Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Great truth there Nuggy!  The problem with our economy is that we cannot get GDP growth without deficit growth or general private and public debt (including consumer) growth. In fact, just like a junky, it takes a lot more dope to get as high as they once did with a lot less dope.

 

The thing is this: If you balance the budget or stop the increase of debt....you kill economic growth and the existing debt will continue to need to be serviced, further pulling down the economy.

Originally Posted by Muhammad Cipher:

This is stupid.

 

Government budgets are NOT household budgets as the government has monitary options not available to households for starters.

 

Additionally every budget has two parts, the incoming & outgoing revenue.  This deficit exist because of insufficient income not out of control outgoing.


Yeah....a more accurate analogy would have been a household budget that came with a money printing machine and the ability to force everyone to accept the new money you create to pay off your debt.

 

That is kind of like a football game in which the defense can move the endzone. Thus, if the opposition has the ball first and goal to go, from the 1 yard line......the defense has the option to move the endzone further back.

Originally Posted by nuggyt:

I think the point is that a household budget doesn' t have a printing machine.  Since the government does, they think they can continue and "make it rain".  All the example is for is to make people think. Obviously that intention is wasted on many here. 

 

Those comparisons are authored and recycled by people who are either well intentioned but don't know how Federal Budgets work, and/or those who want to push the idea of austerity by using a household analogy as a way of appealing to peoples concerns and sensibilities of "being responsible"

 

Step into the world of how the Federal Budget actually works and the idea of a balanced budget being of grave importance disappears.

 

These same people pushing that framing also push the idea of cutting taxes (aka The Government's source of revenue) only to turn and scream that there's no money for public services.

 

 

Originally Posted by nuggyt:

These same people?? How do you know who these people are?  People all across the political spectrum have acknowledged the federal spending is out of control and getting worse day by day. 

 

There is a distinction between those who focus on spending while ignoring the drastic decrease in revenue, be they Democrat or Republican.  The "out of control spending" and increasing debt is a result of decreasing federal revenue and increasing debt to make up for the decreased revenue.

You want a balanced budget, raise the top income tax rate to 94% and include stocks, bonds and other financial assets as "taxable propriety".

That's if you really want to solve the crisis of the Federal Budget.

I think the issue of a balanced budget only becomes paramount when there is such a large debt level already accumulated. Households also need the flexibility to break budget from time to time, to deal with emergencies. I don't think that a balanced budget should be mandated and I do not think it would be an issue today if our debt was not 100% of GDP. Ignore the balanced budget for the moment and ask how does one resolve the debt crisis?

I have to wonder what shape the budget would be in and how much less of a deficit we would have if Bush and/or the Congress had even TRIED to find a way to fund even SOME of the costs of the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan .... or the origination of the "tax cuts for the rich" ... which, I believe has already reached in the hundreds of millions that taxpayers have been on the hook for.

 

These days, the Republicans make the President and Democrats account for every government penny they want to spend .... which I can understand and even agree with!!

 

However .... nobody did the same when it has come to what must be trillions of dollars by now in deficit spending when Bush was in office.  And I've yet to hear anybody factor that into the debt/deficit conversations we've been having as of late.  It's all about what President Obama has spent/wants to spend.  However, I think if someone did the math ... I think Bush's presidency would be a bigger contributor to our current problems.

Originally Posted by sunnubian:

Hell, Bush's presidency and administration and Washington politicians in the pockets of Wall Street, Big Business, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Agri, Big Banks, and domestic and foreign special interest groups of all kinds, IS the reason that our economy is in the shape that it is in.

And that is why the OWS in all its incarnations are not focused on "protesting Congress" or any other political actor.  The US Government does is in the interest of those who benefit from the current system.  Therefore, attention is being turned toward "the system" itself and not this or that part of it.

 

ER

 

The focus is primarily on Obama now because he's in the presidency.  Its not a question of whether he caused it-but what hes doing about it. 

 

When the ripple effects of the Pell Grants make their way through the lives of the college students- he can kiss those votes goodbye. May not be his "fault" but he cannot show where he fought tooth and nail against it.  And THAT is what people will not tolerate no matter how much worse the other guy is. 

I've been complaining that OWS is not "occupying" the right people all along, that their focus should be on Congress, and not necessarily Wall Street, because everything that Wall Street, Big Banks, etc., did was legal.  It is those that had the power to make it legal in the first place for the American economy to be hijacked and fleeced by these entities and all their special interest groups in the first place.  I have went as far as saying that I am reserving total support due to the fact that it is quite possible that the OWS is no more than and elaborate distraction, because the more involved people got, the more it seemed unlikely that OWS would not know by now that it is Congress that should be protested, occupied, yet, they continue to keep the focus purely on Wall Street, for what, taking advantage of the opportunities that the United States Congressional Members and the Supreme Court allotted them?  In fact, I also find it strange that those studied in the law and the Constitution appear to not know or notice that the relationship between Washington politicians, (and state and local politicians), and private industry, with its undue influence over our government, Congress and Supreme Court and policy in general, is illegal in the first place, therefore unconstitutional.  There should be a class-action lawsuit filed against the United State government, naming Congress and the Supreme Court, for Breach of Trust, Abuse of Authority and Abuse of Process; or something . . .

Originally Posted by Muhammad Cipher:

ER

 

The focus is primarily on Obama now because he's in the presidency.  Its not a question of whether he caused it-but what hes doing about it. 

 

When the ripple effects of the Pell Grants make their way through the lives of the college students- he can kiss those votes goodbye. May not be his "fault" but he cannot show where he fought tooth and nail against it.  And THAT is what people will not tolerate no matter how much worse the other guy is. 

=========================================

 

Yes, MC ..... I get that it's President Obama's job to clean up whatever mess was left to him by Bush.  Just like it was Bush's job to properly handle the so-called "surplus" of funds left to him by President Clinton.  (But we see what he did with that!!)

 

And so on and so on and so forth!!

 

I believe it is the job of EVERY/ANY president to do the best he can with what he's got... good, bad or indifferent.  He asked for the job ... he needs to do it to the best of his ability ... no matter WHO (or what) he is!!

 

Now ... some presidents are better at that than others.  Some inherit colossal messes ... and some slide in on a more "easy street" political environment.  Some are intelligent enough to handle such a big job.  Others are inherently stupid and have no business dealing with responsibilities of that magnitude!! 

 

But, either way, the job is theirs. 

 

And I think that it's due to the irrationality and unreasonableness of politics, itself, but even more so, the average person's (mis)understanding of the same that leads to (what I think is an UNFAIR) "focus" of the current/sitting president's job performance outside of the context of just what he's dealing with and why he's dealing with it ... to only focus on the "how" he's dealing with it. 

 

And that's why I asked the question. 

 

Whatever "the numbers" were that were given as the deficit amount that President Obama inherited ... I'm sure they were neither accurate NOR complete!!  I'm sure not ALL money tallied for the two (unfunded) wars and the extent of the (unfunded) tax cuts was contributed to Bush.  As a matter of fact, those monies are STILL being added on to the deficit today, are they not??

 

The "bank bailout money" .... that was probably not "funded" by other offsetting sources, either, right??  Folks are still trying to say that President Obama authorized that payout ... but he did not.  Bush did.  And isn't ALL THAT money also being included in today's (President Obama's) deficit total??

 

Whether he deserves it or not .... that's the way it is, no?? 

Originally Posted by sunnubian:

I've been complaining that OWS is not "occupying" the right people all along, that their focus should be on Congress, and not necessarily Wall Street, because everything that Wall Street, Big Banks, etc., did was legal.  It is those that had the power to make it legal in the first place for the American economy to be hijacked and fleeced by these entities and all their special interest groups in the first place.  I have went as far as saying that I am reserving total support due to the fact that it is quite possible that the OWS is no more than and elaborate distraction, because the more involved people got, the more it seemed unlikely that OWS would not know by now that it is Congress that should be protested, occupied, yet, they continue to keep the focus purely on Wall Street, for what, taking advantage of the opportunities that the United States Congressional Members and the Supreme Court allotted them?  In fact, I also find it strange that those studied in the law and the Constitution appear to not know or notice that the relationship between Washington politicians, (and state and local politicians), and private industry, with its undue influence over our government, Congress and Supreme Court and policy in general, is illegal in the first place, therefore unconstitutional.  There should be a class-action lawsuit filed against the United State government, naming Congress and the Supreme Court, for Breach of Trust, Abuse of Authority and Abuse of Process; or something . . .

==============================

Originally Posted by sunnubian:

I've been complaining that OWS is not "occupying" the right people all along, that their focus should be on Congress, and not necessarily Wall Street, because everything that Wall Street, Big Banks, etc., did was legal.  It is those that had the power to make it legal in the first place for the American economy to be hijacked and fleeced by these entities and all their special interest groups in the first place.  I have went as far as saying that I am reserving total support due to the fact that it is quite possible that the OWS is no more than and elaborate distraction, because the more involved people got, the more it seemed unlikely that OWS would not know by now that it is Congress that should be protested, occupied, yet, they continue to keep the focus purely on Wall Street, for what, taking advantage of the opportunities that the United States Congressional Members and the Supreme Court allotted them?  In fact, I also find it strange that those studied in the law and the Constitution appear to not know or notice that the relationship between Washington politicians, (and state and local politicians), and private industry, with its undue influence over our government, Congress and Supreme Court and policy in general, is illegal in the first place, therefore unconstitutional.  There should be a class-action lawsuit filed against the United State government, naming Congress and the Supreme Court, for Breach of Trust, Abuse of Authority and Abuse of Process; or something . . .

 

 

Congress is merely an adjunct for corporations today. That are not beneficiaries by happenstance, they are the ones designing and writing laws, even to their own demise.  The OWS crowd understands this.  Over the past 2 weeks I've viewed/read quite a few notable academicians who have been on this issue offering some in depth perspectives on this issue that are all but absent among Black commentators (Joe Madision, Warren Ballentine etc).

 

The OWS has today what we as a community used to have and understand, and that's an understanding that the political process was only an aspect of community development at best-and not the means by which you define the struggle, problem or solution.  One need not study OWS for this, pick any "grassroots" people/community based revolution in the world and you'll see elements of this.  Contrary to popular belief there isn't the singular focus on "wall street" as the growing inequality is occurring at all levels of American business as a matter of business. 

 

I seriously don't want to come off cheer leading  for the OWS movement as the end all be all, but I have to give props where props are due.  They've shed the illusion that the existing system has any interest in changing for the benefit of itself or the people.

Last edited by Muhammad Cipher

The economy crashing was a SYMPTOM. What was the disease? The disease was DEBT. Thus how anyone thinks that the current administration prevented further collapse and or stabilized the economy by creating more DEBT is really misguided and lost. One cannot fix an insolvency crisis with more debt because all that does is worsen the insolvency, but it pushes the day of reckoning further out to the future. I just cannot see how people cannot see this basic math. The fact that the government has the FED to buy its bonds and print more money does not change a thing in regards to the bottom line.


This debt accumulation cannot go on to infinity. The US credit rating has already been downgraded by one credit agency and should have been downgraded by more. If the debt levels keep rising we may postpone the reckoning but it will lead to higher interest rate levels on our debt and the higher interest rates will only increase the debt and a large part of tax revenues will be allocated to simply paying off the interest on the debt with no money left for many social programs.


 The only way that this nation can become solvent is if our GDP is reduced by about 20%. The problem is no politician or party will let that take place under their control due to the fact that to allow it is political suicide for the party in control and maybe the two party system altogether. Once you start to descend it becomes self-perpetuating and you just cannot stop at figures conducive to solvency as panic and hoarding will make things worse than they need be.


I cannot believe that people are still talking about Bush.

I guess answers my question!! 


George W. Bush Barely Mentioned by GOP

 

Date: Tuesday, January 3, 2012
By: Beth Fouhy, Associated Press

 

 

 

PERRY, Iowa (AP) — A funny thing happened recently in the presidential campaign in Iowa: The last Republican president's name actually surfaced.

 

"We've had, in the past, a couple of presidents from Texas that said they weren't interested in wars ... like George W. Bush," a voter said to Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who has been sharply critical of U.S. military entanglements overseas. "My question is: How can we trust another Texan?"

 

It was an odd, almost discordant moment in a GOP contest where Bush, a two-term president who left office just three years ago, has gone all but unmentioned. While the candidates routinely lionize Ronald Reagan and blame President Barack Obama for the nation's economic woes, none has been eager to embrace the Bush legacy of gaping budget deficits, two wars and record low approval ratings — or blame him for the country's troubles either.

 

"Republicans talk a lot about losing their way during the last decade, and when they do they're talking about the Bush years," said Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont-McKenna College. "For Republicans, the Bush administration has become the 'yadda yadda yadda' period of American history."

 

The eight-year Bush presidency has merited no more than a fleeting reference in televised debates and interviews. When it does surface it's often a point of criticism, as when former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum told CNN on Sunday that he regretted voting for the No Child Left Behind education law Bush championed.

 

The former president himself has been all but invisible since leaving office in 2009 with a Gallup approval rating of just 34 percent. His predecessor, Democrat Bill Clinton, had a 66 percent approval rating in early 2001 when he stepped down after two terms marred by a sex scandal and impeachment.

 

In a presidential contest dominated by concerns over the weak economy, government spending and the $15 trillion federal debt, the Republican candidates have been loath to acknowledge the extent to which Bush administration policies contributed to those problems. Republicans also controlled Congress for six of the eight years Bush was in the White House, clearing the way for many of his policies to be enacted.

 

There is no question that Obama's policies, including the federal stimulus program and the auto industry bailout, have swollen the deficit and deepened the debt. And three years into his presidency, Obama often falls back on complaints about the bad situation he inherited when seeking to defend his own economic performance.

 

But while Obama may be overly eager to blame the Bush years for the nation's problems, GOP presidential contenders seem just as eager to pretend those years never happened.

 

Taking office in 2001 with a balanced federal budget and a surplus, Bush quickly pushed through sweeping tax cuts that were not offset by spending cuts. The tax cuts have cost about $1.8 trillion, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

 

The Bush tax cuts were set to expire after 10 years, but Obama allowed them to remain in place temporarily in exchange for an extension of unemployment benefits and a payroll tax cut.

 

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks never were budgeted and have cost taxpayers about $1.4 trillion so far. Obama ordered the last troops out of Iraq in December, but the Afghanistan conflict will extend into 2014.

 

Bush signed legislation in 2003 enacting a prescription drug benefit as part of Medicare, the government health care plan for seniors — a huge entitlement program projected to cost as much as $1.2 trillion over 10 years.

 

The Troubled Asset Relief Program, the bank bailout program widely loathed by many conservatives, was another Bush-era program. Congress authorized nearly $700 billion for the program at the recommendation of Bush's treasury secretary, former Goldman Sachs executive Henry Paulson, in response to the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the subsequent financial crisis in the fall of 2008. As a presidential candidate, Obama supported the TARP bailout, as did his GOP rival, Sen. John McCain.

 

To be sure, today's GOP candidates occasionally acknowledge that not all was perfect pre-Obama.

 

"The reason we find ourselves in the problem today is because we had Republicans and Democrats — you couldn't tell the difference in the way they were spending," Rick Perry told a campaign audience in Cedar Rapids.

 

The Texas governor has been sharply critical of Congress, insisting he would bring an outsider's perspective to tackling the nation's economic woes as president.

 

Others have also tried to distance themselves from Washington and, by implication, the Bush years.

 

Mitt Romney stresses his experience as a businessman and as Massachusetts governor. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman talks up his background as a chief executive. Newt Gingrich reminds voters that he presided over a balanced budget as speaker of the House during the Clinton years.

 

Santorum's surge into top-tier contention has sparked complaints from rivals about his votes on spending. Among other things, he voted in favor of the Medicare prescription drug program.

 

Bush still has loyal supporters who believe his legacy will be vindicated by history. But even they say the GOP field won't be embracing him anytime soon.

 

"Sad to say, they're looking at polling data that indicates they're better off not bringing him into the campaign," former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer said. "I think President Bush has made America a safer nation and better nation and I'm proud of it. But politics isn't about what's fair, it's about winning."

 

---

 

Associated Press writer Philip Elliott in Cedar Rapids contributed to this report.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×