Three fiscal lies and myths

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
by Michael Tomasky Mar 23, 2013 4:45 AM EDT
The Daily Beast

Modest deficits are fine. Cutting spending harms the economy. And balanced budgets don’t create jobs. Michael Tomasky rebuts the three key GOP budget lies and calls on Democrats to do the same.

As we immerse ourselves in March Madness this weekend, a thought experiment for you: imagine that a majority of Americans were under the impression that the team that committed fewer fouls won the game. After all, not committing fouls is a good, even salutary, thing. It demonstrates self-discipline. It gives the other team fewer opportunities for what are literally called “free” throws. The propensity not to foul reflects a house in order, a group that plays by the rules, a team rich in inner—nay, even moral—strength. That is all self-evidently preposterous, of course. But it is exactly how we talk about the budget in Washington, such talk being driven by a Republican Party that is way out of the mainstream, saddled with near all-time-low approval ratings, and desperate for a campaign issue with which they can hold on to the House in 2014. How can the public be educated not to buy this nonsense?

Dick Cheney went a little overboard (as he was wont to do) when he said “deficits don’t matter,” and of course it was quite a hoot coming from a member of the party that has been haranguing us about deficits for half a century now whenever it suited their purposes to do so. But as hypocritical as he was being, he had a point. Today the GOP has completely flipped on this point and is cynically hyping three fictions that will harm the economy—but (maybe) help them electorally.

The first is this canard that we have to balance the budget. Absurd. There is no reason to balance the budget. None. Ever. Oh, it’s nice if it happens—that is, if it happens as a result of an economy that’s shooting skyward like a bottle rocket, as Bill Clinton’s was. That’s something to feel good about. It was an astonishing accomplishment for Clinton, that he brought us into surplus for that brief golden age before George W. Bush and his advisers, those secret agents of world communism, started destroying American capitalism.

But there is no need for a balanced budget. Deficits of modest size as a percentage of the gross domestic product are entirely sustainable. Please read this brief (15 pages) and lucidly written report published last December by the Congressional Research Service. It explains the whole thing in very straightforward language. High deficits of the sort we’ve had since the meltdown are unsustainable over the long-term because they’ll require that too much money be spent servicing the debt. So that would be a problem. However, the deficit has already fallen (since 2009) from 10 percent of GDP to 7 percent, and it’s falling even more. It’s probably headed down to 4 percent of GDP. That’s fine. It’s going to be fine.

Provided: the economy comes back strongly. And this brings us to the second key point. What would help a still struggling economy come back strongly? A little boost, obviously. A little—dare I say it!—stimulus. A modest infrastructure program. The one thing that will hurt the economy? Serious economists agree: austerity. Austerity slows the economy down. Ask David Cameron. Well, he might not tell the truth. So don’t ask him. But ask most Britons.

And this in turn brings us to the third falsehood: the idea that balancing the budget will create jobs, which Paul Ryan says every time he opens his mouth lately. This is not just wrong, it’s ass backward. Jobs can help balance the budget, because of all the extra tax revenue collected from all those employed people and all those cooking-with-gas businesses. That’s what happened in the late 1990s.

So let’s review. The GOP is advancing three crucial lies: that we have to balance the budget; that public investment at this point is irresponsible; and that if we do slash spending and balance the budget, jobs will come. It’s all nonsense. In fact every assertion is the exact opposite of the truth. So why do they say it?

Different reasons. I think someone like Ryan must actually believe all this. He is such an ideologue that I assume he wakes up at night after having reread John Galt’s sermon in a cold sweat thinking about debt and inflation and interest rates (the CRS report also explains why these dystopian fears are canards, too). I think a lot of the Tea Party people just hate government and think poor people are irresponsible, and they came here to chop away and haven’t given it much more thought than that; it just seems intuitively right to them that when you’re in the hole, you cut spending. Then I think there are other Republicans who know better but play along anyway because it’s all the rage in their circles, and because if they don’t play along they’ll be primaried, and possibly beaten, by someone who does believe it.

The Democrats have to do a much more forceful, unapologetic job of exposing these fictions for what they are.

Looking back over that last paragraph, I see that what I have described is a rather mad situation—kind of a fantasy feedback loop where the critical mass of people sustain a fiction and the few who know it to be fiction put their position at risk in saying so. And this is how our country is being governed.

The Democrats have to do a much more forceful, unapologetic job of exposing these fictions for what they are. For starters, no Democrat should ever again compare the federal budget to a family budget. The two aren’t remotely comparable. Please read this column by Josh Barro of Bloomberg on why: essentially, people have a life cycle, so it makes sense for people (and families) to seek to retire their accumulated debt as they age, so that they don’t die as debtors. But governments, like corporations, will exist indefinitely, which makes the calculations completely different.

All this can’t be said often enough. Modest deficits are perfectly sustainable. Budget cutting, far from being “responsible,” hurts the economy. And balanced budgets don’t create jobs—it’s the other way around. The next year and a half (at least) is going to be nothing but grueling budget fights and deadlines, and Obama isn’t going to win them unless he get these three points into Americans’ heads and directs them away from the Republicans’ March madness.
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
Another article that debunks the whole "Government budget is like a family budget" analogy..

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/federal-budget-not-household-budget-here-s-why

It is worth reading.

This reminds me of folks saying that Government should be run like a business.. and wanting a guy like Mitt Romney to run it so..Forbes and other sites had good articles on that as well http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/03/01/should-government-be-run-like-a-business/

So the same thing about the family budget analysis.
 

Juror No. 8

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
1,108
0
0
The first is this canard that we have to balance the budget. Absurd. There is no reason to balance the budget. None. Ever. Oh, it’s nice if it happens—that is, if it happens as a result of an economy that’s shooting skyward like a bottle rocket, as Bill Clinton’s was.

LOL. Clinton's so-called "bottle rocket" economy was really nothing more than the product of an unsustainable tech boom and a severely inflated stock market, which all came crashing down into recession in 2001.

This guy's a know-nothing schmuck.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
LOL. Clinton's so-called "bottle rocket" economy was really nothing more than the product of an unsustainable tech boom and a severely inflated stock market, which all came crashing down into recession in 2001.

This guy's a know-nothing schmuck.

Not to mention a real-estate bubble that started in 1997.

We should probably rename him to Bubble Clinton.

EDIT: And am I the only one who see the irony of liberals apparently agreeing with Dick Cheney now "Deficits don't matter."
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Not to mention a real-estate bubble that started in 1997.

We should probably rename him to Bubble Clinton.

EDIT: And am I the only one who see the irony of liberals apparently agreeing with Dick Cheney now "Deficits don't matter."

Liberals seem to agree a lot with Cheney lately.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
When higher interest rates come about, then the national debt is going to sting like a son of a bitch.

There aren't any Republicans calling for cutting spending anyway.
 
Last edited:

Juror No. 8

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
1,108
0
0
There aren't any Republicans calling for cutting spending anyway.

Of course not, as they work for and are put in office by the same banks and corporations as the Democrats.

It's one big Beltway-Wall Street circle jerk club and We the People aren't in it.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
I always love seeing threads where someone who understands economics gets attacked by conservatives (those who don't understand economics). The man makes perfect sense and the righties attack because it's not part of their mantra.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I always love seeing threads where someone who understands economics gets attacked by conservatives (those who don't understand economics). The man makes perfect sense and the righties attack because it's not part of their mantra.

Nobody needs a degree in economics to understand that the article says to kick the can down the road.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
Nobody needs a degree in economics to understand that the article says to kick the can down the road.

Article summary: Greece didn't happen, Post WW1 Germany didn't happen. It was all an illusion. Countries never fall apart when debt becomes unmanageable.

d31.gif
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,898
55,178
136
Liberals seem to agree a lot with Cheney lately.

Do you think that running a large deficit in a healthy economy is the same thing as running a large deficit in a deeply depressed economy?

I'm quite sure that you don't, and I'm also pretty sure that we've discussed this before. Why does this same wrong argument keep coming back up?
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
Article summary: Greece didn't happen, Post WW1 Germany didn't happen. It was all an illusion. Countries never fall apart when debt becomes unmanageable.

d31.gif

The argument there is that they were not the worlds reserve currency.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Don't listen to the naysayers, OP. Personally I admire someone willing to be stupid in parallel. Shows a certain triumph of belief over reality.

The argument there is that they were not the worlds reserve currency.
And of course, we'll always be the world's reserve currency, right?

Only part I don't understand is if we can always print more money later to pay back what we're borrowing today, with no ill effects, why aren't we just printing more money now instead of borrowing? It's almost like these people don't believe what they're shoveling, even though "every respected economist" knows it's the absolute truth. Weird, huh?
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Anyone who thinks our deficit is fine has their head up their ass. More than 25% of our budget is borrowed and 10% of our tax revenue goes just for interest on our debt and that number is rising. People are using dangerous lies to further their own political interests and future generations will pay the price.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,235
12,760
136
Modest deficits are fine.

and i would agree under certain circumstances.

40+ years of almost continual budget deficit? doesn't sound particularly sustainable to me at the levels we're seeing.

INTEREST on the debt alone is 15% of tax revenues ($2.1T) and 10% of the budget ($3T), and then we decide it's a great idea to pile on $0.5-1.5T every year.

at some point, something HAS TO GIVE, because the interest on the debt is going to consume a continually larger portion of the federal budget.

we can default our way out, print our way out, tax our way out (to an extent), or cut our way out.

i don't see how continuing large deficit spending ($1T+ per year) is in anyway sustainable, simply from a mathematical perspective.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
hahaha, reading that garbage linked in the OP is a lot like reading an article written by a fat guy about how fat really isn't that bad for you, and how being fat around your middle is perfectly fine and so forth.

In their zealous effort to justify unlimited wasteful government spending they come up with whatever rationale they can muster, like a crack addict rationalizing the habit.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
The Clinton "balanced budget" was because of the tech bubble and a Republican-controlled Congress who forced spending cuts and welfare reform. When I got to "It was an astonishing accomplishment for Clinton" I stopped reading.
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
wow did any of you actually read the article, and the referenced links?

In a nutshell there will always be a deficit, and government is not run like a "family budget" as so many keep saying in the white house (using that analogy). There is a difference however about making certain that the deficit is not to the point of unsustainability, but in the large scheme of things, a deficit is natural to a point. Even your wonderful John Boehner has admitted there is no urgency to balance the budget at this time.
 
Last edited:

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
and i would agree under certain circumstances.

40+ years of almost continual budget deficit? doesn't sound particularly sustainable to me at the levels we're seeing.

INTEREST on the debt alone is 15% of tax revenues ($2.1T) and 10% of the budget ($3T), and then we decide it's a great idea to pile on $0.5-1.5T every year.

at some point, something HAS TO GIVE, because the interest on the debt is going to consume a continually larger portion of the federal budget.

we can default our way out, print our way out, tax our way out (to an extent), or cut our way out.

i don't see how continuing large deficit spending ($1T+ per year) is in anyway sustainable, simply from a mathematical perspective.

True, but the guy is saying that we haven't quite reached that point yet, but might if we go the route of severe cuts and austerity which could put us in an unsustainable point in the deficit. He gives some very good references that I linked in that article.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
wow did any of you actually read the article, and the referenced links?

In a nutshell there will always be a deficit, and government is not run like a "family budget" as so many keep saying in the white house (using that analogy). There is a difference however about making certain that the deficit is not to the point of unsustainability, but in the large scheme of things, a deficit is natural to a point. Even your wonderful John Boehner has admitted there is no urgency to balance the budget at this time.

You realize you're trying to make conservatives use logic and critical thinking. That's like ... I can't even think of a decent analogy to equal the level of impossibility of that.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
wow did any of you actually read the article, and the referenced links?

In a nutshell there will always be a deficit
lol. Canada and many European countries regularly have budget surpluses. Norway, Finland and Sweden keep fairly low debt to GDP ratios because they try to balance the budget as much as possible.
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0