What is your position on gov't....??????

[OrangeEmpire]

So I'm assuming that your a Libertarian Ron Paul fan that despises the Fed? Or am I wrong again? Do you follow the Austrian School of Economics?

:good!:

Ron Paul meaing, don't steal, the government hates competition. You bet I am!

Austrian school of economics..... not hardly.....

You should know better than this.

 

[MontereyVol]

I go away for a few hours and look what happened!

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I tend to do this to people...

 

[SWIL]

hell, even I voted too much.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Not arguing with this, just the fact that most economists and my self follow Keynes theories, which as you said revolve around Recession/Depression and is essentially why we must spend so much to get out of the predicament that we are currently in. The same scenario applied to the Great Depression. To Keynes, the idea of saving was a disaster waiting to happen. Some wanted to balance the budget during a recession, to Keynes, this would exacerbate the underlying problem: following either policy would raise saving and thus lower the demand for both products and labor. For example, Herbert Hoover's June 1932 tax increase made the Depression worse by attempting to curtail the deficit. This is the reason why I don't understand people complaining about the deficit and debt during a recession, it is simple economics.

The fallacy in all of these Keynesian solutions is that socialists like FDR damn well know that government freebies are permanent-even tantamount to rights as this dumbass gov't healthcare has become-to address near term solutions. Toss out every graph in earth, but there is no argument that it is somehow responsible.

 

[volinbham]

Absolutely, I voted on this poll entirely on economic affairs as I find my beliefs fall upon John Maynard Keynes theories. For example, I believe the government should stay out of our private lives, and conservatives believe the opposite,

You should learn more about conservatism before you make blanket and incorrect statements


and I'm sure they have no problem with domestic spying and wiretapping.

See above.

Either way both favor government intervention in one way or the other. And in reality conservatives of the past have been entirely hypocritical of their beliefs in terms of economic affairs.

Thank God liberals are not hypocritical...


Tax cuts for billionaires, 2 wars, a massive increase in military spending, and a prescription drug bill that was a massive failure doesn't qualify as smaller government.

On your last point, tax cuts no matter who they are for DOES qualify as smaller government.

 

[volinbham]

Not arguing with this, just the fact that most economists and my self follow Keynes theories, which as you said revolve around Recession/Depression and is essentially why we must spend so much to get out of the predicament that we are currently in. The same scenario applied to the Great Depression. To Keynes, the idea of saving was a disaster waiting to happen. Some wanted to balance the budget during a recession, to Keynes, this would exacerbate the underlying problem: following either policy would raise saving and thus lower the demand for both products and labor. For example, Herbert Hoover's June 1932 tax increase made the Depression worse by attempting to curtail the deficit. This is the reason why I don't understand people complaining about the deficit and debt during a recession, it is simple economics.

The problem with applying this generalized theory to our current problem is two fold:

1) It fails to recognize the inertia of government where by temporary becomes permanent. You want to go Keyensian? Go with tax cuts - government hates them and will reverse them. Make it spending on new programs and we have in effect a permanent expansion of government.

2) The theories were developed in cases where we were not already running massive deficits on top of having massive debt. You are right; it is simple economics but too simple to recognize the entire system. Piling up debt when you are already at relatively high levels of debt is different than doing so when debt levels are relatively low.

If you believe so strongly in using fiscal policy to moderate the business cycle then you should be in favor of cut backs (not just slowing the growth or freezes) in government spending during periods of strong economic growth.

We are technically no longer in a recession based on GDP growth - why then should be stimulate the economy with borrowed government stimulus?

 

[bam15]

The problem with applying this generalized theory to our current problem is two fold:

1) It fails to recognize the inertia of government where by temporary becomes permanent. You want to go Keyensian? Go with tax cuts - government hates them and will reverse them. Make it spending on new programs and we have in effect a permanent expansion of government.

2) The theories were developed in cases where we were not already running massive deficits on top of having massive debt. You are right; it is simple economics but too simple to recognize the entire system. Piling up debt when you are already at relatively high levels of debt is different than doing so when debt levels are relatively low.

If you believe so strongly in using fiscal policy to moderate the business cycle then you should be in favor of cut backs (not just slowing the growth or freezes) in government spending during periods of strong economic growth.

We are technically no longer in a recession based on GDP growth - why then should be stimulate the economy with borrowed government stimulus?

I do believe in using fiscal policy to moderate the business cycle, and I'm in favor of cut backs during periods of strong economic growth. This is what President Clinton did during the 90s which led to a surplus, that is what Obama is proclaiming to do starting next year, the only problem is we have a budget that is being destroyed by two wars. Until we leave Iraq there is almost no hope of having a budget that does not have a deficit.

I think it is pretty obvious what the United States must do; if we do not make reductions in the military budget starting fairly soon, it will be impossible to continue to fund domestic programs even with a repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy. With a annual military budget of between $880–$1025 billion it makes it impossible to accomplish a surplus.

There is some sort of misconception that a increase in domestic spending automatically leads to a deficit, you can increase the size of government in certain areas where it is needed, and cut it in others - DOD spending.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Iraq conflict is not why we just presented a freaking 3.8 trillion budget.

 

[bam15]

Some interesting models to look at:

* Economic downturn — This category includes all changes in the deficit that CBO labeled “economic” in the three reports — in January, March, and August 2009 [9] — that it has issued since September 2008, which total $1.6 trillion over the 2009-2018 period. It also includes the bulk of revenue changes that CBO called “technical.” In the revenue area, so-called technical changes essentially refer to trends in collections that CBO’s analysts cannot tie directly to published macroeconomic data. In fact, those data become available with a lag and are subject to major revision; weak revenues are often a tipoff that the economy is worse than the official statistics suggest. Furthermore, some key determinants of revenues — such as capital gains on stock-market transactions — are tied to the economy, but those influences are not captured by the standard macroeconomic indicators. Because the economic-versus-technical distinction is so arbitrary for revenues, we have ascribed most of CBO’s large, downward “technical” reestimates to the economic downturn. We add the associated debt-service costs. The technical reestimates to revenues and the associated debt-service costs add $1.2 trillion and $0.4 trillion, respectively, to this category over the 2009-2018 period.[10]


* TARP, Fannie, and Freddie — The Treasury spent $245 billion for these entities in 2009 ($154 billion for TARP and $91 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, net of dividends received). Projections for 2010 through 2019 come from CBO’s August 2009 baseline.[11] We computed the extra debt-service costs, which total $179 billion over the 2009-2019 period. (By 2013, virtually the entire cost shown in Table 1 represents debt-service costs.)

* ARRA — Budgetary effects of ARRA come from CBO’s official estimate of February 13, 2009.[12] We removed the portion ascribed to indexing the AMT for another year.[13] Annual AMT “patches” have been a fixture since 2001, and ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle. The AMT provision accounted for $70 billion of ARRA’s $787 billion “headline” cost, leaving a remaining $717 billion. We then added the associated debt-service costs, which amount to $302 billion over the 2009-2019 period.

* Bush-era tax cuts — Through 2011, the estimated impacts come from adding up past estimates of all changes in tax laws — chiefly the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), the 2008 stimulus package, and a series of annual AMT patches — enacted since 2001. Those estimates were based on the economic and technical assumptions used when CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) originally “scored” the legislation, but the numbers would not change materially using up-to-date assumptions. Most of the Bush tax cuts expire after December 2010 (partway through fiscal 2011). We added the cost of extending them, along with continuing AMT relief, from estimates prepared by CBO and JCT.[14] We did not assume extension of the temporary tax provisions enacted in ARRA. Together, the tax cuts account for $3.4 trillion of the deficits over the 2009-2019 period. Finally, we added the extra debt-service costs caused by the Bush-era tax cuts, amounting to $1.9 trillion over the period and an astonishing $350 billion in 2019 alone.

* War costs — Spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and related activities cost $610 billion through fiscal 2008, according to CBO ($575 billion for the Department of Defense and $35 billion for international affairs).[15] We based estimates of costs in 2009 through 2019 on CBO’s projections, adjusted for a phase-down to 75,000 troops; those costs come to $1.1 trillion. [16] We add the associated debt-service costs, which come to $715 billion over the 2009-2019 period and $121 billion in 2019 alone.

One of the major domestic initiatives of the Bush Administration was the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (known informally as the Medicare Modernization Act, or MMA). The MMA created a new prescription-drug benefit in Medicare, known as Medicare Part D. This legislation was only partly paid for, and it added significantly to the deficit that President Obama inherited. Why is it absent from this analysis?

The Congressional Budget Office initially estimated that the MMA would add to the deficit by $395 billion over its first decade, spanning the years between 2004 and 2013. (Medicare’s chief actuary pegged the net cost significantly higher — at $534 billion over that period.) CBO’s estimate consisted of $552 billion in net spending — new benefits, partially offset by premiums and by receipts from the states — for the new Medicare drug benefit itself, minus $157 billion in savings in Medicaid and other federal programs.

 

[bam15]

 

[BigPapaVol]

Sweet graphs. Too bad the data and or interpretations are utter garbage.

 

[bam15]

Iraq conflict is not why we just presented a freaking 3.8 trillion budget.

One of the main contributions. With 15 million Americans unemployed, 2010 is not the time to take the pedal off the floor and we must continue to stimulate the economy. If anything, the roughly $100 billion that the administration has allocated for additional job creation measures in 2010 is way too short. After all, a significant share of the deficits we’re running now are due to the weak economy—falling incomes mean less taxes. We’ll need strong growth to deal with the deficits. Cutting spending now wouldn't be the solution, and is essentially why the Pres isn't willing to cut spending until this crisis is over. However, that said, leaving Iraq soon would clear funds for other needs and domestic spending, and would be a major step in the right direction.

 

[BigPapaVol]

One of the main contributions. With 15 million Americans unemployed, 2010 is not the time to take the pedal off the floor and we must continue to stimulate the economy. If anything, the roughly $100 billion that the administration has allocated for additional job creation measures in 2010 is way too short. After all, a significant share of the deficits we’re running now are due to the weak economy—falling incomes mean less taxes. We’ll need strong growth to deal with the deficits. Cutting spending now wouldn't be the solution, and is essentially why the Pres isn't willing to cut spending until this crisis is over. However, that said, leaving Iraq soon would clear funds for other needs and domestic spending, and would be a major step in the right direction.

Ludicrous argument. Spending for spending's sake is cool, as long as the line item is some free meals program that you and the Center for American Progress support. Please. Using the "dire" economy to ram drunken sailor spending down our throats under the guise of Keynesian drivel is just pathetic. Just call it what it is - shoddy governance.

Don't have time or heart for the Econ debate from my phone, but your comment that most economists are Keynesian just made me cackle.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

I do believe in using fiscal policy to moderate the business cycle, and I'm in favor of cut backs during periods of strong economic growth. This is what President Clinton did during the 90s which led to a surplus, that is what Obama is proclaiming to do starting next year...

Do you honestly believe Obama is going to reign in spending?

 

[bam15]

Do you honestly believe Obama is going to reign in spending?

It is very difficult with the full plate that Obama has, but then again that was what he was elected for, he knew the job he was getting into to. We currently face two wars, a recession, a health care crisis, a need for financial regulatory reform, and bush era tax cuts that need to expire, but yes it is possible. It also depends how you define "Reign in Spending", the United States won't have a surplus for a very, very long time, however the budget you are seeing in 2010 is emergency spending required to boost the economy out of the recession and without this spending, we could be in a much worse predicament. This emergency spending contributes to the budget/deficit with other things - Wars, Bush Era tax cuts, etc. as you can see in the graphs I previously posted.

 

[volinbham]

I do believe in using fiscal policy to moderate the business cycle, and I'm in favor of cut backs during periods of strong economic growth. This is what President Clinton did during the 90s which led to a surplus, that is what Obama is proclaiming to do starting next year, the only problem is we have a budget that is being destroyed by two wars. Until we leave Iraq there is almost no hope of having a budget that does not have a deficit.

Clinton did not reduce spending - government spending increased under each of his budgets. He (along with the R-controlled Congress) cut the growth in spending but that is NOT the same as cutting the budget. If government spending has a stimulative effect, growth in spending will further heat up a too-fast growing economy thus perpetuating rather than moderating the business cycle. I seriously doubt Clinton was trying to cool the growth of the late nineties with his Congressionally constrained fiscal policy.

To claim Obama is doing the same is ludicrous. His budget does virtually nothing to curtail growth in spending let alone cut back on spending. The path to his lower deficit projections is through increased TAXES not through spending reductions. Once again, he is not practicing Keyensian economics in terms of fiscal policy and moderating economic growth. He is spending more and using tax policy to pay for some of it.

I think it is pretty obvious what the United States must do; if we do not make reductions in the military budget starting fairly soon, it will be impossible to continue to fund domestic programs even with a repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy. With a annual military budget of between $880–$1025 billion it makes it impossible to accomplish a surplus.

Don't disagree but you left out the BIG ones - entitlement programs. Those must be cut as well but I don't see anyone with the political will to do so. That fiscal stimulus that you love so much is also likely to set a new entitlement baseline. So much for the cuts we need.

Also, giant deficit spending when you have large debt also leads to another massive cost - INTEREST PAYMENTS. Take a look at entitlement spending, interest service on the debt, military spending and "discretionary" spending then get back to me on why the only path to fiscal responsibility is through reduction in military spending.

There is some sort of misconception that a increase in domestic spending automatically leads to a deficit, you can increase the size of government in certain areas where it is needed, and cut it in others - DOD spending.

Show me a case where Congress and or an administration CUT spending in any category - not slow the growth or freeze but CUT.

Obama's budget doesn't have a whiff of fiscal responsibility in it.

 

[BigPapaVol]

It is very difficult with the full plate that Obama has, but then again that was what he was elected for, he knew the job he was getting into to. We currently face two wars, a recession, a health care crisis, a need for financial regulatory reform, and bush era tax cuts that need to expire, but yes it is possible. It also depends how you define "Reign in Spending", the United States won't have a surplus for a very, very long time, however the budget you are seeing in 2010 is emergency spending required to boost the economy out of the recession and without this spending, we could be in a much worse predicament. This emergency spending contributes to the budget/deficit with other things - Wars, Bush Era tax cuts, etc. as you can see in the graphs I previously posted.

where do you get the talking points? Healthcare crisis? Emergency spending? Repealing Eurotax cuts? Drastic need for regulatory reform? Good Lord. You're a lefty misinformation campaign commercial.

You like bottom up Econ too?

 

[BeecherVol]

Do you honestly believe Obama is going to reign in spending?

No.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

I usually prefer the traditional missionary position, but it seems the positions have been reversed for quite some time now... and boy are they getting heavy.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Yes, yes, yes. Obama is noble and just and will do all for the greater good. Yes, yes. We forget that he has his hands in quite a bit of this. His party has their hands in deep in this as well. So let's dispense with the notions that poor Obama has so much to overcome that he was left to handle.

Spending cuts are token. It would take massive complete dissolution of entire branches of government (plural here) to notice something worthwhile in cuts. The only thing that has padded the numbers to make any leader look good is a rise in tax revenue. A booming economy is pretty much the solution for that. Obama is of the mindset that hiking taxes on some rich people will do that - only to turn around and say those hikes (which would increase tax revenue and decrease the deficit) would be applied to some new program.

The time comes to stop blaming the previous guy unless his surname or title is Caesar. If anyone mentions cuts in spending it better involve cutting agencies and departments for a start - and I don't mean consolidating. Shuffling people into one giant bureacracy is not a solution - see DHS for an example.

 

[volinbham]

It is very difficult with the full plate that Obama has, but then again that was what he was elected for, he knew the job he was getting into to. We currently face two wars, a recession, a health care crisis, a need for financial regulatory reform, and bush era tax cuts that need to expire, but yes it is possible. It also depends how you define "Reign in Spending", the United States won't have a surplus for a very, very long time, however the budget you are seeing in 2010 is emergency spending required to boost the economy out of the recession and without this spending, we could be in a much worse predicament. This emergency spending contributes to the budget/deficit with other things - Wars, Bush Era tax cuts, etc. as you can see in the graphs I previously posted.

Let's recap some of Obama's planned or endorsed spending to see if it was necessary.

1) Signed Omnibus bill that increased the spending an average of 12% in discretionary areas. Said, it was finishing the Bush budget so he'd take the budget axe to the "next one"

2) Signed "stimulus" bill necessary to avert financial disaster. To date less than 40% has been spent. GDP growth has turned positive (as the business cycle always does) but it is argued that the 1/2 trillion or so that has yet to be spent must be spent. Stimulus bill is largely unfocused.

3) Signed second Omnibus bill that increased spending an average of 8% in discretionary areas - 20% over two years. Despite pledge to go line by line and get tough with "the next Omnibus" bill punts any fiscal review and signs it.

4) Part of the "inherited" deficit is TARP - the whole amount got allocated to the 2009 deficit eventhough about 1/2 trillion has been repaid. He advocates spending that money on non-TARP related activities (government never returns the money).

5) Signs pork laden Defense Bill eventhough he proclaimed he wouldn't sign it if it had one dime of pork.

6) Proposes largest budget ever - claims spending freeze will come later.

7) Advocates Stimulus Part 2 under guise of "jobs bill" Price tag unknown but likely to be around 200 billion.

You are telling me this is all necessary because of what he inherited and it is a true manifestation of Keynesian economics?

Take a hard look at where the money is going and you'll see another story - it is an expansion of government based on philosophy that the government should be the provider. Keynes would be embarrassed to see his name used as justification for these events.

 

[bam15]

Show me a case where Congress and or an administration CUT spending in any category - not slow the growth or freeze but CUT.

Obama's budget doesn't have a whiff of fiscal responsibility in it.

He did in fact reduce spending, most notably in the DOD, and raised taxes on the wealthiest individuals, this is the main reason we had a surplus, with of course the dot-com bubble helping.

Between 1993 and 2001, the Army went from 572,423 to 480,801, which is a decline of 16 percent. The entire military went from 1,705,103 to 1,385,116, a decrease of 18.8 percent.

Obama is taking measures, that is evident by the expiration of the bush era tax cuts, a pledge to restore PAYGO, a increase in taxes on the wealthiest individuals, the freeze in some categories, and withdrawing from Iraq in August. Once the Recession is gone in it's entirety that will eliminate an entire category of spending which is contributing to the very large budget. A slash in interest rates, cuts in taxes, and increasing spending is Keynes. Now that said, I would rather have Paul Krugman running the Fed rather then Ben Bernanke.

Cutting entitlement programs now would be a disaster in the making, as 15 million individuals are unemployed right now, that would be no different then raising Taxes, raising interest rates, and cutting spending during a recession.

Interest on debt is a given, but that is not something to worry about given our current predicament, however it is important and is often never mentioned, unless of course your a deficit-hawk.

 

[TennTradition]

the true devils are the ones working for the gov't

Yeah..horrible people. Our troops, those that support them in the pentagon and the intelligence agencies, and researchers at our military labs, not to mention the contractors in the the NWC and various research labs...they're all devils.

 

[bam15]

where do you get the talking points? Healthcare crisis? Emergency spending? Repealing Eurotax cuts? Drastic need for regulatory reform? Good Lord. You're a lefty misinformation campaign commercial.

You like bottom up Econ too?

When I think of health care reform, I think of
Marry Anne Richardson of Elkhardt, Indiana. She works hard and plays by the rules. But she could no longer afford health insurance after her hours were cut back and her pay was cut. Now her daughter has asthma and she can’t afford an office visit for an inhaler –and the bills from the emergency room visits are piling up.

I also think of Michael Thompson of Mason, Ohio. He has health insurance, thank goodness, but he’s worried. Worried about rising premiums pricing him out of the market. Worried about rising co-pays and deductibles hollowing out his insurance. Worried that if, God forbid, a real medical emergency strikes, some corporate bureaucrat will say the fine print of his policy doesn’t cover him or his family.

The Republicans want to put corporations in control; we want to put you in control. Right now, insurance companies boost their profits by saying no to what you need. When we fix the system, they’ll be regulated so they have to charge reasonable prices and deliver quality service. You and your doctor will be more in control because you won’t be arguing with insurance company bureaucrats all the time.

Ok, I'll stop. lol: