“Nothing”?
Those who don’t learn from mistakes are destined to repeat them. Absolving Bush because “what’s done is done” is just plain wrong. And let’s be clear: If the Beck-Limbaughist Tea Party does succeed in ejecting rationalists from the White House, the GOP will be delighted to continue Starving the Beast, with an agenda of more stupid wars and thefts from the taxpayer.
I get tired of hearing Obama blamed for the failings of Bush. As an example, he is blamed for continuing Bush’s stupid Wars. Is it so hard to understand that a main reason Obama et al opposed the Iraq adventure was that exit would not be easy ? If it were feasible for Obama to walk away lightly ("See you later, Iraqis and Afghans. Sorry things didn’t work out better. "), that would invalidate the main reason for opposing those mistakes(*) in the first place. (The invasion of Afghanistan itself was not a mistake … except in the sense that those who understood Bushism should have known that war would be badly executed.)
I’d say pointing out mistakes is useful in avoiding the repetition of those mistakes.
If more people had considered the reckless irresponsibility of Reagan’s spending binge we might have avoided George H.W. Bush’s spending binge. and if more people had considered the reckless irresponsibility of Bush’s spending binge we might have avoided his son’s spending binge.
Now is actually the best time to be considering the possibility of a Romney spending binge. Before it happens rather than afterwards.
America’s national debt went to 121% in 1946. Because most of Europe had been decimated by WWII we had no one to borrow from. Yet we paid it down in about 10 years time. We also became the world’s first modern super power in that time as well as the wealthiest nation on Earth. One hint as to how we did it: it had nothing to do with tax or spending cuts.
Another way to look at this as well is as such: most Americans who buy a home are in debt to somewhere around 300 to 500 percent of their annual income, and yet this is considered a good investment well worth making. Are some here suggesting that a house has greater value as an investment for a return on your dollar or whatever your currency of choice as compared to a nation? So why are people getting their panties in a wad over America edging up to 100% debt per GDP? I am aware that there are huge looming interest payments coming down the pike in a few years. For that reason it needs to be tamed before long. But it strikes me that there are several ways to begin paying down the debt without having to rip out the national kitchen sink to pay for it.
America being heavily in debt is not a problem. America being heavily in debt without a plan to fix it is. And sadly, we’re not going to get a plan until a) Republicans retake the White House and keep the House, b) Democrats take the House and keep the Senate while still retaining the White House, or c) the Republican Party tells the Tea Party movement to screw off. No bets on which one happens first.
The Republicans are part of the problem, not of any solution. They are going to try to make the debt worse, not better. You might see a solution if the Democrats gain control of both Congress & the Presidency, and have the guts to actually push things through against Republican opposition; until then the Republicans with maintain their death grip on the nation’s direction and continue driving it towards the edge of an economic cliff. They want as big and long term an economic crash as possible; Starve the Beast, remember? Plus economic disaster promotes “labor discipline”, aka the work force is terrified & willing to put up with poor pay and abuse. And the Christian fundies either think that suffering is good for you, or think that they’ll be fine because God loves them.
In an economy, your spending is my income, and my spending is your income, right?
So what happens when we all cut spending at the same time? (We all cut our incomes.)
Our present debt is high, but it isn’t out of bounds with what we’ve seen in the past. We could quite easily manage the increased debt we would have to take on now to get the economy moving immediately.
The idea that inflation might happen tomorrow is bullshit that conservatives have been shouting for several years now. It’s not remotely realistic as a concern right now.
Actually, the Tea Party has presented a plan. So has Paul Ryan. So has Rand Paul. You may not like them, and IMO they’re not ideal, but they exist. They’re on paper and on the internet and you can go look them up.
The current Treasury secretary, in contrast, has admitted under oath that the administration does not have a plan and isn’t developing one.
No; when the “market sensitive” part of the economy is just sitting on that money, taking that money away and doing something with it is good for the economy.
Huh? Is there going to come a time that they’re going to take that money and start creating jobs with it?
Well, yes, actually - when there is some incentive for them to do so. A big incentive would come from the government stepping in to stimulate the economy now. So, we could wait around cutting our mutual incomes further and further until the magical point that investments somehow seem like they’re worth making, or we could do something now.
There is a misconception that jobs are created when workers are needed to aid in a profitable endeavor. If that were true then record low taxes on the “job creators” would be a horrible idea: increasing the deficit, increasing the disparity, and not helping create jobs. Indeed, while economics is not a zero sum game, nevertheless if the disparity is wide enough, and a high enough percentage of wealth is held by a select few while the rest are barely getting by, the inherent risk in any endeavor may outweigh the comparatively modest potential advantage over simply sitting on endless cash.
Luckily, none of that is true. The truth is that jobs are created when we convince corporations to like us. Give them enough money, and maybe they will take pity on us and create jobs. No jobs yet? Then they don’t like us enough. Send them some more cash and a nice card, maybe that will help.
Perhaps if the Federal Reserve would stop paying banks not to loan money, the economy might improve. The excess reserves (bank assets in excess of the reserves required by the fed) on deposit with the fed have been growing since the end of the recession, and are near an all time high of over 1.5 trillion dollars. Banks have found they can earn interest without the risk of actually loaning money, so they just park it at the fed. How is that doing anyone any good?
Our commercial banks are dysfunctional at best, teetering on irrelevancy. If they exist only to earn interest on deposits at the fed, what good are they to the economy?
Well, if the late Milton Friedman was correct, the USA economy ought to be showing signs of inflation-and it has! The government price index (which conveniently excludes energy costs) is up-and I can state (from personal experience) that food prices are increasing enormously:
-milk (Gallon)-was $2.99 two years ago-now about $4.75
-frozen pizza (Trader Joe’s)-was $3.00-now $4.25
-rents (Boston Ma area)-up about 18% this year
-heating oil-doubled in price in 3 years
So yes, I believe that inflation is coming-and it will be worse than that experienced during the Carter era.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
No; when the “market sensitive” part of the economy is just sitting on that money, taking that money away and doing something with it is good for the economy.
[/QUOTE]
You might want to ask the question of WHY they are just ‘sitting on that money’ (I know you think you already know why, but just as an exercise you could ask and perhaps even listen to the answer…change of pace maybe) before suggesting that taking the money away and ‘doing something with it is good for the economy’. Just a thought.
0-3, now. The trouble is that increased taxes will be coupled with increased spending, and the deficit will get worse. A budget that increases taxes and cuts spending is what is necessary. Republicans won’t increase taxes, Democrats won’t cut spending.
See, that’s just not true. Democrats have offered to make deep spending cuts, but only if there are tax increases on the wealthiest Americans. Republicans don’t want to cut spending under those terms.
Nonsense. Point to onr example of cutting your way to growth. It’s retarded.
The world is currently replete witb examples of the failure of austerity. There is not one place that cutting has worked.
We simply have to start ignoring people who have been repeatedly proven wrong in reality. We cannot make change based on failed ideology. Any realists remaining out there?
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
The world is currently replete witb examples of the failure of austerity. There is not one place that cutting has worked.
[/QUOTE]
Germany. That’s one place it worked…it’s also why they harp on it so much. I don’t remember the specifics, but several of the Scandinavian countries did the austerity thingy back in the 80’s or 90’s and it seems to have worked out fairly well for them. Of course, having gobs of oil doesn’t hurt your economic bottom line either, but I’d say the austerity thing was a non-zero positive as well.
If we did that then 9/10ths of the posts on this board would be ignored and then were would we be?
"), that would invalidate the main reason for opposing those mistakes(*) in the first place. (The invasion of Afghanistan itself was not a mistake … except in the sense that those who understood Bushism should have known that war would be badly executed.)
