Other than the fact that Obama is saying that the present levels of debt are meeting short term needs, but it compromises future needs, you’re exactly right.
You should really look up “unsustainable,” too: (from MW)
Main Entry: unsustainable
Part of Speech: adj
Definition: not able to be maintained or supported in the future, esp. without causing damage or depletion of a resource
Your example of student loans being “sustainable” is the complete opposite of sustainable. If debt is being paid down, it is not being sustained. One might as well argue that black is white.
You both seem to be saying quite clearly that “unsustained” is equivalent to “unsustainable,” which seems decidedly strange to me. If I incur $150 in credit card debt this month and pay it in full when the bill arrives, that was an unsustainable debt?
See my first cite in post #15. The “vast majority” of economists, conservative ones included, think this is necessary.
Yes it has bad consequences down the road but apparently they feel that is preferable to the bad consequences if we do nothing.
Remember, deflation is far worse than inflation and should be avoided even more assiduously. Left alone our economy could easily slide into a deflationary death spiral. Not good.
Again, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Ends up being a lesser of two evils assessment.
I skimmed your cite up thread (I’d seen articles like that before), but I’m unconvinced this shows a true consensus among economists. My understanding is that a large number of economists agree that increased government spending is needed…but that there is a vast divergence on what that money should be spent on, with, IIRC, the majority favoring recapitalization of the banks and other financial institutions…not on short term tax cuts or infrastructure upgrades (or all manner of bottom drawer boondoggles and back scratching programs that seem to be a large part of the plan).
I don’t believe that your cited article adequately demonstrates this supposed consensus (a quick google search turns up articles claiming there is no such consensus among the academic/professional economists…though a lot of the cites seem to be of a right wing bent)…it merely states it. And even they go on to say that while ‘conservative economists’ are supposedly for increased government spending at this time (a very Keynesian approach), they also go on to acknowledge that the devil is in the details as far as what the money is spent on. That’s kind of a key piece, no?
Well, McCain’s economic adviser seemed to agree with the overall sentiment so I am confident enough that conservative economists, in general, believe spending by the government needs to happen.
Yes the devil is in the details and doubtless economists argue all over the place on that count. Nevertheless the OP seemed to be about “spending” in general as a “bad thing” and not arguing for spending, just spending on “this” rather than “that”. That is a different debate altogether.
Broadly is seems to be the consensus is deficit spending by the government is needed at this juncture.
I’m amazed that the overall tenor of this message board is so far left-wing that the likes of McCain and GWB are considered conservatives. Help me, Rhonda!!..TRM (who longs for the days of the Gipper)
Cutting may be politically unfeasible to a large degree, but limiting new spending may not be. People are somewhat more tolerant of “Sorry, but we can’t afford that right now” than they are of “We’re no longer going to fund this program”. You can’t miss what you never had in the first place.
You cannot continue to ratchet up spending forever and hope to keep increasing tax rates to cover the added expenses. And people will always ask for the world. At some point, the message has to be that spending must be prioritized, and that we can’t have everything. When this message is not delivered, we end up with destructive situations like that of my home state of California, where we opt to float $10B in bonds to build trains all the while education and medical services are deteriorating.
I realize that some people are fuzzy on the difference between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch, and haven’t read the part in the Constitution about who holds the purse strings, so I’ll forgive you for this misconception.
This is a “No True Scotsman” argument. You can’t pretend that somebody who’s chosen to lead a (self-proclaimed) conservative political party, who advocates policies that many conservatives advocate, and who is fervently supported by many self-identified conservatives can’t be described as a conservative at all, just because he doesn’t meet your standards of conservatism.
Now, of course it’s legitimate to debate in what ways and to what extent someone like Bush can be described as “conservative”. Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg had an interesting article on this back in 2005:
In short, nope, you don’t get to declare that Bush isn’t a conservative. Maybe he’s not the type of conservative you like best, but he has as much right to the label as you do.
What we’re seeing here is the liberal version of starve-the-beast, that conservative idea that if we keep cutting taxes, eventually government will have to shrink as well. Obama is going to finance an enormous expansion of government, (universal healthcare, expansion of safety nets, etc.) and decline to rais taxes to pay for it. It will fall to his sucessors to either raise taxes or decrease services, neither of which is politically palatable. Meanwhile, he’ll just roll in the plaudits.
Ever look up the part about where the President submits the budget request? :rolleyes: Reagan submitted a larger, more-unbalanced one every year, while demanding an amendment that would have stopped him.
Of course, the urge to remember his words (and selectively) instead of his reality is a strong one for some.
To add more detail to this statement, Congress increased Reagan’s budget proposals by a total of $24 billion over his term as president. Cite.
Meanwhile, public debt went from $920 billion in 1980 to $3.2 trillion in 1990.
If presidents who dig the country into debt with tax cuts and spending increases are not your kind of conservative, Tim, then Reagan is not a conservative, by your own definition.
Meanwhile, GWB advocated tax cuts, deregulation, more defense spending, banning gay marriage, conservative Supreme Court justices, and greater interaction between church and state. He opposed gun laws, abortion, government-led expansion of health insurance, and new environmental laws. Despite all that, you say he’s not a conservative because he couldn’t control spending. Pardon us all while we laugh at your absurd definition of conservative.
Since you asked, your construction suggests to me that you meant to say “hence”, not “whence.” Otherwise, it makes much less sense, and you’ve forgotten a question mark.
Not that I wanted to make a big deal out of it. The main problem remains your misunderstanding of the meaning of “sustainable,” and now of “sustained.”
I agree that this makes sense. The linked article makes no mention of any tax-hike proposal during the talk it reports, but it may well be a case of Obama laying out the problem and hoping the audience (and the country) will draw the desired conclusion.
There is, of course, the question of what effect those increased taxes will have on the hoped-for economic recovery.
There’s also the issue of whether, if the massive deficit proposals had been accompanied by “You do understand that this sort of budget must necessarily entail big tax increases, or the country is completely screwed” the idea of record deficits would have been nearly as palatable.
All of you Obama defenders are acting like this present deficit is a one-time thing that will reverse in the next year or two. His 10 year projection has wild deficits in every year which never decrease below $500 billion (higher than the highest GW Bush deficit). And even this estimate has fraudulent growth figures built into it that even his friends in the media laugh about. Medicare will be bust by 2017 and Social Security will run a deficit in 2015.
How do any of you reconcile these facts with any semblance of an idea that Obama means to cut, reduce, eliminate debt/ restore fiscal sanity (you pick the word)?
“Well Bush did worse” ,even if true, is not a defense to a guy who campaigned on, and continues to insist, that he isn’t the same as other politicians…