Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
[Even in this horrible economy, with the state facing enormous deficits and huge problems, NY managed to actually increase their spending yet again. If this situation isn't enough to make them actually cut spending, what is? Cali is the same boat, and they too will end up actually increasing their spending, not decreasing it.
One thing that may seem perverse but has logic to it is that in economic downturns, government spending is especially helpful in keeping the economy going.
The time the government should cut spending is as it recovers - you can see times the deficit, at least, has been greatly reduced, after WWII, and in the 1990's, for example.
Both of those were times of recovery.
The problem is Republicans figured out that between spending, taxing and borrowing, the public will support high borrowing to get high spending and lower taxes.
The problem is, they were right about the politics. To an extent, the American people are to blame as well for that culture, voting for 'borrow and spend' politicians.
Ok, so in times of economic downturn, the government is spending more to try and push the economy up a little. So, in great times spending goes down, correct? NO. It does not. In good economic times, the government generally increases spending at an even faster rate instead of putting away money to pay for the hard times. So you've admitted then, that my point was absolutely correct: government spending rarely if ever goes down, it only increases, increases, increases. Spend spend spend, then worry about how to pay for it (increase taxes/fees?), never worry about how to reign in spending.
Of course the people are to blame, we keep voting in idiots who want so squander and spend more and more and more. We don't vote for people who don't promise to spend lots on all sorts of stuff.
My point to you was, as you said 'even in these hard times', to inform you that that's not a valid argument - that 'these hard times' are not the time to cut.
So I'm saying, pay attention to the government spending in recovery times - and you are free to attack *that* overspending.
For an example of what I think is a reasonable approach - read the following speech by JFK, in which he explains his economic views and why the time was right for a tax cut. Note how he lays out a number of criteria needed for a tax cut - and says he would call for a tax increase, if the situation needed, such as military conflict.
Link
But also note how little has changed in the role of Republicans' attacking Democrats inaccurately.
While Kennedy explains there were fewer federal civilian employees in 1962 than in 1952, and that the federal debt had increased 13 percent since 1946 while state and local debt was up 360 percent and private debt over 300 percent, and that without federal aid for state and local government they'd have a surplus, Ronald Reagan attacked JFK for 'big government' and literally called him Karl Marx.
As I recall, Reagan did pretty well later politically, too, using that sort of irresponsible attack on Democrats.
And oh by the way, while Karl Marx (John Kennedy) cut taxes, in Reagan's first year as an elected official, as governor of California, he talked about broad spending cuts, but approved a tax increase of $1 billion on a $6 billion budget, the largest tax increase in state history. We liberals keep trying to tell the right how they're being lied to, but the lies are still working.
See any pattern, as 'dream conservative candidate' George W. Bush went on to skyrocket spending and the deficit, 'disappointing' the right, as his father Bush 41 broke his pledge 'no new taxes' because the *political* need was to say no new taxes (and to not cut spending) while the *economic need* without those spending cuts was taxes, why President Reagan passed the biggest tax increases in history after his big tax cut, because of its harmful effects on the economy (before the current crisis, the early Reagan years were the biggest problems in 25 years).
The JFK speech I linked shows what I think is a good approach, but as with every Democrat sense, the right makes great political gain calling it Karl Marx.
But you can't tell them they're being duped. Like any people being scammed big time, they'll empty their wallets before admitting it.
The scammers understand that. As much as they're getting some blame for the crisis they've created, it's not nearly enough blame.
But note, liberals do believe the government has an important role - and defend that.
It's the dishonest Republican attacks people fall for that are the problem.
The right has now shifted, if you can't beat them, join them, to try to claim JFK for their side, and that's inaccurate. Let's contrast their 'Karl Marx' name calling with JFK:
If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad; if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
- John F. Kennedy
you can see times the deficit, at least, has been greatly reduced
Yeah, the deficit sometimes gets reduced, but that just mean we're still spending too much, just less so. An no point does actual spending ever get significantly reduced. That seems to be the natural path for government spending all over the world, it never gets reduced. Heck, why would it? Those who spend the money have no incentive to figure out how to spend less.
[/quote]
See my comments above on the issue of addressing the 'corruption', the excessive power of the most wealthy people.
Facebook
Twitter