I’m talking about America. And the relative size of our deficit to that of years past. Other countries have different issues and you haven’t shown that their deficit levels are proportionately equal to ours. Not that without an in-depth economic examination that would show anything anyway.
What exactly are you arguing? “Other countries don’t have our specific issues, but have record deficits”. What exactly do you think that shows? If America has record deficits because of A, B, C and D and the UK has record deficits because of H, L, W and D. What are you thinking that shows? Your appear to literally be arguing gibberish and I’d like to understand what you’re trying to get at.
You have argued that the deficit in the US is because of X or the lack of Y, yet others have Y and don’t have X yet still have deficits. Greece comes to mind and a few other countries in Europe. I would posit that government is attempting to do to much no matter which government we are talking about and the only way to stop high deficits is to, oddly enough, not spend so much.
Last I heard it was 400 billion over ten years. If there is a newer, more awesome scoring, I’d like to hear about it.
They add to the deficit, that they aren’t a large fraction of the debt, is kinda the point.
Yes, but the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that the administration is considering allowing to expire is over seven hundred billion as I recall and will return rates to the Clinton era. Not a time of poor growth. I don’t have long to look up cites right now, but economists think that those tax cuts being repealed specifically won’t slow growth.
I’m no economist, but the stimulus is widely credited with staving off a depression.
Again, the financial havoc wreaked by cascades of failing banks isn’t a trivial thing.
I know, but if people call it Obama’s deficit, I feel the need to respond in kind. Also, Bush could have certainly helped us quite a bit and tamped down the severity. Say by creating jobs and growing the middle class economy.
I actually don’t know that they won’t happen, and neither do you. The Medicare cuts are to payouts to private businesses that don’t work any better than standard Medicare, that’s fairly painless. Plenty of people rushing to the high risk pool is evidence that the HCR package is more necessary, not less.
And you know what, if it is a bad thing, I’ll be adult enough to admit it, unlike certain conservative posters who live in a fucking fantasyland.
Many people think the moon landing was faked. As for a problem with confidence, I’m willing to accept that it may have hit it a bit, but a lot of that is due to Republican lies like death panels, odious regulation, massive rate increases, yada yada yada.
I can’t see why anyone would be vehemently against that, but you know, that’s one of those policy decisions we should be talking about. Not playing the Republican party game of saying X = Evil Tyranny!!11. We should be discussing what to do about issues, not pretending they don’t exist or demonizing the other party’s solution.
I know you feel that ideologically the government taking an action like this isn’t good, but surely you can see that the potentially millions of jobs a collapsing US Auto industry would destroy would be a bad thing right in the middle of the recession? I don’t like government controlled industry either, but to stand by what you don’t like while a million people starve isn’t realistic.
People will debate, but economists seem unified that the stimulus avoided a meltdown. Isn’t that the case? How many non-ideological economists think we’d have been better off without the stimulus? The arguments I hear are about how we needed a bigger stimulus or one that focused on different things, that one was needed hardly seems in question.
I’ll take the CBO’s word over yours.
It predicted it based on the info at the time. That info was rosier than the actual situation.
You are arguing for another depression as better than what we have now? Interesting.
But there is a general consensus. Believing one or two percent isn’t a good way to enact policy. That’s what happened to Bush.
The student loans were already government money, they just paid a middle man to handle them. Now, no middle man and we save a stack of your hard won taxes. As for the HCR, I direct you to the CBO, they’ll tell you what you want to know.
I see your problem. You don’t understand that deficits aren’t binary. You think that a deficit is a switch that is either on or off. You don’t get that in addition to the switch, there is an intensity variable.
Deficits vary in scope. Because two countries have deficits during a recession tells you nothing about their various economic problems.
Also, if you think just cutting spending will make us whole, you obviously haven’t looked into the issue very closely. Health care reform will save us a ton of money. Student loans will save us a nice chunk. So those things are good in your opinion, right?
What is the intensity variable? The pressure that the public puts on governments to spend regardless of whether they have the money to do so like the Greece example?
Well, one may be spending on its military, the other on UHC. They are both spending more than they are making.
Spending on neither will save even more, if that is all you are after. Health care reform may save you money, although a place like Canada spends quite a bit on health care and is finding it hard to meet the demands on the system, it still may not address running a deficit. It may address the scope, or it may not. What is the cost of all those people involved in the insurance industry no longer having a job? It makes sense (to some) to save failing companies to save jobs, like a car company for example, so why not that one, too?
No the amount silly. If I have a deficit of one dollar and you have a deficit of 900 trillion dollars they aren’t the same thing. One is bigger than the other. Aside from the amount of the deficit, you also need to contrast it with the GDP. A wealthier country can afford higher deficits.
All countries need a health care system (although I’m sure some of the smaller / poorer ones don’t have one). A universal health care system is cheaper than our system.
One more time, a universal health care system is cheaper than our system. This isn’t some pie in the sky liberal delusion, it’s factual. America spends more money and gets less for it than every other industrialized country.
Yes, it will. We are spending X now. We will be spending X - Y after enacting health care. The program will cost less than we are spending now. It will save us money and lower the deficit. Look it up.
As for the student loans, we are giving money to companies to handle our student loans now. We will save money by eliminating those people. I’ve written this like five times, I’m not lying, it’s not my fault that you’ve been misinformed.
The insurance industry isn’t going anywhere. And a few jobs aren’t worth the trillions in extra money we pay for our current system.
The HCR law won’t be enacted until after the recession is long gone.
Our debt is running $13 trillion or so today, so your trillion and a half is about 11.5% of the nation’s total. Racked up over 8 years, that’s a major contribution to our national indebtedness.
Claiming otherwise does nothing for your credibility, especially when you smear it out over an additional decade and then mix it in with notional future deficits.
Well, OK - if you are claiming along with Wesley Clark that Obama has shrunk the deficit, then you really must not understand that $1.56 trillion is a larger number than $1.2 trillion.
No, actually everything I have said is true and documented. It must be that when you claim that Obama “shrunk” the deficit you must be either mistaken, or we are in the usual Orwellian blackwhite mode, which is where determined ideologues usually wind up.
No, I understand the core issue just fine - that Obama and Co. want me to believe that they will reduce the deficit that they have already increased to the highest point in human history.
I do. What you are saying is stupid and false. That’s the issue.
Nope, also false and stupid.
The issue is that Obama said his stimulus package would have a certain definite effect on the economy. His claims, however, turned out to be completely wrong. His commitment to create jobs fell short of his stated goal by 7.6 million jobs. So what he claimed about the stimulus was wrong.
He has also claimed that he is going to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. This commitment is based on the same assumptions that he had when he proposed the stimulus (you know, the one that didn’t do what he said it would) and therefore that is a piece of evidence (for those of us who pay attention to evidence) that what he claims about the deficit is as stupid as what he claimed about job creation.
Is it your impression that the stimulus package was rolled out entirely according to Obama’s specifications? That he got everything he wanted from an enthusiastic and supportive Republican Party? Or did they fight him tooth and nail, and did he end up with a compromise package far short of what he actually thought would return a satisfactory result?
If you had an infection, and the doctor said take ten grains of penicillin, and you’ll be fine, but you took five and didn’t get well, you blame the doctor?
So, you are saying that without opposition he would have managed to achieve his aims? Shouldn’t a good leader be able to achieve their aims in spite of the opposition?
If the blurb I read was right, and if Obama and Bush had not enacted the policies they enacted (TARP, auto bailouts, bank bailouts, the stimulus, etc) the deficit would be 2 trillion, not 1.4 trillion. So the unpopular policies supported by Bush & Obama made the deficit smaller.
As for the other programs like health care, those cut the deficit over time. Health care will cut the federal deficit by 1 trillion over 20 years. No idea what it’ll do for state deficits, or for a window beyond 20 years.
Student loan reform saves $68 billion over 10 years, but that money has been redirected into programs like pell grants. I don’t know if those are new spending, or if they are just covering old spending. Either way, student loan reform did save money.
So all the programs listed either made the current deficit smaller, or are going to make future deficits smaller.
I’m sure you’re not willfully misunderstanding this, so I suppose I need to keep trying to phrase this in a way you can understand.
Obama has enacted policies that will lower the deficit. HCR lowers the deficit. Student loans lower the deficit.
The deficit has risen during his term because of the Stimulus, Tarp and lowered tax revenue due to the recovery. Those things were necessary. You don’t think they were, but that’s because you don’t understand the issues. So the necessary things have increased the deficit, and things like HCR and the student loans will lower it.
I’m sure that you can get this. Just try.
See above.
Again, you need to understand what has happened. The Stimulus, Tarp and the reduced revenues are things out of Obama’s control. They were necessary. If someone stabbed you and your wife opens up some gauze to plug your bleeding, that gauze money isn’t wasteful spending.
I’m sorry that your news sources lie to you. I know you like to hear them. I know they make you feel happy and self-satisfied. But they’re just dreams. You need to wake up now.
See above.
It wasn’t a commitment, it was a prediction based on economic indicators available at the time. If you and me are on a road trip and you tell me that we have enough gas to get to the next town, but the sign that said it was 30 miles was wrong and it was 50 miles, it isn’t your fault.
It’s not good evidence. The stimulus was utterly necessary. It saved us from a depression. What economists are arguing about is the size of the stimulus and the particular programs. Not that it was necessary.
The jobs numbers didn’t perform as well because the economy was performing even worse than the estimates they based it on. That’s an argument for more stimulus, not less.
As for reducing the deficit, let’s see what happens.
So in addition to not understanding basic economics, you also are completely ignorant of how American civics works?
Do me a favor. Take two index cards. Across the top of the first write Dictator. Across the top of the second write American President. Then do some research on the powers and abilities of the two and note them on the cards.
I understand how basic economics work. Spending less money results in less money being spent, duh. Less money spent, less of a deficit.
Let failing companies fail because successful companies will take their place. You’re quick to save GM, but screw the insurance guys. Let the market sort it out because if governments were so smart and innovative they wouldn’t need corporations. Let the government regulate, which is their role, and not choose winners and losers.
I also understand how government works. The test of a good leader is to lead not only the ‘yes’ men, but also those who are your detractors. To use the excuse that you can’t get the legislation passed that you know is needed is probably time for you to step aside and let someone who can do it take over.
The opposition is always there. Always. That is the strength of a democracy. No opposition and you have the ‘dictator’ label you want me to stick on the index card. And I’m one of those who would have supported Obama had he been in Canada. Maybe he should look at Harper, who has a minority government, and still gets essentially everything he wants passed.
And when you have things that are necessary, like a health care system, a universal one will cost much less.
The US auto industry could cause cascade failures of millions of jobs, if you count support companies and whatnot. It would be beyond stupid to allow an extra million or two jobs to disappear during a recession. You don’t understand economics at all, not even a little if you think we should just suck it up. That’s not a smart plan. In fact, it’s quite a stupid plan.
You didn’t do the homework I suggested, did you? The Republicans are filibustering everything in the Senate. This means 60 votes are necessary. The Democrats don’t have 60. And even if they did, it’s hard to have all members of a caucus walk in lockstep. Unless you’re a Republican. They’ve spun off the moderates and only the truly stupid and ideological and cowardly are left.
So it’s easy to puff up and say, “A good leader could get their support”, but that isn’t true. The Republicans want Obama to fail, and they’re willing to let America burn in the meantime.
There is always an opposition, but they don’t always filibuster everything. That’s new, and that’s something the Republicans have only just decided to do. If you understood about how the Senate works you wouldn’t be making such silly claims.
Hear ya. I was naive as all get out, I was thinking that the Pubbies would look at the election results and think “Well, peoples voice, all that good stuff, lets see if we can get along with this guy…”
Instead, they scream, daub themselves with shit and set their hair on fire! Trauma and tantrum every friggin’ day! What is the matter with these people? What, they never lost one? Jesus Marimba, get a grip!
But heres the thing: the Pubbies have developed a pattern of short-sightedness, they only see as far as the next election. If they alienate a generation of Hispanics (and other “immigrant” groups), they don’t care, if they can just win this next one. Grab an issue, and run on it.
Getting big legislation passed uphill is tough, hugh betcha. But repealing legislation is even tougher. The Dems have the Senate by a big margin, anybody see a scenario where the Pubbies win 21 seats in the Senate? And then theres that big ass veto pen.
Yes, its hard to get the big rock rolling. Even harder to stop it once it starts.
A company declaring bankruptcy isn’t a company that is out of business. The profitable divisions are split off into new entities or purchased. What ends up happening is that successful companies like Ford are penalized for being successful, while GM is rewarded and propped up for being idiots.
If the Democrats aren’t organized enough to run the government when they have a majority, why should we trust the answers they are selling if they can’t even get everyone on their side on board to force them through or convince at least a few members of the opposition to side with them?
