Repubs. focus on debt wrong?

#51
#51
Im not at all saying the 63 billion isn't a positive intrinsicly by cutting it. However im trying to make the point that if anyone thinks that it id actually making a dent in the grand scheme of things then take off the glasses. Our debt is skyrocketing upward with no end in sight. As stated previously it is simply a show by both parties who have passed the buck on this issue. Its like an obese person taking off the sprinkles on his gallon of ice cream. Technically yes it helps but the real issue is not being dealt with.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#54
#54
droski said:
when has gov't spending ever been cut during a booming economy? if you don't do it now when will you do it?
Click to expand...

So it's better to stck it to a struggling economy than one that is working? You saying the TP wouldn't have these same issues with taxation/budget reduction/gov't spending if the economy was ok?
 
#56
#56
CSVol said:
So it's better to stck it to a struggling economy than one that is working? You saying the TP wouldn't have these same issues with taxation/budget reduction/gov't spending if the economy was ok?
Click to expand...

how is this sticking it to a strugglign economy? fact remains that on a local and state level these cuts are coming whether we like it or not. might as well do it at the federal level as well. we'll be better off long term because of it. the private sector has led every economic recovery in the past 70 years. not sure why this one would be different.

yes i don't think budget reduction would be as big of an issue if the economy was booming. history proves this. even clinton who was hailed by the left as a budget hawk increased govt spending fairly significantly during his presidency. congress has never and will never decide to save and not spend new revenue.
 
#57
#57
CSVol said:
I know, I know. It's one of several I got as a Christmas gift, I enjoy it, but understand what your saying. I was just interested in the article b/c I've been drinking the 'debt reduction' kool-aid like many others and thought this gave some perspective to the debate.
Click to expand...

That article is heavily biased and one sided. Without using the same mantras... it is just more of the "draconian cuts" lie.

MOST economists would take a $100 billion cut in spending as a clear sign that Congress was finally getting serious about debt reduction and fiscal responsibility.

It also cites Schumer of course contending that tax cuts rather than spending created the problem.

The problem with the Keynesian idea of gov't spending as a stimulus is that it is almost always spent rather than invested. It goes to "events" that happen then have no residual impact or significant "ripple".


This is just one more attempt by a leftist to cloud the issue or delay cuts until the political landscape favors them or disfavors conservatives.

Debt/deficit reduction by CUTS ONLY NOT TAX INCREASES will absolutely have an immediate and positive effect on the economy.
 
#60
#60
droski said:
how is this sticking it to a strugglign economy? fact remains that on a local and state level these cuts are coming whether we like it or not. might as well do it at the federal level as well. we'll be better off long term because of it. the private sector has led every economic recovery in the past 70 years. not sure why this one would be different.

yes i don't think budget reduction would be as big of an issue if the economy was booming. history proves this. even clinton who was hailed by the left as a budget hawk increased govt spending fairly significantly during his presidency. congress has never and will never decide to save and not spend new revenue.
Click to expand...

I understand if you didn't read the article.
 
#63
#63
sjt18 said:
That article is heavily biased and one sided. Without using the same mantras... it is just more of the "draconian cuts" lie.

MOST economists would take a $100 billion cut in spending as a clear sign that Congress was finally getting serious about debt reduction and fiscal responsibility.

It also cites Schumer of course contending that tax cuts rather than spending created the problem.
At least someone read it.

The problem with the Keynesian idea of gov't spending as a stimulus is that it is almost always spent rather than invested. It goes to "events" that happen then have no residual impact or significant "ripple".


This is just one more attempt by a leftist to cloud the issue or delay cuts until the political landscape favors them or disfavors conservatives.

Debt/deficit reduction by CUTS ONLY NOT TAX INCREASES will absolutely have an immediate and positive effect on the economy.
Except the impact of losing 200-700k jobs
Click to expand...

.
 
#64
#64
the economy gained 200 jobs this MONTH. And that is a VERY tepid increase in jobs. even if your 700K number is right the effect on the economy is so minimal it's not even worth discussing.
 
#65
#65
droski said:
so you'd be in favor of significant cuts across the board?
Click to expand...


I'd favor combination of increase in eligibility age for Social Security, gradually to 69 or even 70 (but not means tested and no privatization), reform of Medicare as part of universal health insurance reform, immediate cuts in defense spending, and minimal tax increases on those making over $500,000 a year combined with significant tax reform to eliminate the tax dodge.
 
#66
#66
droski said:
arguing that economists are negative on the economy BECAUSE of $63 bil cut in govt spending is absolutely absurd.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Ben Bernanke and those guys over at Moodys and Macroeconomic Forecasters are real boneheads.
 
#67
#67
lawgator1 said:
I'd favor combination of increase in eligibility age for Social Security, gradually to 69 or even 70 (but not means tested and no privatization), reform of Medicare as part of universal health insurance reform, immediate cuts in defense spending, and minimal tax increases on those making over $500,000 a year combined with significant tax reform to eliminate the tax dodge.
Click to expand...

if you want to eliminate tax dodging reform real estate tax law and i'd be very much in favor of it. hell just eliminate the 1031 exchange for non primary housing units.
 
#68
#68
CSVol said:
Yeah, Ben Bernanke and those guys over at Moodys and Macroeconomic Forecasters are real boneheads.
Click to expand...

i assure you ben bernanke has never argued this will have a material negative effect on the economy. as for moody's these were the same geniuses who rated bonds backed by mortgages owned by illegal immigrants as AAA.
 
Last edited:
#69
#69
droski said:
the economy gained 200 jobs this MONTH. And that is a VERY tepid increase in jobs. even if your 700K number is right the effect on the economy is so minimal it's not even worth discussing.
Click to expand...

Not my number. If jobs aren't important, why does Boehner practically walk around in a t-shirt that says "But Where Are The Jobs"?
 
#70
#70
CSVol said:
Not my number. If jobs aren't important, why does Boehner practically walk around in a t-shirt that says "But Where Are The Jobs"?
Click to expand...

who said jobs aren't important? i'm saying 700K jobs in a economy with 153 million people in the labor force isn't significant.
 
#71
#71
tvolsfan said:
I bet gibbs could do it in a week. He may sell the military in the process, though.
Click to expand...

Certainly not. But I'm not lollygagging about what has to be done, shaving PBS and the like.

Taxes

Defense and war budget slashed.

Now, the taxes would be applied via a simple, transparent, and progressive mechanism. The good news is, this likely to put disposable income into the vast majority of the population.

The bad news is this will anger "rich men dwelling at peace within their habitations" and thus will not be done.

This is more than enough to solve the problem as portrayed (of course, a deeper, systemic crisis of Capital still looms large in the background).

PS - almost all of this owes to Reagan era tax cuts and Reagan spending.

PPS - what exactly is the problem? The growth of the deficit? That's what I'm assuming.
 
Last edited:
#72
#72
Cutting taxes without touching medicare, social security, or the military is keynesian as well. It's increasing the defecit.
 
#73
#73
utgibbs said:
Certainly not. But I'm not lollygagging about what has to be done, shaving PBS and the like.

Taxes

Defense and war budget slashed.

Now, the taxes would be applied via a simple, transparent, and progressive mechanism. The good news is, this likely to put disposable income into the vast majority of the population.

The bad news is this will anger "rich men dwelling at peace within their habitations" and thus will not be done.

This is more than enough to solve the problem as portrayed (of course, a deeper, systemic crisis of Capital still looms large in the background).

PS - almost all of this owes to Reagan era tax cuts and Reagan spending.
Click to expand...

in a country where 47% of the country isn't paying taxes i think we can surely agree the poor have as much disposable income as they are going to have already. but i imagine your simple taxation would include taxing that 47% right?
 
#74
#74
droski said:
in a country where 47% of the country isn't paying taxes i think we can surely agree the poor have as much disposable income as they are going to have already. but i imagine your simple taxation would include taxing that 47% right?
Click to expand...

Where on earth do you get this number? I'm going to test it against the real world outside the back door, so be warned.

If it is the case, it shows the abject failure of the system you defend, btw.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top