• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

U.S. will cut deficit by 50% by 2013

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Munky said:
I don't see how the federal "spend and pretend" policy is averting a second depression. In fact, they're hiding the facts that we're already in a depression, and are only setting us up for an even bigger crash. The economic bubble we were used to living in is unsustainable, only idiocy would try to sustain and stabilize that which is unstable and unsustainable.
Click to expand...

So you want to bring on a Great Depression 2.0?
Govt deficit spending can bridge the gap until consumer spending recovers. Or we can just let the economy collapse, which will destroy tax revenues and make the deficit even worse while making it harder for everyone.
 
senseamp said:
So you want to bring on a Great Depression 2.0?
Govt deficit spending can bridge the gap until consumer spending recovers. Or we can just let the economy collapse, which will destroy tax revenues and make the deficit even worse while making it harder for everyone.
Click to expand...

Oh please a liquid financial sector is more important than govt overspending. The govt will have dropped nearly 1 trillion by the end of this year in some kind of stimulus. For that we have a weak consumer market and nearly double digit unemployment. And worse yet, little to no consumer confidence, and little confidence the country is heading in the right direction.
 
Genx87 said:
Oh please a liquid financial sector is more important than govt overspending. The govt will have dropped nearly 1 trillion by the end of this year in some kind of stimulus. For that we have a weak consumer market and nearly double digit unemployment. And worse yet, little to no consumer confidence, and little confidence the country is heading in the right direction.
Click to expand...

Weak consumer market is better than a disastrous consumer market. Take away govt spending, and you are going to have much higher unemployment and a spiral of layoffs.
 
senseamp said:
So you want to bring on a Great Depression 2.0?
Govt deficit spending can bridge the gap until consumer spending recovers. Or we can just let the economy collapse, which will destroy tax revenues and make the deficit even worse while making it harder for everyone.
Click to expand...

What makes you think consumer spending will magically recover? I will argue that consumer spending was already too high in the first place, and all the government spending does is try to support the unsustainable bubble by replacing consumer spending with deficit spending. If we are to deal with the underlying issue, then we'll have to face the consequences of reckless credit expansion that's been going on for the last few decades. I'd rather have a great depression 2.0 now than total economic armageddon later.
 
You cant just post a link with no comment??? This is a discussion group. This requires discourse. It can take a long time to open links.
 
Expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will be a very substantial first step towards reducing the deficit, but it will inevitably raise screams of outrage from the trickle down school of (failed) thought. I'm waiting to see if Congress demonstrates the balls to let this bondoggle sunset.
 
senseamp said:
Weak consumer market is better than a disastrous consumer market. Take away govt spending, and you are going to have much higher unemployment and a spiral of layoffs.
Click to expand...

Uh huh, the I am sure monkeys will fly out of Obama's ass as well.
The stuff you people believe being spewed by big govt shills..............
 
We are probably in a depression. It may take 10 years for the economy to recover. Often wars erupt during times such as these. If people get desperate they often are more willing to die, and they dont mind killing other people.
 
Munky said:
What makes you think consumer spending will magically recover? I will argue that consumer spending was already too high in the first place, and all the government spending does is try to support the unsustainable bubble by replacing consumer spending with deficit spending. If we are to deal with the underlying issue, then we'll have to face the consequences of reckless credit expansion that's been going on for the last few decades. I'd rather have a great depression 2.0 now than total economic armageddon later.
Click to expand...

It's all talk and hypotheticals. The consequences from govt spending pullback now are going to be very real. Economy is sputtering, this will choke it.
 
senseamp said:
Did they do Clinton Surplus vs Bush Deficit in pictures chart too, or are deficits only a problem when a Democrat is running them?
Click to expand...

Charts are fun

4743304180_e91baf935d.jpg
 
SlowSpyder said:
I thought this was a good link: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

I have no idea how objective they are, but the numbers tell a story...
Click to expand...

Annual adopted Budget 'Deficits' do not equal increases in 'Annual Debt'. Federal debt under W increased $500b+ each year --- they had this nasty habit of funding expensive items (like War) by supplementals. So that chart, at best, is highly misleading.

Perfesser Johnnie tried the same crap as the chart when suggesting that Bush was "...balancing the budget! ..." when in fact the supplementals outside the budget process were adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the Federal debt each year.




--
 
senseamp said:
It's all talk and hypotheticals. The consequences from govt spending pullback now are going to be very real. Economy is sputtering, this will choke it.
Click to expand...

The consequences MUST happen. Whether or not we like it is irrelevant. Recessions are mathematical necessities that balance out excessive credit expansion during the "boom" cycles. By trying to avert and manage recessions the government has done nothing but set us up for an even bigger fall.
 
A 10% VAT would bring in $1T. If spending and all other taxes were to stay static with a 10% VAT, the deficit would be well less than 1/2 of what it is today. There shouldn't even be a deficit if he goes back to the Clinton tax levels plus a 10% VAT.

If the Republicans vote for any budget that's more than the 3.83T, then I'm going to be pissed. While they can't cut entitlement programs until Obama's out of office, they can vote against discretionary spending.
 
Acanthus said:
don't listen to the nobel-prize-winning economist.

your bible will fix the economy
Click to expand...

The same expert economists who never saw the crisis coming in the first place? Or the ones who knew but chose to lie and deceive the public anyways? Thanks, but no thanks.
 
Munky said:
The consequences MUST happen. Whether or not we like it is irrelevant. Recessions are mathematical necessities that balance out excessive credit expansion during the "boom" cycles. By trying to avert and manage recessions the government has done nothing but set us up for an even bigger fall.
Click to expand...

The school of thought here (that is very well backed, unlike austerity) is that spending heavily during a recession eases the impact while using austerity measures during booms eases the booms.

The whole idea is to reduce the volitility of all of the markets and help bring more order to things.

The problem is we haven't been saving during the booms we have been cutting taxes...

Austerity measures now will certainly put the world economy in a bad direction, that is an absolute certainty.
 
Munky said:
The same expert economists who never saw the crisis coming in the first place? Or the ones who knew but chose to lie and deceive the public anyways? Thanks, but no thanks.
Click to expand...

err? most economists were screaming in 2000 about the leading indicators going to shit.
 
heyheybooboo said:
Annual adopted Budget 'Deficits' do not equal increases in 'Annual Debt'. Federal debt under W increased $500b+ each year --- they had this nasty habit of funding expensive items (like War) by supplementals. So that chart, at best, is highly misleading.

Perfesser Johnnie tried the same crap as the chart when suggesting that Bush was "...balancing the budget! ..." when in fact the supplementals outside the budget process were adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the Federal debt each year.
Click to expand...


The deficit in January 2001 was 5.6 trillion. (BOOSH takes WH)
The deficit in January 2007 was 8.6 trillion. (+3 trillion over 6 years) (Dems take control of congress)
The deficit in January 2009 was 10.6 trillion (+2 trillion over 2 years) (Obama takes WH)
The deficit in June 2010 is 13 trillion (+2.4 trillion over 1.5 years)
 
senseamp said:
It's all talk and hypotheticals. The consequences from govt spending pullback now are going to be very real. Economy is sputtering, this will choke it.
Click to expand...

It will choke a government run economy. Good riddance, slay the beast and be done with it. No more bubbles of fake wealth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top