Psst, the Deficit ISN'T shrinking

[WooDaddy]

I do believe some time back a certain individual was lauding how wonderful the Bush administration was doing with handling the deficit. Turns out, things are worse than they've EVER been. This isn't really a personal attack on you (riprorin), but all this talk in the past from the Bush Admin saying that things are getting better is just plain stupid. I don't know what makes them think things are getting any better. It seems everytime they attempt to correct things, it's a short term 'solution' and I use solution loosely.

Now I'm no big politico but here's my take. Over the past decade (I'm not attaching blame to either presidencies), Americans have become less introspective. We seem to fall moreso now than ever to emotional, quick 'fix' solutions and spend no time (but plenty of money) THINKING about a solution that will work in the future beyond 4 years. Example, tax breaks for everyone in the form of a $300 check. This is great for the Id (psyche) - instant gratification. But deep inside that $300 does nothing but temporarily tame the masses. Taxes really aren't what's stopping Joe Middleclass. Hell, taxes are the last thing on my mind. And believe it or not, so is gas prices. Time moves on, prices increase. That's life. But when you have an administration that consistently screws up and knows that they've wrong and are afraid to fess up, it's really scary. What's worse is that there is no attempt to actually plan beyond what little time they have in office.

Back to the deficit, I just think it's funny how the Bush admin trys to spin everything as being an indicator of economic growth. I bet if the deficit doubled, unemployement reached 10%, gas prices reached $3 and life expectancy dropped to 65, that would be a sign too. They are in MASSIVE denial and it is hurting us badly. It'll probably take another 10yrs plus to undo the damage of W.

The Bush administration argues that the deficit primarily reflects the fact that the U.S. economy has been growing at a much faster pace than the economies of its major trading partners, pushing up imports while dampening demand for U.S. exports. Treasury Secretary John Snow was expected to use a Saturday meeting of finance officials from the Group of Seven major industrial countries to once again lobby for Europe and Japan to pursue more growth-oriented policies.

I've said enough.. probably off topic too.

link

BTW, the gov't needs to pressure the automakers to make more efficient cars. This'll help in the oil deficit. Also, we should dig up our own oil.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Better edit the thread title. It will be locked.

 

[WooDaddy]

Done

 

[drewshin]

i agree with you completely.

you know whenever the best argument that someone or his supporters come up with regarding the economy is "it could have been worse if i wasn't here" then they dont know
what the hell they're doing or dont know what they're talking about.

this is no longer the republican party in power, it's the 'win at all costs' party, tax cuts everywhere, play to people's patriotism, a war that's helping local economies and corporations (while trying to downplay the human costs of it). passing money out everywhere without regard to the deficit.

here's another interesting article about health care costs:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7446005/site/newsweek/

 

[1EZduzit]

The tax break "bonus" was just a feeble attempt to make the economy seem better then it actually is. I mean a one time shot of $300?? Seriously?? LMAO!

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The tax break "bonus" was just a feeble attempt to make the economy seem better then it actually is. I mean a one time shot of $300?? Seriously?? LMAO!

Wasn't like a loan on their next year's return?

 

[WooDaddy]

BTW, this is a sorta retort/repost of this from riprorin.

I'm waiting for his reply to this. I want to hear from someone who was so strongly positive about a very negative indicator.

 

[StageLeft]

I agree, inherently, with tax breaks. They are a good thing to do. I think the deficit is too high and the budget should be scaled back. Conclusion: less spending.

 

[piasabird]

Historically congress spends every dime you send to them plus some extra.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I agree, inherently, with tax breaks. They are a good thing to do. I think the deficit is too high and the budget should be scaled back. Conclusion: less spending.

You cannot agree (inherently or otherwise) with tax breaks when it merely redistributes taxes over time. At some point, American taxpayers will be compelled to pay the debt being generated today (and during the past three decades).

Deficits would be fine . . . even tax breaks would be fine . . . if the net deficit spending was truly an investment likely to pay off in the future. But it's a specious argument to claim our current fiscal policy (tax or spend) is making prudent investments in American infrastructure.

If you cannot trust government to spend the public's money responsibly, the solution isn't less money in the public trough. The solution is different government.

 

[StageLeft]

You cannot agree (inherently or otherwise) with tax breaks when it merely redistributes taxes over time. At some point, American taxpayers will be compelled to pay the debt being generated today (and during the past three decades).

I guess it comes to how much pain I want at once. I could pay my mortgage in 15 years instead of 30, but it would hurt a lot, so I don't

If you cannot trust government to spend the public's money responsibly, the solution isn't less money in the public trough. The solution is different government.

It's in government's nature to not spend money properly, because it lacks competition and all too often lacks accountability.

Unfortunately we can no longer rely on the so-called conservatives to not overspend.

 

[conjur]

The rising interest rates aren't going to help. The interest on the debt is going to rise more now.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

You cannot agree (inherently or otherwise) with tax breaks when it merely redistributes taxes over time. At some point, American taxpayers will be compelled to pay the debt being generated today (and during the past three decades).

I guess it comes to how much pain I want at once. I could pay my mortgage in 15 years instead of 30, but it would hurt a lot, so I don't

If you cannot trust government to spend the public's money responsibly, the solution isn't less money in the public trough. The solution is different government.

It's in government's nature to not spend money properly, because it lacks competition and all too often lacks accountability.

Unfortunately we can no longer rely on the so-called conservatives to not overspend.

Nice wiggle on the former . . . I imagine if you made 30yr mortgage payments over a 15yr term . . . you would have a lot more payments to make.

I fundamentally disagree with your perspective on government spending. Now the lack of accountability (one party government, incumbency, long terms) probably is a problem. OK, it is a problem . . . a big one. We've NEVER been able to rely on conservatives to restrain spending. But forced to pick an evil, at least tax and spend liberals make sense. Tax cut and spend conservatives is plain retarded. I don't care what neocons say . . . Grover Norquist is a moron. Granted, maybe Bush read the Cliff Notes version and thought Norquist said, "grow government so big that we all drown."

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I agree, inherently, with tax breaks. They are a good thing to do. I think the deficit is too high and the budget should be scaled back. Conclusion: less spending.

Tax cuts are a good thing, but at appropriate times.

 

[shortylickens]

Short answer: An elephant in office.

They love to piss on the donkeys, but in reality the economy does better with a Dem than a Repub.

Reagan was the EXCEPTION, not the rule. Despite all the hype, all the finger-pointing, all the BS, Clinton did actually help the economy during his terms.

Whereas Bush senior actually hurt Reagans efforts a little.
I was young, but I still remember Bush Sr big campaign was to NOT increase taxes. One of the first things he did after inauguration was raise taxes.
Which is funny because the Repubs love to tell Dems they need to budget better and reduce the beurocracy.

 

[Yellow Dog]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Better edit the thread title. It will be locked.

didn't see the original, but I can venture it might have been not been pro dumbya, which does tend to fail to find favor with the local content police.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WooDaddy
BTW, this is a sorta retort/repost of this from riprorin.

I'm waiting for his reply to this. I want to hear from someone who was so strongly positive about a very negative indicator.

In your effort to slam riprorin( i assume that is your intent) you have confused the trade deficit with the federal budget defecit. The federal defecit does appear to shrinking as it does after every recession. The trade gap does appear large(too large maybe?), but let it be noted that the times this country had trade surplusses we also had bad economic times.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WooDaddy
BTW, this is a sorta retort/repost of this from riprorin.

I'm waiting for his reply to this. I want to hear from someone who was so strongly positive about a very negative indicator.

In your effort to slam riprorin( i assume that is your intent) you have confused the trade deficit with the federal budget defecit. The federal defecit does appear to shrinking as it does after every recession. The trade gap does appear large(too large maybe?), but let it be noted that the times this country had trade surplusses we also had bad economic times.

Makes no difference.

Here is the U.S. legacy:

Slave Labor

 

[MidasKnight]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I agree, inherently, with tax breaks. They are a good thing to do. I think the deficit is too high and the budget should be scaled back. Conclusion: less spending.

Less spending is right. But this Government needs Programs cuts and elimination. It's nice to fund all kinds of programs when you can afford them but when the revenue isn't there you have to cut them or spend less on them.

And I talking about getting rid of programs the GOP wants as well as the one the Dems want. Both sides need to cut the fat and make some choices that will hurt. But I don't think Rep or Dem will go for that.

That's why increased Taxes end up being the answer at some point.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: MidasKnight

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I agree, inherently, with tax breaks. They are a good thing to do. I think the deficit is too high and the budget should be scaled back. Conclusion: less spending.

Less spending is right. But this Government needs Programs cuts and elimination. It's nice to fund all kinds of programs when you can afford them but when the revenue isn't there you have to cut them or spend less on them.

And I talking about getting rid of programs the GOP wants as well as the one the Dems want. Both sides need to cut the fat and make some choices that will hurt. But I don't think Rep or Dem will go for that.

That's why increased Taxes end up being the answer at some point.

But I think you are making the same error as Skoorb . . . the problem is not excess spending or inadequate taxation in isolation. The problem is the quality of leadership making the decisions about spending and taxation. IMHO, McCain, Hagel, Snowe, Collins, Lincoln, Chafee, Biden, Lieberman, Nelson, and Bayh would make good choices. Unfortunately, these people have a minimal impact on our fiscal policies. In fact, even "alleged" hawks such as McCain have lost some of my respect b/c they rarely actually do anything other than complain about budgets.