ammendment to protect their soverignity.
I agree that both parties has flaws and i think more political parties should have a part in congress and the senate.
I was born in a socialist country (Sweden) and let me tell you what socialism will do. First of all your currency will drop in value to be worth close to nothing. Your base incometax will be over 30 percent and your salestax will be about 25 percent. The socialistic government sucks all your wages and leaves you with nothing. There is also high unemployment. In Sweden there was a communist party that now changed its name to Leftist Party (Vanster Partiet) because noone wants to vote for a communist party after the fall of Soviet Union.
I do not want to live in a socialist country again.
America is the land of oppertunities and i hate to see it turn into what it faught so hard to defete.
Only idiots repeat their mistakes in the hope that it'll be right the next time around.
Obama's plan and the Republican's plan are both mistakes that have been done and failed in the past.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
I agree. Maybe a hybrid plan??
You mean work together LOL! Wow now there is an idea, too bad people in Washington haven't thought of that seriously. In this case the Republicans should have tried harder. They should all have a little more respect for Ron Paul, his economic ideas are better then theirs.
What we should do
Since I bitch here a lot I might as well have solution huh? LMAO!
The plan should be to let the weak companies fail, this will allow for the market to place proper valuation on the remaining assets (right now all this propping up is preventing that). Have a plan to allow private business and government to discard the bad (get it off the books) and keep the viable assets fairly, and I mean fairly. Have plans in place to help people get back to work, give the private sector breaks to allow more hiring while adding a blend of some government work in industries hit hardest. Get the banks to write down the lost principle between bubble prices and current foreclosure rates, we just need to eat the loss, again get it off the books.
Have a plan to let people refinance (fixed rate) their homes at their new principle value at a low interest rate. Give people who are out of work a no-penalty mortgage deferment until they find work. After they find work allow 3 months to pass and then have them simply start to make payments again. It's not like they are going anywhere and it's not like the banks are going to lose anymore money given where we are at.
Next we need to tighten the belt in spending, this is where most will complain but we need to start paying down the national debt. Not ALL at once mind you, slowly tow it back but in the big plan should be to get America actually producing exportable goods again, make us a producer not just a consumer. Incentives should be given to new production based business in our country.
Lastly (and not all necessarily in this order) we need to return to honest money that is not easy to corrupt, I know some here think gold and silver are not needed, fine. The point is it was all the corrupt manipulation of paper that got us into this mess (the derivatives for example, paper stacked on paper), we need a baseline in our dollar that regulates interest rates and money expansion. One that cannot be easily corrupted.
Money in any form should serve the following four functions
1) Unit of account.
2) Medium of exchange.
3) Store of value. (today our dollar is a debt to the tax payer WTF?)
4) Unit of deferred payment.
I'm sure more could be added but that will get us back on the right path.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
vegasrage, we should go to washington. maybe get some stuff done.
The prostitutes have all left town,
Not enough business since republican prefer to diddle little boys.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
and probably end up getting stuffed in a corner like Ron Paul LOL! But I would do good work. Not sure my wife would want to deal with the public life. You give me food for thought though.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
hey i am always here representing the dark side:)
You don't stop corrections from correcting. You don't solve debt with more debt. In concept it's no different than your personal pocket book.
If your credit cards maxed out, you can barely make the minimum payments, you don't solve the issue by going out to borrow more money. You tighten the belt, pay it down, start saving, and get responsible.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
but you seem to be too quick to reduce problems, thus in many cases using macro and micro economic concepts interchangeably. Which is not entirely correct IMHO.
none of us want to see foreclosures, or unemployment, or hard times. What is missing terribly is fundamental understanding of economics, both parties have this wrong and too many people are eating both parties spoon fed tripe the media is all too happy to shovel. The great evil of politics is both parties are competing with each other to tell the voters what they want to hear to get elected, not the truth.
No micro/macro in this case having nothing to do with it. The problem is fundamentally the same. Foreign debt, we have lived beyond our means, people seem to forget credit=debt. To make matters worse this country has tuned from being the leading exporter of goods to the leading importer of goods. Our GDP is a measure of destruction, not production. Our deficit spending is dependent on China taking in more dollars. Those will eventually come home to roost when other countries have had enough, when they do hyperinflation will go through the roof and our goose will be cooked.
If you click on my user name and look at my comments you will see plenty of explanation backed with linked references for what I am saying.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
First off, just because you use a reference it does not mean that what you say is correct or agreeable.
Second, there is a biiiig diference between the methods behind public spending programmes, and individual purchasing choices.
Honestly, I believe that public spending may be one of the few proven ways of kickstarting a stagnant economy. But Obama's plan was neutered, not due to the spending it involves, but on the insistence by the GOP that such spending is fueled by debt. Which is what the GOP forced the Dems to effectively do... when they force fed us all those tax cuts (even though they ended up voting against the bill, which is why I am not too thrilled with Obama).
What Obama should have done, IMHO, is establish a big government spending injection fueled mostly by an increase in taxation at the top levels. Thus, in essence reversing the upwards wealth transfer that has been occurring in this country for the better part of the past 3 decades.
It is my opinion, that if the rich want to have a bigger slice of the pie... they should pay for the cost of having to have a pie to begin with. Instead what the GOP wants is to not only access an even bigger part of the pie, but actually have us pay for the pie (and if we can't pay for it, have us borrow money from our neighbours). That is one of the main reasons why we are in the whole we are in.
at any rate, there are some key difference between today and the great depression that make spending a perilous problem today.
Those are well established facts that a lot of people are overlooking now.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
some of the things you are pointing out happened after FDR's policies had taken place. Not before.
The regulated market happened after the mid 30s, once FDR had undone the crazy libertarian wet dream of the roaring 20s.
Also gold standard is an arbitrary as fiat money. Thus that is not an issue.
IMHO, you seem to be using the outcome of the New Deal... as the reason why we should not use a similar approach, to address a crisis which resembles the conditions which forced FDR to bring the New Deal to fruition? That seems fairly dissonant regarding your logic IMHO.
WWI helped these elements to be in place, all were true in the 20's.
People are underestimating the relevance of gold, you have to understand the history of money to know. I explained why gold is important in this post yesterday.
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/if-repub...
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
* We a creditor nation in the world
* The largest exporter of goods
This was true until Reagan.
Tyler was suggesting unless I misread that this only became true after FDR took office, that's not the case.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
Isn't that what my original comment was about? First thing was get out of Iraq, second thing was balance the budget. and then give tax cuts to stimulate the economy and somewhere in there was recover out debt from china.
You can only pick two:
a) Balance the budget
b) give tax cuts
c) reduce your debt
Besides what you proposed would make somewhat sense if your "team" hadn't fucked up things beyond recognitions when the country gave you guys a go at it in 2000.
actually you can. you figure out what your balanced budget needs as an income, provide a buffer for that income just to be on the safe side and then you give the tax cuts. if you dont spend the surplus that can be used to pay down the debt, assuming you didn't budget for it. if you did then hey dump it into paying down the debt or start building a surplus.
My example is this:
I know I am going to make 500 bucks this week. I know I am going to have to pay 250 in bills but i dont know if i am going to have to fill up the gas tank so i will keep 50 bucks in reserve just in case. the rest i can do what i want with. i can blow it on alcohol or i can save and invest with it.
i know this is a simplistic example but the basics are there
Just curious…
Are you going to buy a house? If so, are you going to finance it with a mortgage?
Do you own one? If so, are you going to want to fix it up (perhaps with a new roof that was damaged by a storm)? Will you pay for that with savings, or get a home improvement loan?
Any credit-cards? Any debt on those credit-cards? Plan on purchasing any appliances on CC debt? Even if your refrigerator breaks and there is not enough in savings?
…
My point is - a balanced-budget is neither a panacea nor necessary. Expenditures exceeding immediate income+savings isn’t always bad if those expenditures take the form of rational investment. Furthermore, spending is what makes economies, and without it there is no economy.
all we have to do now is see if the stimulus bill is a wise investment or not. if its not then 787 billion dollars is a lot more than a 200,000 dollar mortgage or a few thousand dollars on a credit card. and if it fails the reprecussions are far greater
for the record i hope it works. i am not above optimism and i do not like the current economic status.
That’s the problem isn’t it? We’ve spent so much, for so long, on so many of the wrong things and with so little to show for it, there’s now nothing left to spend when we need to.
Now we have to deal with the consequences of those bad expenditures, and take our fiduciary medicine like the rest of the world’s economies. (We sneezed, and EVERYBODY caught the flu.)
I disagree with Nicole’s previous assertion regarding the importance of foreign (and private) debt as it relates to our recovery (I think it’s extremely important), but I also think this spending bill is an important step in the right direction.
I also think Clinton’s 1993 stim package was better. It addressed the problems of deficits, tax corrections, and responsibility better. But, I’ll take one small victory at a time if I must. I too hope it helps.
I didn't mean to say that foreign debt isn't important...I just don't think it's the MOST important.
Again, to put it in simplistic terms, lets say that somehow Obama manages to hypnotize us en masse and convince us that we should all donate $15,000 for every man, woman and child living in the US and that cleared up our foreign debt (it won't, but bear with me).
Where does that put our unemployment? Where does that put us towards moving away from a petrol-economy? How does that help the millions of people screwed under by failed banks holding bad loans?
VegasRage's sole focus appears to be forgiving mortgages and getting rid of foreign debt. My statement is that that won't be enough.
I said more could be added, I'm just throwing out some ideas.
IMO what is going to happen, regardless of Obama’s best policies, is foreigners are not going to want our dollars anymore, they’ll stop sending us goods.
All those sterilized dollars sitting in China, Japan, and elsewhere are going to come home to roost. Even if the Fed starts contracting the money supply, prices are going to go through the roof. The Fed is trapped between inflation and recession and it’s too late to stop the consequences of either.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
well some have called obama the messiah. maybe he can.
but then again maybe it is time for the government to be a bit more simplistic when it comes to its finances.
so lets say, using arbitrary numbers, that the government sits down and projects that it is going to spend 1 billion on infrastructure maintainence, 1 billion on social progrmas, 1billion on defense, 1 billion on paying down the debt, 1billion on operating fees, 1 billion for scientific research and 4 billion on misc expenses (idk toilet seats for NASA or something). Your projected budget is 10 billion. you add on another 10%. Now you figure out how many taxes need to be levied to raise that amount and you increase fiscal responsibility among the agencies etc (maybe make them go out and solicit capital once they use their budget). that gives you a balanced budget because your expenses do not exceed your income, you have a buffer. you decrease extra taxes on the citizens,which gives them more money to spend which is a good thing. now out of that ten percent you can create a surplus (aka savings) or pay down the debt (making it easier to get loans if we need to).
as to your last point. the government is not the economy and should never think itself to be the economy.
Sure, I agree. You scenario is simplistic, but not inaccurate. Keep in mind, however, that Govs issue Bonds all the time to pay for infrastructure improvements (and yes, NASA toilet seats) without financial melt-down. The trick is to pick the right projects, the right amounts, and the right goals.
Under you approach you end up with a "balanced" budget but with a massive debt.
In the real world, if you have more debt than you have earnings, you are in effect having a negative income... thus you don't have a balanced budget.
If you want to have balanced budget and reduce debt, you have to pay more for the budget. Deal with it.
The attempt by conservatives to have it both ways seems to be the driving force behind you guys efforts to create your own reality. That is why, I guess, simple math and common sense seem to be lacking in your neck of the woods. Since both math and common sense are reality-based, and thus detrimental to your goals. LOL.
do you have bills?? do you dedicate a part of your income to paying your bills?? If you do then isnt that debt and arent you budgeting to pay the bills and if you have extra left over afterwards cant you buy something you want or pay more of your bills.
this is most likely the case with you and i so why not the government?? if it works for you and i, why not the government??
so it is not a divorce from reality, it is reality itself. and i know if there was a way for the government to let me keep more of the money i earn i would like them to do that.
The rich MUST be put back into 94% marginal tax rates, effective retroactively to 1981 - when the enemies of America started their destructive reign.
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
Your personal pocketbook has actual money in it. A tangible, countable, spendable amount of coins.
Macro-economics on this level actually doesn't operate on actual money.
To bring it down to a human scale, imagine you're trying to sell your house. Let's say you list it for $300K. But your agent comes in and tells you that a few minor cosmetic changes will help it sell. So you hire a painter to come in and a carpet cleaner to come in. For an outlay of $2,000, you were able to sell your house for $325K. That outlay created money for you. In turn, it increased your real estate agent's commission and you gave the painter and the carpet cleaner some money that they may in turn use to hire new people or take out ads to generate new business.
Yes, we are going to increase our debt in the short term. There are issues we need to address to get us back into long term health--tariffs/free vs. fair trade, off shore tax havens, etc. But right now, if we don't get the economy stimulated, we're going to hurt everyone.
Increasing debt in the short term is what every businessman does when he invests in his own company. Ultimately, they hope to turn a profit.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
if you are investing in your own company, by definition, that is not debt. :-)
There are a lot of nuances that make investing different from straight debt, IMHO.
we are over $10, 11, 12 trillion in the hole. Our credit rating is looking a little rough right now.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
actually the market is a complex organic system which tries to maintain an equilibrium. unwise investments or corruption make it go higher than the equilibrium point and therefore there is a downward correction. on the other hand if it falls below the equilibrium point it allows new ideas to flourish and exploit existing sectors or create new ones.
ignore above
the problem is foreign debt, yes in physical reality it's different but in principle it's the same. Instead of repeating myself here I do have ideas how to fix this mess besides just whining.
Link to my post above
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/opposing-s...
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
but I don't think foreign debt is the be all and end all of resolving the financial crisis.
The principle is very different between physical debt and what we're discussing. Again, because we're talking created income by and in large, not actual dollars. Unless you propose that somehow we enforce some sort of new global financial system that the rest of the world signs off on, I don't see how this helps.
Clearing foreign debt (which I don't see how it could be done without re-instituting tariffs, something I didn't see in your solution) does not help Americans right now. It does zilch for unemployment, nor does it stimulate the economy.
Creating some sort of forgiveness program on adjustable mortgages does help some people, but not as many as need it now.
whether I owe a credit card or we as a nation owe for money borrowed to fund our deficit spending there is a bill with interest accruing. China is not looking to hold more of dollars, they have warned us. Now they want assurances.
China is right to have doubts about who will buy all America's debt
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/breakingvi...
Too many people are assuming they are going to keep supporting us, if this shoe drops out we are screwed. People should be a lot more concerned about this.
...and then there is this lovely predicament
Failure to save East Europe will lead to worldwide meltdown
The unfolding debt drama in Russia, Ukraine, and the EU states of Eastern Europe has reached acute danger point.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/am...
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
true. but shouldn't the government try other means of stimulation before they burden you and me with billions upon billions upon billions of dollars of spending which we have to finance? (that includes the bailout and stimulus package)
Comments are closed on this entry